Many Australians believe our national psyche is defined through sporting prowess and that, as a consequence, winning means everything. The corollary is that success and therefore national pride must be measured by the number of gold medals won at an Olympics.

Every four years, the world's focus is on the medal tally, with that intense concentration broken only occasionally by other meritorious performances far away from the winner's circle, such as Eric the Eel's.

It was deemed a national shame when our team scored only one medal silver at the Montreal Games. The result was the establishment of the Australian Institute of Sport, our version of a medal factory, where gifted athletes could be trained and encouraged towards going higher and faster. The results have been impressive, although some say the cost in dollars has been high.

With the Commonwealth Games due to begin next October in New Delhi and the Olympics in London in 2012, now is the time to consider how much money should be spent to ensure our elite athletes reach a high enough level to ''defend'' national pride. That objective can be distilled to the simple but blunt question how much is a medal worth? In addition, do we have to be in the top five medal-winning nations at any cost?

The nation's sports tsars are putting out their hands for more government funding for elite sports. The Australian Olympic Committee wants an additional $108 million a year for the next decade $1 billion extra and argues that amount is needed to keep pace with major competitors.

For more, pick up a copy of today's Canberra Times