Cathal Dennehy: Paris was great but here's the sting in the tail...

But if you were among the couple of million Irish people who tuned into the Paris Olympics, and if that did something for you, if it moved you, stick with us here. Because what’s contained in Sport Ireland’s recently published Paris Cycle Review is of huge relevance to the direction of Irish sport.

And look, I get it. This stuff isn’t sexy. But it is important, and its implementation will have a clear, causative effect on how Ireland fares at the 2028 Los Angeles Games and at many other championships on the way there. Because whether Ireland’s medal haul is zero (as it was just 20 years ago) or seven (the record haul from Paris), post-mortems like this always shed light on areas that need improving.

The review’s findings are drawn from surveys conducted by Portas Consulting with 187 athletes and 94 coaches and support staff in Irish high-performance sport. The bottom line? Things are a whole lot better than they used to be, but there’s still plenty of discontent.

Just over half of the athletes surveyed were satisfied with the welfare and performance support available during the Paris cycle, with 27% dissatisfied with the amount of performance support. Only 50% of coaches and performance staff believed their high-performance programmes were resourced sufficiently to achieve their objectives.

The survey included athletes at various levels, both senior and junior, from those scraping on to international teams to major medal winners. One third of respondents were in receipt of financial/performance support from Sport Ireland and so it’s inevitable many on the lower rungs of the ladder would feel things aren’t up to scratch. That’s not damning evidence of a flawed system, but it does flag up room for improvement.

Let’s start with an issue that’s a central theme in the review: coaching. Because every strong high-performance system needs, at its core, great coaches. But across much of Irish sport, this is still treated like a secondary concern, a nice-to-have optional extra rather than a fundamental necessity.

As the review states: “There is limited understanding of the requirements of high performance sport amongst coaches in Ireland, alongside technical capability gaps in specific sports. These challenges have stemmed from the lack of clear coaching pathways, insufficient NGB investments in coach development schemes, and a widespread perception that coaching is not a viable full-time career within Ireland.” 

The most troubling aspect of the Irish system remains the paucity of investment in coaching, and while some of that is cultural – coaching is so often seen here as a voluntary pursuit, even when done to world-class levels – a lot of it is down to a lack of budget.

“NGBs’ insufficient investments and focus on creating formal development opportunities for Irish high performance coaches pose a significant risk to the system,” states the review. 

“This issue will limit the growth of coaches (and therefore athletes) within Ireland, but also increases the likelihood of coaches seeking development opportunities in other countries, exacerbating talent drain from the Irish high performance system.” 

Just 50% of high-performance coaches here are actually Irish, which begs the question: Why does Ireland feel the need to buy in coaches rather than properly developing and supporting those already there? It’s an inadvertent admission that coach development and support structures lag far behind nations where it’s taken seriously, funded appropriately.

There’s no shortage of outstanding coaches in Ireland, but many are being overlooked for the exotic option, which is not necessarily the better one. That sends a message to Irish coaches that they’re ultimately second-rate and it’s no surprise so many end up going abroad, feeling undervalued by their home nation – the resources or respect simply not provided.

Another thing about recruiting foreign coaches? The likes of Zaur Antia – probably the most successful coach in Irish sporting history – might choose to stay and build a new life, leaving as he has an indelible imprint. But he’s the exception. More often they up and leave within a few years, creating a lack of continuity.

As the review states: “Stakeholders identified an over-reliance on international talent in Irish high performance sport, highlighting a clear risk to the retention of knowledge and expertise within the system.” 

There are other issues flagged up, like the lack of support services for those based outside Dublin, with so many facilities and service providers clustered at the Sport Ireland Institute in Abbotstown. That’s widely deemed a fantastic hub for those who are close to it, but it’s not so useful if you’re a top-level athlete in, say, Galway or Cork, or one of the many athletes who has to work 9-5 and needs to avail of such services outside of office hours.

In response to a query about the survey, a Sport Ireland representative said they were “confident that athletes are happy with the Sport Ireland Institute as they are surveyed regularly. The wider group, who may be pathway or regionally based etc are likely to want to engage in services more, noting the people and services at the Sport Ireland Institute are considered to be world-class. This is included in the review recommendations and we are acting on those already.” 

Just 44% of coaches and performance staff felt satisfied with the professional development opportunities available within their NGB, while 45% were satisfied with talent ID, athlete development and pathways. Two thirds were satisfied with the quality of training facilities, suggesting that’s less of an issue than other areas.

Huge strides have been made in athlete welfare in recent years, with Irish Olympic sport largely avoiding the toxic issues that have plagued many other systems around the world. But that doesn’t mean everything is rosy. Just 60% of athletes felt their NGB had prioritised athlete welfare during the Paris Olympic cycle, and only 50% were satisfied with the welfare support they had access to.

That doesn’t mean the other 50% were dissatisfied – they had an option to give a neutral answer – and with only so much budget to go around, it’s clear you can’t please all of the athletes all of the time. Still, it will be fascinating to follow up on this in four years and see if those figures have risen following the Los Angeles Olympics.

Will more athletes feel they’re being looked after? Will more coaches feel valued?

Some of that will come down to the attitudes of administrators and the cultures they build. But much of it will hinge on something far more measurable: investment. If the review has shown one thing, it’s that it’s not so much facilities that are lacking for Ireland’s top athletes and coaches. It’s the investment in people: supporting them, valuing them. 

On that front, there’s still some distance left to run.