What is the aim of the Olympic Games?
The Mission statement from the International Olympic Committee reads as follows: “The mission of the IOC is to not only ensure the celebration of the Olympic Games, but to also encourage the regular practice of sport by all people in society, regardless of sex, age, social background or economic status. This is done in many ways, year round and on all five continents.”
So the ideals upon which the modern Olympic Games were built appear to have long been forgotten. Just to remind readers of some of those ideals here are some of them expressed by the man who is regarded as the founder of the Modern Olympics, Baron Pierre de Coubertin.
“The Olympic Games are for the world and all nations must be admitted to them.” “All sports must be treated on the basis of equality,” and “racial distinctions should not play a role in sport.” These were all part of his vision for the Games, along with this, “The day when a sportsman stops thinking above all else of the happiness in his own effort and the intoxication of the power and physical balance he derives from it, the day when he lets considerations of vanity or interest take over, on this day his ideal will die.”
No doubt many will dismiss these quotes as being outdated, from a different era, and not applicable today. But is that really the case?
It is very hard to actually find a statement today that proclaims the point of the Olympic Games. There are many statements relating to the games along the lines of “the Olympic Games are considered the world’s foremost sports competition with more than 200 nations participating.” Or the Olympic Games “are the leading international sporting event featuring summer and winter sports competitions in which thousands of athletes from around the world participate in a variety of competitions.”
The Ancient Olympic Games knew what they were about, they were of fundamental religious importance, featuring sporting events alongside ritual sacrifices honouring both Zeus and Pelops, and were part of a cycle of Games known as the Pan Hellenic Games. On the line were bragging rights for the city states or the kingdoms of Ancient Greece.
Forty years ago the Modern Olympic Games were the pinnacle of International sport. Now one has to ask, as the Games have become more commercial and the number of participants and events have grown, has it become more about qualifying for the Olympic Games than actually winning a medal for the majority?
The 1976 Montreal Olympic Games consisted of 6084 competitors from 92 countries with 198 events in 21 sports. The 2016 Rio Olympics Games saw 11,238 competitors attend from 207 countries contesting 306 events in 28 sports. In Forty years the number of athletes attending has doubled, the number of countries attending has more than doubled, and the number of events has increased by 54%.
As anyone will tell you quantity does not guarantee quality. The World of Boxing has seen that with too many World Championships and too many weight divisions, which has undermined the value of the title “World Champion.” Has the Olympic Games gone the same way?
Sadly today in many countries it is now about becoming an Olympian, and not doing your best or returning with a medal. This may in fact please the late Baron Pierre de Coubertin, as it was he who famously said “The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not winning but taking part; the essential thing in life is not conquering but fighting well.” Yet do all fight well?
One does wonder if he would really approve, as for some the goal is simply to qualify for the Olympic Games. Their performance is secondary. The reasons being that in some countries being known as an Olympian elevates your status in society to another level. It has the power to change their life, irrespective of their performance.
To qualify for an Olympic Games the various Olympic International Sports bodies put forward to the International Olympic Committee the qualification criteria, or path for athletes to make the Games in their sport. The IOC ratify these qualification paths and let the various bodies implement them.
There has long been held the view that if teams or athletes achieve the required standard set out by their sport that they should be entitled to attend the Olympic Games. Yet as we saw for the Olympic Games in Rio several of the National Olympic Associations made the decision not to send athletes or teams that had qualified. (The Right To Play God Puts Olympic Ideal at Risk) The reasons were essentially that they did not feel that these athletes or teams had a chance of bringing home a medal, and therefore the cost to the National Olympic Committee was no viable.
The South African Sports Commission and Olympic Committee is one such body that has copped a lot of criticism for not sending athletes that have qualified for the Olympic Games through the agreed qualification process.
In a country where the currency is extremely weak one can understand their concerns, even though it seems harsh on the athletes.
In fact many countries may find that they too will have to start taking a more discerning approach. With the first world nations throwing more and more Government money in pursuit of sporting excellence, and assessing their return on investment in World Championship or Olympic medals, the less rich nations are always going to start at a disadvantage. It is far from an even playing field.
Which takes us back to the opening question, what is the aim of the Olympics? Are they in fact still the pinnacle sporting event, or have many sports World Championships replaced the Olympics in terms of prestige?
Have the glut of medals now available, and the number of athletes attending taken the sheen off the prestige that existed previously?
To maybe put this in perspective the athletes from the United States of America were given as a bonus USD$37,500 for a Gold medal, USD$22,500 for silver and USD$15,000 for Bronze at last years Winter Olympics. This was a 50% increase on the bonuses paid to the Summer Olympic athletes in 2016. Once you have that Gold medal in your bag then suddenly there is obviously the chance to earn more through endorsements. Although not all athletes however have that opportunity.
Some athletes, despite having funding from national programs still see their parents make huge sacrifices for them to have the opportunity of fulfilling their potential. In 2012, U.S. News & World Report reported that US gymnast Gabby Douglas’ mother, Natalie Hawkins, had filed for bankruptcy. Fellow USA Athlete, swimmer, Ryan Lochte’s parents were reported to have allegedly stopped paying their mortgage and owed over $200,000 on a Florida home. These debts were put down to supporting their children; who incidentally both won Gold in the London Olympics!
The point is, if parents in a first world country like the USA are sending themselves bankrupt to see their child come home with Olympic Gold, how much is it going to cost a National Olympic Association to send a group of athletes who are not going to win a medal? In many of the other countries competing, the parents would not have the money to offer such support.
In the case of Athletics South Africa (ASA) they have taken a wise approach, “We pull our athletes not to be on the tail of qualification. They must be way inside,” ASA president Aleck Skhosana has been quoted as saying. Yet even that does not guarantee the much sort after medals.
Does the qualification process need to be reviewed and the bar raised? Do places need to be limited? Should there be less events, thereby making victory more prestigious? Should the IOC fund the travel of those who qualify?
Clearly the IOC need to evaluate what they want the Olympic Games to stand for, and where they want the event to sit on the sporting landscape. Changes need to take place, and they need to happen sooner rather than later or Paris in 2024 and Los Angeles in 2028 are going to become elitist. Events in which only countries who can afford for their athletes to compete will compete, and only athletes sent from many of those countries will be those likely to medal. The only other athletes attending will be those from many cash-strapped nations who have a chance of winning medals for their homeland.
To revert back to the words of Baron de Coubertin, “Sport is part of every man and woman’s heritage and its absence can never be compensated for.” That is still true today. He also said “Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of a good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.” The sentiment is still true, but do we see that put into practise?
For a sport to have athletes competing at the Olympic Games today can mean an increase in funding, sponsorship and media coverage. Which in turn can grown the sport and inspire others.
If as per their mission statement the role of the IOC is not so much about the Olympic Games themselves but more about encouraging ‘the regular practice of sport by all people in society, regardless of sex, age, social background or economic status.’ The message is clearly not filtering through to all of the National Olympic bodies. Maybe this is where there needs to be a shift, whereby they encourage the local Olympic Committees to spend more on development, than on sending athletes to the Games.
