America's Cup for New Zealand - Should the Government Be Spending Money on It or Not?

A few days ago, an article of mine appeared on Stuff Nation - http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/assignments/is-36m-well-spent-on-the-americas-cup/8958848/Americas-Cup-costs-better-spent-on-youth

Here is the article below -

Eighteen years ago Team New Zealand, led by the late Sir Peter Blake, won the America's Cup in San Diego to send a nation into frenzy. Back then, the America's Cup was symbolically a contest between the best yachtsmen of each country with the Aussies and Kiwis taking on the best of the Yanks and Brits for the oldest prize in world sport.

Since then, with rising costs to make the sport faster and more exciting, the America's Cup has become a contest for the big and rich CEOs with their multinational corporations such as Oracle and Prada, and Kiwis like Russell Coutts and Chris Dixon have been racing against Team New Zealand for their foreign owned syndicates.

Why the NZ government is still wasting taxpayer's money on what is essentially a corporate man's sport is beyond me. It is a legacy from the Helen Clark/Labour days but with America's Cup glory last in New Zealand in 2003 is it perhaps time to move on? Putting all that taxpayer money on the small chance that Auckland's Viaduct Harbour will see America's Cup action again is like putting the company payroll on a game of Russian roulette, when that money would be better invested in our youth.

When you consider that NZ basketball can't even afford the insurance premiums to get Steve Adams to come over and represent his country, who invested heavily in his development to the big time, you wonder where the government's sporting priorities lie.

Naturally, the boaties came after me saying that I didn't understand the sport. 

I just want to come out and say that I am a lover of all sports and endeavour to understand every single intricacy of each sport - I am obsessed with it. And I certainly fully understand the nature of the America's Cup, i.e. the rules, costs, etc. which is why I responded like this in the first place. 

First America's Cup in 1851

Yes, the America's Cup started out originally as a contest between nations, i.e. the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The New York Yachting Club from the fledgling New World took on the Royal Yacht Club from the Old and that's where the oldest sporting competition in the world started. 

Indeed, winning the America's Cup has historically been a source of pride for the United States of America for a long time before credible challenges from Australia, New Zealand and Switzerland emerged. 

America's Cup 1995 - a proud moment for all Kiwis

The prize for winning the Auld Mug was huge for the winners and the benefits have been magnified in today's predominantly capitalist society. Winning the America's Cup helped put Fremantle in Western Australia on the map in 1983 and it helped transform Auckland's waterfront into a viable economic hub for the city. Alinghi's win was also terrific news for Valencia - the waterfront even hosted a F1 grand prix briefly which is apt for the wealth and push for technological advances in the sport, and San Francisco is definitely reaping the benefits from hosting this year's America's Cup, just as San Diego did in America's glory days. 

So yes winning the America's Cup has been a boon for the winners but with costs quickly soaring, the yacht clubs from each country are no longer able to carry the burden alone and are heavily dependent on corporate sponsorship. Even then, the days of the company of five that sponsored Team New Zealand's Loyal campaign in 2003, with the costs of the America's Cup now far greater than what the likes of Steinlager, Lotto, Enza and TVNZ could provide. 

Only the likes of Emirates and Toyota can afford the costs to sponsor an America's Cup team nowadays, as well as Oracle, BMW, Prada, etc. And that's just to field a team - as we've seen in the Louis Vuitton Cup, to really dominate, much more needs to be spent and it appears that the New Zealand taxpayer might be the difference between Team New Zealand missing out and challenging Oracle for the America's Cup. 

Fremantle was put on the map after Australia brought home the Auld Mug in 1983

Now, from a socialist and logical point of view, putting all your taxpayer's money on beating the home team, Oracle on their home turf in the USA in a best of 5 series so that Auckland can host the Cup for the first time since 2003 may seem like a very high risk investment. And that's a pretty fair point of view especially when we haven't quite seem the apparent rewards filter down to the yacht clubs of New Zealand as the politicians have advertised. 

On the other hand, many endeavours by the government into sport don't often make sense from a people's point of view apart from providing some light relief from the daily rigours of living and working. 

New Zealand welcomed RWC teams in 2011 with open arms - the tournament is considered the best ever in history

The Rugby World Cup was a success but it wouldn't be considered an investment that made big money for the country - although from a tourist and sporting point of view, the Rugby World Cup was a godsend financially and symbolically. 

So, I'll continue to enjoy the America's Cup and hope Team New Zealand get to the position where PJ Montgomery's famous words from 1995 are echoed. But I still don't quite agree that it is a valid investment by the government. But good luck to Dean Barker et. al.