This document discusses refocusing Indonesia's sport development initiatives. It identifies several problems with Indonesia's current sport system, including a lack of attractiveness of athletics as a profession, weak integration between sport and education, limited funding, and inadequate infrastructure. It analyzes models from South Korea and Australia that have been successful in developing elite athletes through an integrated pyramid approach focusing on both mass participation and high performance sport. The document argues Indonesia should clarify its positioning and aim to become a powerful sporting nation by improving sport experiences, establishing athletics as a career, increasing domestic competition frequency, and enabling greater private sector funding and investment in sport.

1. REFOCUSING INDONESIA SPORT DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
Presented by Kharisma Putra Kartono / i7631146

2. PRIDE of a nation
UNITY spirit

3. © Mice Carton. Timnas PSSI Kalah Lagi
Drop of performance in international eventsThe Inconvenient Truth
• Last time SEA Games
champion was 2011. HOST
COUNTRY EFFECT?
• Never achieved big 10 in
Asian Games fixtures.
• Gold tradition in
badminton branch
discontinued in London
2012 Olympic.
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
1994 Hiroshima 1998 Bangkok 2002 Busan 2006 Qatar 2010 Guangzhou 2014 Incheon
Indonesia Asian Games Ranking 1994-2014
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1997
Indonesia
1999 Brunei
Darussalam
2001
Malaysia
2003
Vietnam
2005
Filipina
2007
Thailand 2009 Laos
2011
Indonesia
2013
Myanmar
2015
Singapore
Indonesia SEA GAMES Ranking 1997-2015
Figure 1 Indonesia ranking in various international sport events (KEMENPORA 2015)

4. Talent, system, infrastructures, or policy?The Identified Problems
Key problems of sport development in Indonesia
1 Low attractiveness to view athlete as profession
2 Weak integration between sport and education system
3 Limited funds for development of sport
4 Low involvement from private sectors in development of sport
5 Inadequate sport infrastructures and equipment
6 Unclear government strategy, role and priority
Figure 2 Key problems of sport development in Indonesia (Herdiansyah et al., 2010)
what can as the highest authority of sport governance do?

5. Will we become a bystander or a contender?Asian Games 2018
EVENT Management
High Performance Sport

6. Pyramid Model of Sport DevelopmentUnderlying Theory
Figure 3 Pyramid Model of Sport Development (Green cited in Ha et al, 2015)
Where should we put our resources in sport?

7. South Korea development to sporting nationExample 1:
4decades on top-down approach to produce quality elite sport
performance
• Taeneung Athletic Village, 1966
• Athlietic Specialist Sytem, 1972
• Military Exemption Law, 1973
• Performance Enhancing Research Pension, 1988
• Specialist sport schools, 1980-1993
REVERSE PYRAMID
Sport participation in South Korea was low, only in Five Year National Sport Plan
2003-2008, increase number of mass sport participation is seriously developed.

8. Pyramid Model of Sport DevelopmentUnderlying Theory
1. Talent
identification and
development
2. Advanced athlete
preparation and support
3. Training centres and
multi-facility activity hubs
4. Domestic and
international competitions
5. Educational, scientific/medical,
philosophical, promotional support
6. Partnership with
supporting agencies
7. Balanced and integrated funding
and structures of mass and elite sport
MICRO LEVEL
Operations, Processes,
and Methodologies for
Development of
Individual Athletes
MESO LEVEL
Infrastructures,
Personnel, and Services
Enabling Sport
Programs
MACRO LEVEL
Socio-Economic,
Cultural Legislative,
and Organisational
Figure 4 Ideal-Type Model of Integrated HP and Mass Sport Development (Carney et al. 2012)

9. Australian Institute of Sport integrative approachExample 2:
AIS provides quality in each factors that are related to product high performance
sport through mass participation in sport.

10. Sport for sport’s sake or sport for development?Dilemma of Policy Maker
Is Indonesia ready to be a sporting powerhouse?

11. Development
through Sport
Development of
Sport
Sport for All
Elite Sport
Where should we aim to address the problem?Policy dimension in Sport

12. Development
through Sport
Development of
Sport
Sport for All
Elite Sport
?Unclear positioning
Too many mix in the programmeCurrent Status

13. Development
through Sport
Development of
Sport
Sport for All
Elite Sport
The end point
Start of journey
Sporting powerhouse nationThe Aim

14. POSITIONING of SPORT to PRIVATE SECTORS
SPORT EXPERIENCE QUALITY
Strategic Solution
1
2

15. Linkage between athletes, supports, and environment Sport Experience
22.60%
25.45%
23.23%
21.76%
24.99%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
2000 2003 2006 2009 2012
Indonesia Sport Participation Rate, for Population Age over 10 y.o.
Figure 5 Indonesia Sport Participation Rate, for Population Age over 10 y.o. (Badan Pusat Statistik 2015)
How can we improve current mass participation?

16. Linkage between athletes, supports, and environment Sport Experience
The anxiety:
Recent scheme:
Extra mile:
Sustainability after retirement
Pension funds for medal winning athletes, 2016
Career coach since productive phase
SPORT as CAREER

17. Linkage between athletes, supports, and environment Sport Experience
The anxiety:
Recent scheme:
Extra mile:
Long time gap between each national games
Held every four years
Held every two years, co-hosting option
COMPETITION SETTING

18. Appeal of sport to private funding Sport Positioning
The anxiety:
Recent scheme:
Extra mile:
Limited government resources
UU Nomor 36 tahun 2008 (tax deduction)
Acknowledgeable investment list
SPORT ENABLER

19. 1. Talent
identification and
development
2. Advanced athlete
preparation and support
3. Training centres and
multi-facility activity hubs
4. Domestic and
international competitions
5. Educational, scientific/medical,
philosophical, promotional support
6. Partnership with
supporting agencies
7. Balanced and integrated funding
and structures of mass and elite sport
The way it works…

20. A long pursuit, for national representations…