Gold medal for Katie Taylor cost Irish taxpayer close to $400,000
Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2012 at 08:25 AM
Larger Text
Print
E-mail
46 Comments
RSS 
Recent Posts
- Ireland as Britain's wind farm - weighing up the pros and cons of ugly and heavily subsized Irish windfarms
- Justin Bieber's perfectly judged comment on Anne Frank - "Hopefully she would have been a belieber"
- The Irish property tax problem - everyone wants to own some and no one wants to be taxed on it
- American fans right to ignore the World Baseball Classic
- Will Ireland's emigrants catch a break on property tax?
Archives
 |
| Katie Taylor captured Ireland's only gold medal at the London Olympics. {Photo thanks to Reuters} |
Ireland's national television station, RTE, provided quite a bit of coverage of these events and undoubtedly will provide even more from today's national "homecoming" event in Dublin. Tremendous stuff. These local celebrations and the big one in Dublin cost a bit, but it's only a small sum and what taxpayer would quibble when the public mood is so keen on these celebrations?
Well, maybe me.
Although the truth is I don't have a big problem with these events. The public joy over Katie Taylor's success in her hometown, where I happen to live, is universal. Taylor, or I should say Katie as us locals refer to her, is a source of real pride to the people of Bray. {I'm still not comfortable with women's boxing, but I admire the way she conducts herself as an athlete and as a person.}
____________
Read More:
Katie Taylor overcome by emotional return in her hometown of Bray
A sort of Olympic homecoming announced for Dublin on Wednesday
When Irishwoman Katie Taylor goes for Olympic gold I won't be watching
_____________
What irks me, however, is the amount of taxpayers' money that goes to pay the athletes Ireland sends to the Olympics.
The Irish government pays €40,000 ($50,000) annually to each of Ireland's elite "high performance" athletes. This year there are 27 such athletes, some of whom actually did well in London and won medals. Katie Taylor is one of the 27 and she has received almost €300,000 ($370,000) in government funding (aka our money) since 2005.
Why? What does the Irish taxpayer get for this investment? After all, our government is bankrupt. Maybe the view is 'what's another few million euros into the vast debt pit in which we find ourselves?'
Don't get me wrong, it's not just Taylor. And at least she won a medal and set up Monday's happy day in Bray. Boxer Paddy Barnes, who got €40,000 this year and has received over €200,000 ($250K) in total, won a bronze and is the toast of Belfast.
Track athletes Olive Loughnane and Derval O'Rourke have received sums similar to Taylor, but neither of them was near a podium finish in London. Clay Pigeon Shooter Derek Burnett has received €270,000 ($330,000) and finished his Olympics in 46th place (I think). David Gillick has received similar money and didn't even make it to London.
There are boxers, cyclists, sailors, canoeists, archers and others receiving government money to compete in their sports. Why? What public benefit do we get for this money?
 |
| A crowd of up to 20,000 fans greeted Katie Taylor in her hometown of Bray, Co Wicklow on Monday. {Photo thanks to the Irish Times.} |
The old amateur ideal of the Olympics is long dead. The International Olympics Committee makes a ton of money on the games. Let them pay the athletes who compete. I mean, nobody asks the taxpayer to pay the salaries of those who play in the NFL, NBA or English Premier League.
Besides, Katie Taylor is worth a whole lot more than €40,000 to the IOC. She is a tremendous advertisement for the Olympics. Not only should they pay her, but they should give her a huge raise.
I love sports. I watched a lot of the Olympics and rooted for the Irish competitors. Regardless I don't understand why the public should be so keen to pay the athletes who compete. Are we that desperate to see a medal hanging over a green jersey and the Irish flag flying from a stadium roof?
I'm not. I can endure, even enjoy, an Irish-medals-free Olympics.
46 Comments
15 - 46 | See all comments
IrelandNorth | Aug 17, 2012, 06:59 AM EDT
PS The ethics and morality of point scoring around landing blows upon the body of an opponent, (with maximum points for concussing them), does need addressing. Allowing allegedly voluntary behaviour in a squared-circle that would constitute a criminal offence if taking place outside is highly questionable. Wearing headgear is ineffective, since the jarring and jolting of the jelly like grey matter of the brain against the hardboned coruscations of the inner skull occurs. And blows to soft tissue areas like mammary glands may cause breast cancer in later life. What use would Olympic medals be then?
Report abuse
IrelandNorth | Aug 17, 2012, 06:49 AM EDT
Reflecting new political dispensations, there was only Team Ireland and Team GB. There was no Team UK or NI! Olympians for Team Ireland were from all 32 counties, being the generic brand. Team GB quite obviously used the Commonwealth Games as an Olympic Games qualifier for Team GB. Ergo, Team GB was really Team CON (Commonwealth of Nations) in constitutional drag, since most of GB's Olympians were mercenary Afro-Caribbeans frokm the colonies, (like many of her armed forces!). The further one casts ones nationalistic net, the more fish can be caught. NB A loan to a lender is far more remunerative than a bottomless pit of subventionism to dysfuntional dependencies. Sadly, comicstip £oylai$t$ using lowercase characters when referring to Ireland proper betray their inate parochial meanspiritedness.
