What constitutes an Olympic sport?
Columnist
Related coverage
- Olympics news
- Golf news
- Rugby Union news
- International Rugby Union - Six Nations, Heineken Cup, Rugby Championship news
aussie supporters at the olympics. Photo by Elizabeth Chapman
So golf and rugby sevens are one step closer to be included in the 2016 Olympics. The response from the public has been mixed, with the majority of the criticism directed at the inclusion of golf. What constitutes an Olympic sport just got a lot more confusing.
The IOC claims a sport must have youth appeal, universality, popularity, good governance, respect for athletes and respect for the Olympic values.
Fair enough.
But how are they applying these guidelines in their decision-making?
What strikes me most in this debate is the lack of coherency and consistency in the IOC’s choices.
Why golf?
Does it really have youth appeal and will golfers who make millions in prestigious tournaments throughout the year have respect for the Olympic values and give the Games the respect it deserves?
The fact that softball and baseball were back in the running for inclusion, having been shown the door, shows the IOC isn’t even sure of what it wants.
So what constitutes an Olympic sport?
Is it a sport that reflects the ancient origins of the Games and represents the Olympic motto of Citius, Altius, Fortius – Swifter, Higher, Stronger?
So how does synchronised swimming fit into that motto?
Are they sports and disciplines that are under-represented in the wider sporting world, therefore giving its athletes the global stage to compete on?
So why golf, tennis and football then?
The problem with these sports as Olympic fixtures is, ultimately, players would trade an Olympic gold medal for a place in a World Cup final, a Wimbledon title and British Open crown.
It damages the meaning of the Olympics if athletes don’t necessarily care about them.
One reason why rugby sevens was deserving of its consideration was the International Rugby Board’s promise to do away with the Sevens World Cup so its Olympic competition becomes the pinnacle event of the code.
It’s a smart move, emphasising its desire to be part of the Games.
While rugby sevens inclusion makes sense, golf has been heavily criticised as an Olympic sport despite the obvious attractiveness for the IOC.
It will bring high profile stars to the Games, yes. Imagine Tiger Woods competing for gold in Chicago, 2016 Nike and co will be lining up to get on board.
But why golf?
Why are the likes of baseball and softball suitable one moment and then ignored the next?
What about a sport like netball, one of the most popular sports in the Commonwealth Games which is played in over 70 countries?
It seems the IOC aren’t even sure what constitutes a suitable Olympic sport.
The IOC recognises the likes of bridge, tug of war, chess, orienteering and, strangely, powerboat racing, which appeared in the 1908 London Games, and yet they shun motor sport, despite its worldwide popularity.
In the end such choices are subjective and up to the eye of the beholder.
But the conflicting and confusing decision making of the IOC is eroding the prestige of the Olympics.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Other Sports articles
- Victoria Azarenka vs Maria Sharapova: Australian Open women’s final live scores, blog (89)
- Why I won’t be watching the Sharapova-Azarenka final (51)
- The sporting fallacy of the Olympic ‘Games’ (45)
- Djokovic vs Nadal was great, but do we need six-hour finals? (36)
- Sonny Bill needs to start boxing full time (36)
- Sonny Bill looking sharp for his first real test (29)
- Sonny Bill wins title in first round (25)
- New champ Williams looking to next fight (4)
- Aust and GB aim to convert 4ths to bronze
- Young pitcher signs big deal with Red Sox (7)
- World Cup Darts heartbreak in Hamburg (3)
- Mayweather and Pacquiao have shamed boxing (12)
- Will Tom Brady’s legacy be affected by one drop? (19)
- Sonny Bill needs to start boxing full time (36)
- World Cup Darts heartbreak in Hamburg (3)
- Mayweather and Pacquiao have shamed boxing (12)
- Will Tom Brady’s legacy be affected by one drop? (19)
- Sonny Bill needs to start boxing full time (36)
- Lachlan Murdoch squashing FTA sport for Fox’s benefit (4)
- Sonny Bill Williams vs Clarence Tillman III: Live updates, blog [video] (179)
- Chauncey Billups injury: Is his career over? (2)
Tifosi said | August 19th 2009 @ 5:52am | Report comment
The olympics lost prestige when they sold their souls out to china. Look how china has become a great symbol of democracy since then…………………………………..
Baseball misses out because the MLB does not want their players to play.
Golf gets in because they know like in the tennis the big stars can come.
Another sport that should be included is FUTSAL. Not sure why it misses out to be honest.
Pauly Walnuts said | August 19th 2009 @ 8:36pm | Report comment
Fair call on the futsal, you have indoor & beach volleyball…. I don’t know how you can be so certain about your other statement “in the tennis the big stars can come”, surely some have Pele-like issues…
Shahsan said | August 19th 2009 @ 7:25am | Report comment
Good article, Adrian.
