DON Bradman, Herb Elliott, Dawn Fraser, Ron Barassi, Cathy Freeman, Shane Warne, Ian Thorpe, and both Gary Abletts: it is an arbitrary list, easily expanded, but sufficient reminder that most of Australia's folk heroes have been sporting ones. Some have been larrikins, too, gaining reputations for belligerently revelling in the national ethos off the field almost as often as they displayed individual prowess on it. And those whose sports allowed them to compete at an international level, especially in great global gatherings such as the Olympic Games, gave a nation that is not always sure of its place in the world the sense, however fleeting, of standing shoulder to shoulder with the best of the best.
Politicians have nurtured that sense, most notably via the funds allocated to the Australian Institute of Sport since 1976, when a failure to win a single gold medal in the Montreal Olympics was deemed a national disgrace. This emphasis on elite sport has rarely been publicly questioned, but this week federal Sports Minister Kate Ellis released the recommendations of the Independent Sport Report, which call for a radical change in the way sport is publicly subsidised.
The report, prepared by a panel chaired by businessman David Crawford, rejects the Australian Olympic Committee's demand for an extra $109 million to ensure Australia finishes among the top five nations in the 2012 Olympics. Instead of allocating funds as though national worth can be measured by a medal tally every four years, the report says, governments should emphasise sports with high participation levels, to better integrate sports and health policy. Funding should be directed, Mr Crawford said, to ''those sports which capture the country's imagination and represent its spirit and culture'', especially swimming, tennis, cricket, cycling, the football codes, netball, golf, hockey, basketball, surfing and surf lifesaving.
Australian Olympic Committee president John Coates responded swiftly and aggressively, invoking the form of condemnation used by all who want an issue expunged from the list of acceptable topics of debate: the Crawford recommendations, Mr Coates said, were un-Australian. It was an astonishing thing to say about a report that recommends maintaining the existing level of funding for elite sport and contemplates Australia ranking among the top 10, rather than the top five, of more than 200 countries that are expected to compete in London in 2012.
The Crawford report is obviously vulnerable to criticism by those who suspect its motives: all five of its members are associated with team sports and three of them have AFL connections. It is true, too, that most of the sports it wishes to promote are professional at their own elite levels, and the beneficiaries of hefty cash flows from television contracts and gate attendances. Recognising these things to be true, however, does not undermine the case the report makes.
Australians will celebrate any gold medal won in 2012, even if it is in a sport they never think of between Olympics and even if it is won by someone they have not previously heard of and might never hear of again. Nor can anyone begrudge individual athletes their success. But, as the report notes, the present system funds such success at the rate of $15 million per gold medal. The nation's self-esteem is surely neither so low nor so brittle as to require this level of investment, and it is money that in some instances could be more wisely spent. A shift to funding high-participation sports at grassroots levels might not result in the same surge of collective euphoria every four years, but it would contribute in a more sustained fashion to national wellbeing.
The Independent Sport Panel Report, set up to look into sports funding, was published in Australia last week, prompting debate and speculation for the future of sport in the country. Many in the sector believe the report will prompt changes in the way sport is funded and administered in Australia.

John Coates, President of the Australian Olympic Committee, criticised the report, and several elite sports people have joined Coates' calls for sustained funding to Olympic level sport. Other commentators have welcomed the recommendations, challenging commonly held beliefs that Australians benefit from funding high performance athletes. Such positions call for more resourcing of sport at a participation level rather than performance level.

Key recommendation areas in the report are:

* Defining Australia's national sports vision
* Reforming the Australian Sports Commission to lead the sports system
* Merging Australia's institutes of sport
* Building the capacity of Australia's national sporting organisations
* Putting sport and physical activity back into education
* Building community sport with people and places
* Ensuring Australia's sports system is open to all
* Sustaining the funding base for sport

Australians now await a Government response to the recommendations.