• 
• 

Published on February 24, 2008

Ever wonder why Thailand's success in the international sports arena is so slow to arrive despite government policies promoting sports in terms of infrastructure and human potential? A survey by a foreign research team has shown that there are big sport stadiums and smaller athletic grounds in every province in the country for professional athletes and the general public to use. However, this seems to be in stark contrast to the fact that Thai athletes' performance in international sporting events above the level of the regional Southeast Asian Games has not improved much.

The construction of new public sports grounds and stadiums is still going on everywhere in Thailand, as it appears to be a tradition among politicians in power. Building multimillion-baht stadiums in individual constituencies not only benefits the people, but also gives political credit to those who push for the projects.

Many government sports facilities in the provinces, however, have not been fully utilised and some have ended up deserted after having hosted just a few athletic events. Some of them stand dilapidated on grounds covered with tall weeds and their original purpose would be hard to discern were it not for old signs that tell what they once were.

During the term of the Thaksin government, the Sports Authority of Thailand handed over many of the unused sports grounds and stadiums to local administrative organisations. Some of them were renovated and brought back into public use. In areas where local politicians have no interest in sports, however, those abandoned facilities remain untouched.

Building a large sports stadium in a community does in fact have its advantages in terms of serving the local public and helping to develop the potential of national sports. But these advantages cannot be achieved without good planning on the location of the facilities as well as their management and maintenance.

Some provincial and district-level stadiums are unpopular because they are located too far from the public and are understaffed. Some were built with poor engineering practices and have become a big financial burden for agencies responsible for their maintenance.

The choice of where sports facilities are located is sometimes not based on appropriate technical criteria, but rather is determined by the politicians who provide the budget for the project. If they would prefer the stadiums built on land that their relatives or friends own regardless of how remote the location, local officials are left with no other choice. And if those politicians want particular companies to build the stadiums, their decision must be carried through and the quality of the work done by those companies is not to be questioned.

While politicians in power may place the development of sports high on their agendas, the path they take seems to mistakenly focus on quantity rather than quality. While the budget for the construction of new sports grounds and stadium is readily available, government financial support for the development of excellence in sports among youths is lagging far behind.

This ignorance is particularly evident among schools in remote rural districts. Budgets for buying new sports equipment for some rural schools totals only a few thousand baht each year, and such a meagre allotment is far too little to accommodate students' athletic needs. Those who have had a chance to visit schools in remote districts might be acquainted with the sight of scores of students having to share random kicks at an older soccer ball during their lunch break because of their school's budgetary constraints. Many of those students come to class barefooted since their families are too poor to buy them decent shoes. Buying them sports equipment can only be a dream.

It would be mindlessly wasteful if politicians in power were to continue to devote large budgets to building new sporting facilities without making the best use of them. Instead of wasting money in that impractical way, they should reconsider this political tradition and decide how they can best spend the money where it is really needed.

The Nation