Recent reports that funding of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is under threat perhaps is a sign that things need to change.

In addition to governments chipping in on a pro-rata basis maybe it's time for those that have a real and vested interest in sport and drugs – the athletes themselves and the sporting federations – to also climb aboard. Let’s face it, some athletes earn more in one year than the entire WADA budget, let alone its pitiful anti-doping research and testing budget. As the organisation chartered with the responsibility of keeping world sport free from performance enhancing drugs (PEDs), surely WADA’s main stakeholders should bear some of the financial burden, especially those federations that do not support their own testing programmes.

As with any professional organisation, it is expected that its stakeholders support its activities by way of membership fees, subscriptions, licences and the like. In my game, where an average salary is about $50K, the organisation representing my professional interests charges an annual membership fee of around $200 (about 0.4 per cent of an average salary). On top of annual fees though, members still have to pay to participate in activities such as conferences, workshops etc. One saving grace of these fees and charges though is that they are tax deductible.

‘Us mere mortals, who earn less in one year than some athletes earn from winning just a single event, should be angry that as taxpayers we are funding a system meant to catch cheats, which is not working all that well.’

Why on earth then should elite professional athletes on mega contracts not be compelled to do the same? I mean, would an athlete on a million bucks a year really miss $4,000 – an equivalent amount in pro-rata terms to which I pay and which could be classified as a tax deduction anyway. For example when you consider that the average salary for Premier League players in England is $1.5million, or around £750,000, imagine if they all had to pay an annual fee of $6,000 or £3,000 (equal to 0.4%). If you take just 15 players for each club, that adds up to $1.8M – and this is just one league in one country.

But you can see it now – the howls of protest: why should they support and/or subsidise WADA, the organisation which was ‘foisted’ upon them by the IOC back in 1999? They already may have financial obligations to their respective federations. Well, the problem is that few federations have really attacked the doping problem with any zeal and/or financial commitment, and it’s an opportunity for the athletes themselves to take some responsibility instead of leaving it in the hands of half-hearted and vested sporting federations (just like the IOC was before WADA came along).

I am confused anyway because if a major funding source for the WADA comes from government then, by association, WADA is battling a problem that is in the public interest. But does the public really care about drugs in sport? They aren’t exactly protesting in the streets, and by all measures crowds and media exposure only seem to have increased despite repeated high-profile doping infractions. The sporting public is not exactly voting with its feet on the issue. So really is it an issue of public interest?
 
In part it is because kids should be getting the message about drugs in sport, but in reality this changes when they are all grown up, doesn’t it? No wonder some athletes and society in general are ambivalent, even confused about drugs in sport and drugs in general. But ultimately it must come down to the athletes themselves. If they really believe in clean sport then they, as stakeholders, have the power to make a difference and therefore it is they who should be putting their hands in their pockets as well as governments.