Add Gina Rinehart to the list of those who have apparently lost faith in Swimming Australia.
The 69-year-old Australian billionaire has reportedly stopped contributing money to Swimming Australia for the past two years — instead supporting 92 elite swimmers with direct payments through the Hancock Prospecting Swimmer Support Scheme — leaving the federation with a $7 million shortfall in sponsorship revenue. This week, details about her frustrations with Swimming Australia finally came to light.
According to a report by News Corp, Rinehart cut ties with Swimming Australia because athletes were receiving their payments late and she didn’t feel like she had a voice in the organization. The 69-year-old also asked the Swimming Australia board to add a delegate from her company, Hancock Prospecting, but the representative was not given voting power and repeatedly asked to leave due to conflicts.
Rinehart’s new Patron’s Medal Achievement Incentive Fund offers bonuses directly to athletes for World Championship and Olympic performances: $20,000 Australian dollars for a gold medal, $15,000 for silver, $10,000 for bronze, and $30,000 for a world record.
“I still can’t believe Swimming Australia lost the greatest benefactor I’ve seen since Santa Claus,” Swimming Queensland chief executive Kevin Hasemann told News Corp. “Mrs. Rinehart’s generosity towards our sport is astonishing. She’s been sponsoring swimming for the past 35 years, tipping in over $40 million since 2012 through the Hancock Swimmer Support Scheme, the lifeblood of performance swimming in Australia. A further $40 million has been committed to the scheme leading up to the 2032 home Olympics.”
Rinehart got involved in financing Olympic sports after the Aussies won just one gold medal in the pool at the London 2012 Olympics, reportedly investing $60 million Australian dollars ($38.9 million USD) of her multi-billion dollar mining fortune over the past decade. The donations are considered to be the biggest ever from an individual to an Olympic team anywhere in the world.
“Australia’s Tokyo triumph and ascension to world number one at the recent World Championships simply couldn’t have happened without Mrs. Rinehart,” Hasemann added. “And, but for her, the prospect of Australian swimmers replicating their amazing Tokyo record in Brisbane in 2032 would be torpedoed, and Australia’s prospects of a high medal count would be a pipe dream.”
The timing of Thursday’s news involving Rinehart and Swimming Australia could not be worse for the federation. Constitutional reform will be discussed at a special general meeting on Friday after World Aquatics demanded in August that Swimming Australia address multiple compliance issues, including the need to be “more representative and inclusive of its athletes.” The organization has featured four different chief executives since 2017.
If the revised constitution does not pass a vote on Friday, Swimming Australia’s membership within World Aquatics could be revoked and athletes would have to compete as neutrals at international competitions.
Rinehart attended the World Championships in Fukuoka, Japan, appearing alongside Kyle Chalmers‘ mom in an Instagram post by the reigning 100 free world champion. The Aussies amassed an impressive 13 gold medals, 7 silvers and 5 bronze for a total of 25 medals at the 2023 World Championships, rendering the competition just the second time since the 1956 Olympic Games in Melbourne that Australia beat the U.S. in the medal table at an elite international meet.
Shayna Jack, who won three world titles on Aussie relays in Fukuoka along with an individual silver in the 50 free, praised Rinehart as a “generous and supportive person.” The 24-year-old Jack noted that “more athletes would retire well and truly before their 30s if it wasn’t for Ms. Rinehart’s generosity.”
It’s not the first time that Rinehart’s generosity has been conditional. Last year, she pulled nearly $10 million in funding from Netball Australia after players raised issues with wearing a uniform featuring the logo of her family’s mining company, Hancock Prospecting, where she serves as executive chairman. Some critics were concerned about environmental impact while others referenced anti-indigenous comments made by her father, Lang Hancock, before his death in 1992. Among them was a statement that, “and when they had gravitated there, I would dope the water up so that they were sterile and would breed themselves out in the future, and that would solve the problem.”
Related:
What the hell is wrong with these people
I wonder if those concerned about the mining environmental impact understand the requirement of mining for society? And this is ever increasing with the emphasis on electrification of everything.
How are the lucky 92 selected ?
Swimming Australia categorisation information can be found here : https://www.swimming.org.au/performance/elite/categorisation
Athletes level of funding and support depends on their tier of categorisation.
Thanks, so it is still based on Swimming Australia input
Does she support athletics,? That’s where the money needs to go
She supports four Olympic sports – swimming, artistic swimming, rowing and beach volleyball. Australia regularly wins 1 (or sometimes 2) gold medals in Rowing at the Olympics.
SA passed their new constitution so won’t be kicked out of WA.
I can already hear the disappointed sighs from some commenters lol
I like that it’s called a scheme.
The word “scheme” seems to always have a negative connotation (or, perhaps, just meaning) in the US, but I’ve noticed in the UK (and apparently also Australia), they use “scheme” when we would use “program” or something. It does usually amuse me.
Yes, in the UK, Australia, Canada and other non-US countries, “scheme” doesn’t have a negative connotation.
yes or “system”, “protocol”, etc. no negative connotation here
Correct ^^
:: pulls up a chair, pops some popcorn ::
“I still can’t believe Swimming Australia lost the greatest benefactor I’ve seen since Santa Claus,” Swimming Queensland chief executive Kevin Hasemann told News Corp.
—
Did Santa Claus ever want anything in return?
Gina wanted to meddle and influence the organization, for better or worse.
Actually yes. He wanted every boy and girl to be good. If not, no presents.
What a jerk
Perhaps it was worth being meddled in??? Often (not sure in this case), it seems that amateur sports organizations are not run professionally, with minimal accountability and oversight for their actions. Again, zero clue of whether that is the case here. It is worth consideration that if someone’s going to support swimming to that degree/amount, it might be best to keep things moving forward if at all feasible. It’s not like there’s a boat-load of sponsors or philanthropists lining up to share their wealth to support aquatics. 🤷🏻 So if Australia wants to continue to support their swimmers to any degree, where’s the funding coming from? Tax payers most likely via amateur sports orgs. What about supporting grass-roots swimming? Does… Read more »
Gina’s support of elite swimming athletes frees up government funding of Swimming Australia as an organisation, to run development programs for youngsters and strengthen and widen the talent pool of athletes. No question in my mind these programs do make a difference to the eventual success of our elites. Gina’s support of Australian swimmers is immense and extremely important to their successes.
Thank you for the insight!
Oh well, I suppose Australian Swimming will now expect the Australian Sports Commission to pick up the tab with funding courtesy of the taxpayers. It is time for national sporting bodies like Australian Swimming to place greater value on their individual and corporate sponsors.
In which realm is your Santa Claus real? At least Gina is a real person with real dollars. For better or worse, her contribution is second to none and in my opinion completely changing the landscape for Australian swimmers.