Australia's underwhelming performance in Brazil is set to come at a cost of as much as $11 million per medal to the taxpayer, if the current trend in Rio continues.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Sailor Tom Burton on Wednesday ended a three-day wait for the country's seventh gold medal when he won the men's laser final.
Nobody pretends that winning a medal is easy, unless your name is Phelps or Bolt.
But drawing to the end of the second week Australia's medal tally remains short of the official projection, including 13 gold, made by the Australian Olympic Committee last December, and in danger of falling short of the 35 collected in London, which was the nation's lowest at a summer Games since Seoul in 1988.
Barring a late surge the deflating return will serve as a reality check amid aspirations, voiced by chef de mission Kitty Chiller in the weeks before Rio, for as many as 15 gold and a top-five finish on the medal tally.
It is also expected to prompt fresh questions about the effectiveness of the funding model introduced after London and overseen by the Australian Sports Commission.
In all, $340m has been injected into Olympic sports via the ASC's Winning Edge program in the four years leading up to Rio.
Using the national lottery funding model adopted by Great Britain in the lead-up to London the money has been distributed with an enhanced priority on winning and sports in which Australia has historically been strong.
But while Team GB, with £274m ($466m) pledged to their Olympic sports between 2013 and 2017 are still enjoying the afterglow of London by punching well above their weight, the jury is still out for Australia's program.
Swimming was the most heavily funded in the four years before Rio with $37.9m and, while Australia's haul of three gold among 10 medals in the pool was below expectations of many, the more expensive cost-per-medal evaluations come elsewhere, such as rowing ($32.4m, three medals) and hockey ($28.6m, no medals).
The ASC and its high performance arm, the Australian Institute of Sport, argue strongly that such funding-to-medal calculations are a crude form of measuring success.
Matt Favier, AIS director, said ensuring sports met improved governance and accountability standards was also central to funding, citing the post-London overhaul of Swimming Australia as a case study.