By Adrian Musolino
August 19th 2009 @ 1:01am
What constitutes an Olympic sport?
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.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(65)
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.
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.
Millster said | August 19th 2009 @ 11:05am | Report comment
I really struggle about the Olympics these days too, even though I’ve been to a few and like the overall ‘big event vibe’ and the surrounding buzz in the host countries.
But essentially they have become a combination of the following:
1. An excuse for taxpayer subsidisation of ’sports’ (inverted commas deliberate) that would not otherwise be viable or sustainable; or
2. An excuse for a developmental / second-tier tournament for sports that do actually stand on their own two feet (and as part of that which have their own world championships)
My own view is that the Olympics should be significantly stripped back at a much purer form involving only individual or small team (eg rowing teams, teams track cycling) events. Basically put together an athletics meet, a swimming meet, a rowing meet, a gymnastics meet and some amateur boxing and weight lifting and leave it at that. For me I’d leave out any sport which is a ‘game’ – whether individual or team – rather than a simple contest of speed, skill or strength.
Pippinu said | August 19th 2009 @ 11:07am | Report comment
That’s not a bad way of looking at it.
What’s the motto again? Faster, higher, stronger?
Maybe bring back the tug of war!!
Pauly Walnuts said | August 19th 2009 @ 8:28pm | Report comment
The motto kinda seems to encourage steroids then…..!!!!
jack said | August 19th 2009 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
ok netball should never be in the olympic games because it is the worst sport in the world. played in 70 countries?hahahaha why don’t you name them. i have never seen such a stupid, pointless game then netball.hey i guess if samoa and the cook islands play it then it should be in the olmypics for sure. why don’t these girls just play basketball? golf should never be in there and some of you people have no clue when you say football should be kicked out.are you people serious? look at the crowds they get at the football and when you get world class players like lionel messi saying to his club i want to win the gold medal with argentina and miss all of pre-season or the brazilian superstars doing the same thing coz brazil has never won a gold then you know that the gold medal still means a lot even if these players get paid millions per season and play in the worlds best leagues,world cups,champion leagues etc…
Pippinu said | August 19th 2009 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
then you ain’t seen many of the 100+ games played around the world.
Shahsan said | August 19th 2009 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
Don’ knock netball. It is a wothwhile sport with a very clear point. It has different skills to basketball. I’m not a netball fan but can see when a spirt is being unfairly maligned.
On your point about football, I would argue that there would be no effigies burnt should Argentina or Brazil or Italy (or any major football nation) return home without winning the Olympic gold medal.
Most sportsmen in sports such as tennis, football, golf etc go to the Olympics for a laugh. They love going to the Olympics simply because it is a huge event: the pressure is off, and it’s something they never otherwise get to do ie stay at the Olympics village with their abundat suply of some of the best-looking men and women in the world who love partying and having sex once their event is over.
Athletes in sports such as football, tennis or golf hardly ever mingle at their majors/grand slams/worldcups. Aside from maybe the offical dinner, they only meet on the field of play and leave once they are out.
And for most soccer players, most of whom don’t have much of an education or schooling let alone university life, and therefore never even went on school excursions or hung out with like-minded people of other faculties/disciplines, the Olympics is the closest thing to a collegiate, fraternal experience they will ever have in their life.
megatron said | August 19th 2009 @ 5:43pm | Report comment
Netball is a very different game from Bball. However I don’t think it should be an Olympic sport as it is single sex. Wonder if that is one of their stumbling blocks.
albatross said | August 20th 2009 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
If football were played with full “A” teams and not under 23s then I would agree that it should be a part of the Olympics. But FIFA , the major leagues and the big clubs would not want this to happen.
AndyS said | August 19th 2009 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
Personal opinion: The Olympics should include sports that are a) widely played, b) not gender specific, c) sports for which Olympic success would be the pinnacle of achievement, and d) discretely measurable (i.e. anything with “style” marks is art, not sport, and shouln’t be there. I know that includes gymnastics – tough!).
Pippinu said | August 19th 2009 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
The criterion of measurability is very much along the lines of what Millster was talking about above.
Of course – that would mean that boxiing would be a 50/50 bet – but I think it’s not a bad criterion to go by.
Gudfala said | August 19th 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
I could never understand why luge is in the winter Olympics while competitive water sliding never gets a run in the summer Olympics.