Report abuse
IrelandNorth | Aug 17, 2012, 06:19 AM EDT
Anyone know why the colour orange was seemingly downplayed in the Team Ireland sports uniform? Am I right in intuiting that its dumming down is a further concession to a Ulster unionism/loyalism shopping list to make an agreed Ireland more negotiable. Like the occasional bout of Benny bashing and Royal inviting in exchange for macroeconomic loans at preferential rates of interest by investors in Ireland Incorporarted (IreInc). After all, is not debt entrapment is the new imperialism. What sayest thou, senor Gringo?
Report abuse
shuvonn | Aug 17, 2012, 05:37 AM EDT
You again miss the point about several issues, it does not matter WHERE the money comes from for sports(government or private monies ) Ireland is not in the same league for corporate sponsorship as the US would be. As for national pride watching the NBC coverage is enough to make one ill so rarely that any other country is mentioned let alone highlighted and its a joke for you to even suggest that the entire US team is not being pressured to win win win or it's not a source of national pride, that's supposedly fine for the US but not Ireland? Who paid for the building of those olympic training facilities? Obviously every tax payer has a say but we got a lot more value out of the money it cost to train these athletes than the bailout for the banks that now every Irish person is paying back for.
Report abuse
stonethrower | Aug 16, 2012, 06:37 PM EDT
While i agree with "The Yank" that a tax-payer has the right to know & question where & how the money is spent,i think he is very naive with an arguement that is petty & begrudging.I suggested yesterday he educate about waste of tax payer money,rather than the nurturing investment in our athletes,where at least it gives a chance of a result.To review some examples of waste,Waterford T.D Martin Cullen provided us with the 52 million Euro dud e-voting machines,our ministerial fleet up to 2010 (Luxury Merc's ,BMW's ,Lexus',etc)was operated at a cost to the tax-payer of 6.5 million per annum in driver salaries ,running expenses & maintenance cost,to all our regret the tip of the ice-berg.So when you downgrade the accomplishment of a driven world class athlete for getting a mere 40,000 a year for completing the job she was paid (not all that much in ratio to the effort & dedication required) to do it sounds empty , half-baked and poorly researched.
Report abuse
TheYank | Aug 16, 2012, 09:53 AM EDT
That the UK is as foolish - moreso since they're in the hole for $20bn for hosting the Olympics - doesn't answer why we taxpayers should care enough to pay? I don't know if the Austrian state pays their athletes or not.
The Olympics are like a giant con game, convincing us that national pride is on the line and we need to pay people to win gold medals for us as a nation. Meanwhile they're sitting on a goldmine that they don't have to share because taxpayers are picking up the tab for them.
The Olympics are like a giant con game, convincing us that national pride is on the line and we need to pay people to win gold medals for us as a nation. Meanwhile they're sitting on a goldmine that they don't have to share because taxpayers are picking up the tab for them.
Report abuse
kinvara7 | Aug 16, 2012, 09:44 AM EDT
You ask a question which seeks to contrast a GAA player and an Olympic athlete. Well on the face of it it’s a fine question. However, the GAA is self-contained, so to speak. The rules are applied across the board and I have tremendous admiration for inter-county players, as I’m sure you do. In the context of world athletics, however, things are different. I have already given you details of the amount of money the UK has spent and plans on spending ahead of Rio. It is all well and good to say how much nicer it would be if we didn’t have to support them, but we would certainly reduce our chances of securing medals. As I have pointed out, Austria failed to secure a single medal at the Olympics and they are not very happy about it.
Report abuse
kinvara7 | Aug 16, 2012, 09:18 AM EDT
TheYank: Your article said: “Katie Taylor…has received almost €300,000 ($370,000) in government funding (aka our money) since 2005… And at least she won a medal” Furthermore, prior to this, and despite many of your comments, you didn’t disagree with the headline on your article. You say that: “to me the picture looks exactly the same no matter how many medals she won”, well, maybe to you, however most people would look at all of her achievements since 2005 and take them into account –the picture would look different to most people then.
Report abuse
TheYank | Aug 16, 2012, 08:46 AM EDT
kinvara7
I don't think I said anywhere in the article that "Katie’s Gold medal cost the Taxpayer close to $400,000." The headline says that, but I didn't write that.
To me the picture looks exactly the same no matter how many medals she won.
My point is - and it's not just Taylor but the entire Sports Council payroll - why should taxpayers pay athletes a salary? (And why should we even have a taxpayer funded Sports Council?)
