The Olympic Games have always been for the elite. The elite being a select group superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.
Even in the ancient Olympic Games only those of Greek ancestors were allowed to enter, and they had to have been freeborn; not having been born into slavery. The Games were restricted to 20 events at each gathering. Although the games are believed to have had their roots in religion. The athletic competition, it has been written was tied to worship of the gods. The intention of the ancient games was to bring peace, and harmony.
Peace and Harmony was necessary because at that time power in Greece had become very localised. These localised areas were based around a city-state. The city-state was essentially a population centre which had been organized into a self-contained political entity. Like a small kingdom of its own. With so many states in such close proximity there was a competition for resources, as well as superiority.
The events at the Games all had a military feel about them, and many of these states greatest warriors were put forward by their state to compete. If they were victorious it not only drew people to that city-state and helped populate it, but also saw other city-states keen to negotiate politically and economically with the home of the victor.
Some would say that the athletes were pawns in a political game.
Of the twenty events it was written that “Victory by speed of foot is honored above all.”
Talk of reviving the Olympic Games started around 1821, but it was Baron Pierre de Coubertin who is credited with making it become a reality. He founded the International Olympic Committee in 1890 and set about organising the first Modern Olympic Games in 1896, in Athens.
The Baron, as his title would imply was born of French aristocracy. He was a strong believer in the importance of sport as part of a child’s schooling, and was convinced that this was the reason at that time for the success of the British Empire.
He was of the belief that the ancient Olympics had encouraged competition among amateur rather than professional athletes, this was something he felt very strongly about. He also saw from the Ancient Games that the practice of a sacred truce between fighting states while the Games were taking place could have modern-day implications. His vision was that the Olympic Games could have a role in promoting peace. He famously promoted his philosophical ideal for athletic competition, which was that the competition itself, the struggle to overcome one’s opponent, was more important than winning. This view immortalised in his words, “the important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle, the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.”
As many will recall the ancient games saw athletes compete naked, so that there could be no cheating. To show just how seriously taking an unfair advantage was regarded in those times corporal punishment was the punishment that awaited those guilty of a false start on the track!
There have been many scholars who have argued that de Coubertin’s assertion that the athletes of the ancient Games were amateur is incorrect. A common consensus is that the Ancient Games only became professionalized around 480 BC. Coubertin conceded in his lifetime that this may have been the case but that professionalism undermined the morality of the competition.
The amateur ideal of the Modern Olympic Games survived until 1984. The rule that all athletes must be amateur was abolished by the IOC in the lead up to the Los Angeles Olympic Games. Many athletes in the early part of the last century had to have money in order to compete, which again meant that certain sections of society were excluded from participating. Or they had to hope that their talent would result in backers supporting their endeavours.
Professionalism was something that was bound to happen, just as had been the case in the Ancient Games , except this time countries rather than states had abused this rule; or found a way around it. Athletes were employed by their country’s armed forces. They received a wage, housing and food. In return they were expected to train rather than carry out the regular duties of other soldiers, and were expected to bring honour to their country by returning with a medal.
On the back of professionalism came commercialism. Once the athletes were allowed to openly make money, the IOC was in a position to sell sponsorship and television rights to the highest bidders. Television stations saw the benefits in hosting the Olympic Games for a fortnight, as suddenly there was an advertising bonanza to be had.
To be a host city of an Olympic Games was also for a while a huge honour and brought the city and the country global attention. However, as the exposure through television grew, so too did the demands of hosting the Games and the infrastructure needed.
The cost of the 1964 Tokyo Olympics has been quoted as being USD282million. There were many in Japan who felt that the cost was closer to one billion dollars. Fifty-five years later the cost to host the 2020 Games in the same city is expected to reach USD25billion. This is three times the estimated cost of $7.3Billion that was declared when they bid for the Games in 2013!
To try and recoup the rising costs the IOC opened their doors to established sports and athletes. Tennis was re-introduced to the Games in 1988, after being dropped in 1924. There was no age restriction and the top players in the World could participate. Golf which was dropped in 1904 returned in 2016, again to try and attract the top athletes which in turn would pull in high paying sponsors.
Who can forget the “Dream Team” USA Basketball team at the 1992 Olympic games? This team made up of NBA Players who were now cleared to play at the Olympic Games won the Gold medal beating their opponents by an average of 44 points a game. Co-Captains Larry Bird and Magic Johnson with Michael Jordan had at the time of the 1992 Olympics, between them over the previous 13 seasons combined for 10 NBA championships, 7 NBA Finals MVPs, and 9 regular season MVPs! This was all a long way from the ideals of de Coubertin. The elite amongst the elite were now part of the Games.
Now in many of the sports the worlds best are competing. Their earnings give them access to the best training, the best medical and nutritional advice and the gulf between these athletes and those from many of the other nations has become a canyon. Governments are supporting athletes hoping Olympic success will pay a return in votes, but as we saw in Rio some of the National associations are opting not to send athletes who have qualified, simply because they know they will not medal and the cost is too much.
It has been said that winning an Olympic Gold medal will set you up for life. In some countries that may be the case, but definitely not in all.
Seeing the cost of hosting the Games in Japan blow-out, many prudent Governments are now shying away from bidding to host the Games.
So what is the future of the Olympic Games? Can it continue as it is? Are the IOC going to continue to find hosts? Will the 207 nations that competed in Rio be able to afford to continue to send athletes to the Games, especially if they are unlikely to medal? Will the Games simply revert back to being a competition between the best of those who can afford to be there?
Looking to the future, maybe the IOC could look at really making the four year cycle “An Olympic Year.” So in 2032, rather than having one city host the Games, have a series of venues across the globe that host Olympic events. For example Serbia who lost the Men’s Basketball Final to the USA in Rio 2016 could host that event. Denmark could host the Badminton, France the fencing, Croatia the Handball etcetera. The IOC could share the spoils and the Olympic spirit around the globe in “An Olympic Year.”
In Rio there were 28 sports and 306 events, in Tokyo next year there will be 33 sports and 339 events. With 52 weeks in a year there could be an Olympic event most weeks. With 365 days a year you could almost have an event a day. If you took out public holidays that would almost be achievable. If you combined the Paralympic events it would easily be achievable.
Imagine what it would mean to an African nation to host the long distance running events and witness their own runners taking on the best in the world in their own backyard.
Such an option would also possibly mean that the cost to compete for some nations would be lowered. They could then justify the cost of allowing the athletes that have qualified to compete.
If cities are no longer keen on bidding for the Games an alternative has to be found. If television stations are claiming that the Games are becoming too big, then this may well be an option, as it would give them content all the year around rather than jammed into 16 days.
Such a move would take the Games back to some of the ideals of the past. It would create a time of unity and a focus on sport. A period when conflict could be put on hold, and athletes could pit their skills against like-minded others from all corners of the globe.