There seems to be no consistent criteria. Maybe a basic one is that the Olympics has to be the de facto World Championships for that sport. That would be true even for the biggest sports such as gymnastics and even swimming and athletics. All three events do have their own world championships but while these are prestigious among the competitors and their sport’s hard-core fans, they do not capture the imagination of the passing fan.
The same is true for sports such as hockey, volleyball, archery and the like. And would really give meaning to smaller sports such as wrestling, shooting, rowing etc,
But you could not argue the same for tennis, football and if included, as is likely, golf. I don’t think the players of the peopel who run these sports would ever regard a medal in the Olympics as equivalent to a major/Grand Slam win or a World Cup title. Or better, ask if they would stop cancel one of the majors of the world cup for the Olympics instead. the answer would be no.
Spiro Zavos said | August 19th 2009 @ 8:08am | Report comment
An old-time journalist once explained to me when I asked him what constitutes a front page story in a newspaper: ‘A front page story is a story that is printed on the front page.’ The same principle applies for Olympic sports. An Olympic sport is a sport played at the Olympics. Standing jumping, for instance, has been an Olympic sport. Now we have synchronised swimming where most of the action takes place under the water and the athletes leap out of the water occasionally like dolphins with clothes pegs on their noses and with fixed mannequin grins on their faces.
Idealists would want to go back to the days of the ancient Olympics when the events were man on man, often in the nude. But team events are now part of the Games and athletes are covered up, sometimes in the case of the swimmers in suits that allow them too much bouyancy.
The latest imperative, and the reason why golf and Sevens Rugby have the inside running for 2016, is money, whether the events can generate world-wide televsion interest. These two sports were out on their own against the others in the latest cull and restoration episode and so they became (potentially at least) Olympic sports.
Shahsan said | August 19th 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
So in effect you are saying there are no set criteria for inclusion, aside from the sport’s money-making possibilities, live and on TV; tradition and the whimsical or quaintness factor.
I think also that one reason some sports are in despite logic dictating otherwise is to force the hard-core fans of those sports, who are interested in their sport only and don’t bother with multi-sports bonanzas — and you could argue they are are more fanatical sports fans then the average Olympics watchers — to at least watch take a peek at the Games, if their sport is in it.
Which is why football is in (even though most football fans will tell you Olympics soccer is mickey mouse), as well as tennis, boxing and basketball and soon golf and rugby.
Aljay said | August 19th 2009 @ 9:56am | Report comment
“So in effect you are saying there are no set criteria for inclusion, aside from the sport’s money-making possibilities, live and on TV”
Nail. Head.
Professor Rosseforp said | January 21st 2011 @ 8:17am | Report comment
I would love to see the standing high and long jumps reinstalled.
Choppy said | August 19th 2009 @ 8:57am | Report comment
I can’t believe Tennis has lasted this long, at least soccer has some regulations so it’s not just another world cup scenario. The addition of Golf and Rugby 7′s is a joke when sports like baseball and softball miss out.
Tennis has a Grand Slam, Golf has the Majors, there is a World Cup of Rugby.
I would like to see sports in the Olympics where a gold medal is the pinnacle of the sport, not sports that will just bolster the IOC coffers so they can indulge themselves further
albatross said | August 19th 2009 @ 11:22am | Report comment
Football should be given the err… boot from the Olympics. An under 23 comp (albeit with some ring-ins) is not a pinnacle.
Pauly Walnuts said | August 19th 2009 @ 8:34pm | Report comment
I concur
QC said | August 19th 2009 @ 8:52pm | Report comment
I’m in agreeance too.
Isn’t it funny how the IOC refuses to acknowledge Wales, Scotland and England as independant countries.
I guess with rugby 7′s that is automatically allowing two other countries a shot at Olympic glory but at the same time a combined British team could be very good.
Corey said | December 6th 2009 @ 11:50am | Report comment
Exactly, they might as well have an Under 21 Olympics….oh, wait……what….they do?!
Shahsan said | August 19th 2009 @ 9:19am | Report comment
There is a world cup of rugby 15s and world cup of rugby 7s. The IOC would love to get its hands on RWC 15s but that is just not feasible (too long especially), whereas 7s is compact and involves more nations and has a more level playing field. So there will be no more World Cup 7s, which is a very good tournament in its own right.
albatross said | August 19th 2009 @ 11:24am | Report comment
But it is a silly game and some of the matches will be horribly one-sided. Where is the drama/excitement in that?
Shahsan said | August 19th 2009 @ 11:32am | Report comment
Oh please, write when you know something about it. That is sheer ignorance.
albatross said | August 20th 2009 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
I have been attending Sevens competitions since 1958 when I went with my father as a little lad to the Middlesex Sevens at Twickenham. I have played the game on three continents. What’s your heroic record, DH?