Even if Katie Taylor had won 5 Olympic golds what public service is that? She won her gold medal in a sporting event that is swimming in sponsorship & television rights money. Let them pay.
I don't think I said anywhere in the article that "Katie’s Gold medal cost the Taxpayer close to $400,000." The headline says that, but I didn't write that.
To me the picture looks exactly the same no matter how many medals she won.
My point is - and it's not just Taylor but the entire Sports Council payroll - why should taxpayers pay athletes a salary? (And why should we even have a taxpayer funded Sports Council?)
Even if Katie Taylor had won 5 Olympic golds what public service is that? She won her gold medal in a sporting event that is swimming in sponsorship & television rights money. Let them pay.
Report abuse
TheYank | Aug 16, 2012, 08:37 AM EDT
shuvonn,
I have to amend what I wrote below. I wrote:
The fact that we were bailed out with loans at lower rates of interest than were available from the market means there was some measure of generosity from those countries that lent the money.
I want to add that whatever about the generosity of those bodies that bailed out Ireland, there was far more self-interest involved in that decision than any measure of generosity. That includes the UK, the EU (Germany, France, etc), the IMF (mostly America).
I have to amend what I wrote below. I wrote:
The fact that we were bailed out with loans at lower rates of interest than were available from the market means there was some measure of generosity from those countries that lent the money.
I want to add that whatever about the generosity of those bodies that bailed out Ireland, there was far more self-interest involved in that decision than any measure of generosity. That includes the UK, the EU (Germany, France, etc), the IMF (mostly America).
Report abuse
kinvara7 | Aug 16, 2012, 08:24 AM EDT
@TheYank: You say that Katie’s Gold medal cost the Taxpayer close to $400,000 and you state in your article that you get this figure by adding up the funding she has received since 2005. However, since 2005 how many world championships etc., has Katie Taylor won? She has won four World Amateur Championships: 2006, 08, 10, and 12; five European Amateur Championships: 05, 06, 07, 09, 11; four European Amateur Championships: 08, 09, 10, and 11. In short, to claim that the funding she has received since 2005 has only resulted in 1 Gold medal is incorrect. When you take her other achievements into account the picture begins to look very different.
Report abuse
TheYank | Aug 16, 2012, 07:40 AM EDT
Here's a question I have (& I don't know the answer):
Do those who play GAA get €40K per year from the government? They certainly bring pride to their towns & counties across the country and there's a definite national pride in the GAA. If they're not paid, why not? The interest in Gaelic Football & Hurling is far greater than it is in clay pigeon shooting, sailing, canoeing and even boxing. Why would Henry Shefflin not be entitled to the same money as Katie Taylor or Olive Loughnane?
Do those who play GAA get €40K per year from the government? They certainly bring pride to their towns & counties across the country and there's a definite national pride in the GAA. If they're not paid, why not? The interest in Gaelic Football & Hurling is far greater than it is in clay pigeon shooting, sailing, canoeing and even boxing. Why would Henry Shefflin not be entitled to the same money as Katie Taylor or Olive Loughnane?
Report abuse
TheYank | Aug 16, 2012, 07:35 AM EDT
Seanmor,
Excellent question. I would be pretty certain that Delaney not only got no money from the government for competing and/or winning gold but that he was out of pocket for his travel expenses to Australia. I'd like to know, though.
Excellent question. I would be pretty certain that Delaney not only got no money from the government for competing and/or winning gold but that he was out of pocket for his travel expenses to Australia. I'd like to know, though.
Report abuse
TheYank | Aug 16, 2012, 07:33 AM EDT
shuvonn,
Ireland's entire "bailout" was a loan of €67.5bn split between the EU, the IMF and 3 countries: the UK, Denmark & Sweden.
You say "it has been established that Ireland did not need to be bailed out at all," but I don't understand what you mean by that. The bailout became necessary when our cost of borrowing on the capital markets was so high that we had no choice but to seek help. The fact that we were bailed out with loans at lower rates of interest than were available from the market means there was some measure of generosity from those countries that lent the money.
If you think that we could have avoided the bailout by letting the banks go to the wall, that's definitely an argument. I think we would still have needed a bailout or faced a rapid contraction in the standard of living, although possibly with a better path back to prosperity.
Ireland's entire "bailout" was a loan of €67.5bn split between the EU, the IMF and 3 countries: the UK, Denmark & Sweden.
You say "it has been established that Ireland did not need to be bailed out at all," but I don't understand what you mean by that. The bailout became necessary when our cost of borrowing on the capital markets was so high that we had no choice but to seek help. The fact that we were bailed out with loans at lower rates of interest than were available from the market means there was some measure of generosity from those countries that lent the money.
If you think that we could have avoided the bailout by letting the banks go to the wall, that's definitely an argument. I think we would still have needed a bailout or faced a rapid contraction in the standard of living, although possibly with a better path back to prosperity.
Report abuse
Report abuse