Post by nobody on May 19, 2016 7:43:34 GMT -6
Economist/financial writer Robert Samuelson writes about a paper showing the extent of the cost the Olympics brings to host nations. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-olympic-sinkhole/2016/05/18/07484476-1d0a-11e6-9c81-4be1c14fb8c8_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_heads-draw6
There is a problem and it can't go on this way.
When the modern Olympics began, there was minimal international competition; the Olympics had a stage to itself. Now in so many sports, cycling, weightlifting, track & field, skiing, competition across national boundaries is the rule. Do we still need the Olympics, except to showcase certain sports that would otherwise have no international meets?
I grew up under the "Olympic ideal" of amateurism, where money payments to an athlete was supposed to disqualify that athlete. Like modern doping, the "Olympic ideal" was a fiction. Eastern bloc countries mentored a caste of professional athletes supported and paid by the government for the express goal of excelling in international competition, and while medals were revoked for certain individuals who were paid very little, the Olympic Committee never dared to challenge the participation of Iron Curtain nations because their athletes were totally professional. And the fact was that in the USa and Europe, eminent track & field athletes were paid somehow, in appearance money if not in prize money for winning. So the demise of the amateur ideal meant leaving hypocrisy behind.
Plus amateurism meant competition between those wealthy enough to afford to train and pay their own way to the games. It was for sports of the leisure class, as relics like equestrian events and modern pentathlon demonstrate.
Olympic hypocrisy is still with us.
All the talk of a "level playing field" in connection with drugs is more than a little absurd, because the very idea of competition is to gain an advantage, by training, diet, or technique. Our Olympic Training Center is dedicated toward making an unlevel playing field even less level.
Do athletes from, say, Namibia, have the same shot at competing as athletes from Russia or the USA? In general, only if they are wealthy enough to come to the USA to train. Poor countries are as poorly represented at the Olympics as Saudi Arabia is represented in cross country skiing.
While I oppose the inclusion of pro basketball or pro golf or pro baseball, I can't point to many Olympic events that are still amateur. Curling? Sculling? Those limited to NCAA athletes in good standing, yeah, maybe, if other countries have an analogue to the NCAA.
To me the answer to the Olympic dilemma is radical change, paring down, being less inclusive of pro sport, of glamorous sport. If the sport is well-developed in international competition, it shouldn't be in the Olympics. I don't know if a return to amateurism is feasible, but we need to look into it.
There is a problem and it can't go on this way.
When the modern Olympics began, there was minimal international competition; the Olympics had a stage to itself. Now in so many sports, cycling, weightlifting, track & field, skiing, competition across national boundaries is the rule. Do we still need the Olympics, except to showcase certain sports that would otherwise have no international meets?
I grew up under the "Olympic ideal" of amateurism, where money payments to an athlete was supposed to disqualify that athlete. Like modern doping, the "Olympic ideal" was a fiction. Eastern bloc countries mentored a caste of professional athletes supported and paid by the government for the express goal of excelling in international competition, and while medals were revoked for certain individuals who were paid very little, the Olympic Committee never dared to challenge the participation of Iron Curtain nations because their athletes were totally professional. And the fact was that in the USa and Europe, eminent track & field athletes were paid somehow, in appearance money if not in prize money for winning. So the demise of the amateur ideal meant leaving hypocrisy behind.
Plus amateurism meant competition between those wealthy enough to afford to train and pay their own way to the games. It was for sports of the leisure class, as relics like equestrian events and modern pentathlon demonstrate.
Olympic hypocrisy is still with us.
All the talk of a "level playing field" in connection with drugs is more than a little absurd, because the very idea of competition is to gain an advantage, by training, diet, or technique. Our Olympic Training Center is dedicated toward making an unlevel playing field even less level.
Do athletes from, say, Namibia, have the same shot at competing as athletes from Russia or the USA? In general, only if they are wealthy enough to come to the USA to train. Poor countries are as poorly represented at the Olympics as Saudi Arabia is represented in cross country skiing.
While I oppose the inclusion of pro basketball or pro golf or pro baseball, I can't point to many Olympic events that are still amateur. Curling? Sculling? Those limited to NCAA athletes in good standing, yeah, maybe, if other countries have an analogue to the NCAA.
To me the answer to the Olympic dilemma is radical change, paring down, being less inclusive of pro sport, of glamorous sport. If the sport is well-developed in international competition, it shouldn't be in the Olympics. I don't know if a return to amateurism is feasible, but we need to look into it.