Shahsan said | August 20th 2009 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
Tsk, tsk, resorting to name-calling (albeit disguised).
I’ve watched some Middlesex Sevens and I can understand why you say what you’ve said.
But if you’ve watched the best of sevens – esp the period 1984 to 1995, and at the World Cups of 1997, 2001, 2005 and 2009 – and don’t find the games exciting then there really is nothing more to say. You were either not watching or sevens is just not your cup of tea.
There usually are one-sided games at sevens tournamnets but at an olympics, which is likely to feature the best 16 teams, such mismatches are unlikely.
Besides, mismatches happen regularly at tennis majors and soccer world cups in the early rounds and will always happen when the top teams play the worst at any tournament and in any sport.
Finally, if you want to compare playing records, I have played at HK, Dubai and Singapore sevens and with and against some top-rate players. But I’ve played in only two continents (Asia and Oceania) so I must not be as good as you.
AndyS said | August 20th 2009 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
What, as opposed to the incredible evenness between countries on the track or in the pool?
Shahsan said | August 20th 2009 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
Well said., AndyS
GB said | August 19th 2009 @ 9:19am | Report comment
In my mind if you win an Olympic Gold Medal that should be the pinnacle of your sport. In tennis for example, if I had the choice of winning Wimbledon or an Olympic Gold, then its a no brainer. A Grand Slam tournament wins hands down. In golf, The Masters or the Gold?. Give me the Green Jacket anytime. The Olympics has become an over bloated and commercial circus. Too many sports in my mind. Why not introduce Snooker and Chess. While we are at it, bring back the Tug of War. Its time to start slashing sports from the programme, not introduce more and especially those sports where competing at the Olympics is a just a two week distraction from the tournaments/competitions that really matter (esp Golf and Tennis).
Pippinu said | August 19th 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
The Olympics stopped having meaning a long, long time ago.
For decades now, the Olympics have been about wealthy whites showing how good they are at sports the bulk of the world don’t play (or can’t afford to play well), and for totaltarian regimes winning a bit of credibility when they don’t deserve it.
If anything, the inclusion of Rugby is closer to the Olympic ideal than more than half the sports that are in there, because it allows an otherwise disadvantaged part of the world to compete on an almost equal footing (the Pacific island nations).
Brian said | August 19th 2009 @ 10:04am | Report comment
I suspect that as has been said the real reason for golf and rugby is money. Having said that I think people need to understand that when the modern Olympics started in Europe the idea was to have all major sports. That is why football & basketball are in and why tennis & now golf got added. We in Australia like to think of the Olympic sport as just for amatuers because the sports we predominantly play (Ausse Rule, Rugby, Cricket) aren’t played much elsewhere. This would suit us however some Europeans see this approach as unfair. So because football becomes popular you kick it out? What if in 100 years field hockey is the world’s most popular sport, well the champions trophy would be huge and it would have to go? Before the football world cup the Olympics was the biggest event (won by Uruguay as a de facto world cup in 1924 and 1928).
Obviously the original idea is now unrealistic and I personally would like football out of the Olympics, however there is a solid reason why its there. Likewise golf and rugby have built themselves up to have a worldwide appeal which netball does not have. Not sure why squash can’t get in?
Pippinu said | August 19th 2009 @ 10:28am | Report comment
“Not sure why squash can’t get in? ”
Because as a spectator sport it’s about as appealing as archery?
Pippinu said | August 19th 2009 @ 10:29am | Report comment
…because you can only accommodate about 100 spectators at a time??
Brian said | August 19th 2009 @ 10:48am | Report comment
fair enough. I’m not a huge squash fan, just seems like quite a worldwide sport now, how many watch the fencing or weightlifting? But yeah I get your point
Pippinu said | August 19th 2009 @ 10:54am | Report comment
I was only kidding – I honestly don’t know – do real criteria exist?? You wouldn’t have thought so – not just looking at the recent decisions, but looking at the recent history over the past couple of decades.
I imagine it’s become a case of who’s got the muscle, who brings in the dollars, who’s getting bribed, etc.
Shahsan said | August 19th 2009 @ 11:28am | Report comment
Weightlifting? That is as basic as sports gets, matched only by the runners and swimmers (citius) and i guess the high jumpers and pole vaulters (altius). Weightlifting is the fortius in the Olympic motto. Nobody in any sport can do what the top weightlifters can do. It is hugely popular as a spectacle.
Pauly Walnuts said | August 19th 2009 @ 8:32pm | Report comment
Ah but what they need to do is make all 4 walls see through. Obviously, from the players’ perspectives the walls could not be see through. Does the technology exist for that? My thoughts are that doing that would quadruple the number of spectators for each match.
Jason said | January 21st 2011 @ 8:39am | Report comment
Irrelevant. Televised audience is all that matters.