Pauly Walnuts said | August 19th 2009 @ 8:26pm | Report comment
hahahahahahahaha!
Benjamin Conkey said | August 19th 2009 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
I wrote an article before Beijing about the inclusion of tennis, and how much of a joke it was. But I said that at the very least they could change the format of the sport to make it more wortwhile for the Olympics..such as having a hopman cup format.
If Golf does get the nod..it surely has to make it unique. You can’t just have a four round stroke event.
Pippinu said | August 19th 2009 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
9 holes?
Putt-putt?
AndyS said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
One ball, one club?
Pippinu said | August 19th 2009 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
…or chip and putt!!
Art Sapphire said | August 20th 2009 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
If they want golf to be in the Olympics, they will need to make it a team event like the Golf World Cup.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Cup_(men’s_golf)
The olympic prize will then become something to strive for and it won’t feel like a glorified run of the mill tournament.
They should have done the same thing to tennis – they should make it a mini – davis cup.
sheek said | August 19th 2009 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
I would suggest sports already with a well-established annual season, high profile & quad-rennial comp all be culled.
Tennis & golf have annual 4 majors each.
Football & rugby union have quadrennial world cups.
Basketball is one of the big 4 American professional sports.
These are just a few examples of sports that don’t need to be at the Olympics.
AndyS said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
But when Sevens have then offered to give up their quadrennial WC…?
Shahsan said | August 19th 2009 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
Exactly. And either theyre all in or theyre all out.
Pauly Walnuts said | August 19th 2009 @ 8:44pm | Report comment
What if a sport gets in under the criteria and subsequently develops a world cup type tournament/ event? That would then mean the sport is kicked out, so basically every four years the sports offered would/ could change, and would need to assessed against the criteria (which currently is not all that transperant, and uniformly being applied).
Brian said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:22pm | Report comment
So sheek – your saying take out sports in which people are interested. Road cycling must also go because of Le Tour and should the IAAF Golden League ever become successful with huge TV followings I suppose you’d take the athletics out as well
sheek said | August 19th 2009 @ 4:05pm | Report comment
Brian,
There’s no easy answer, is there…..?
Choppy said | August 19th 2009 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
Sheek,
Basketball is one I think should be included, a Gold medal is the pinnacle of the sport.
Agreed it’s a major sport in the USA but they don’t have it all their own way. Basketball is massive in Europe as well and Argentina have won the gold medal recently (2004 Athens I think).
I agree with you that Football, Tennis, Golf, Rugby Union don’t belong in the olympics.
QC said | August 19th 2009 @ 9:00pm | Report comment
Don’t forget NZ got to fourth once at the world champs something our big brothers across the ditch have never managed to do even though they routinely use us as whipping boys lol
megatron said | August 19th 2009 @ 4:36pm | Report comment
I think the IOC are digging their own grave here. They need to focus on sports that rely on the Games, ie attract the best the sport has to offer because it is the ultimate in their sport.
Golfers, like football and tennis, wont treat the Games with much respect.
Maybe the IOC feel they have to do this to keep the Games relevant.
I feel the turning point was Barcelona 92 with all the focus on Air Jordan and the Dream Team. Showed the IOC how powerful a marketing force these stars can be.
Simon said | August 19th 2009 @ 5:54pm | Report comment
A sport should only get into the oylimpics if it will be the pinicle for that sport. If there is a bigger tournament, it shouldn’t be in. Golf should not be in.
Pauly Walnuts said | August 19th 2009 @ 8:26pm | Report comment
Agreed. That takes out football, leaves golf with no chance. If only they could get rid of swimming, so boring!
hazey.the.bear said | August 19th 2009 @ 6:21pm | Report comment
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the Olympic Games have a focus on amateur as opposed to professional athletes? If that’s the case, then for me, that’s where the problem lies…In my opinion, the Olympics has became the spectacle it is today because of the inclusion of professional athletes, particularly in team sports, and all the hoopla that they bring with them. Of course, this probably happened before my time, but I’m sure I read about it somewhere.
Of course on the other side of the argument is that amateur athletes don’t have the ability to draw crowds and boost TV ratings. I personally wouldn’t have a problem with golf as a sport in the Olympics, for example, if it were limited to amateurs. It may not be particularly riveting viewing, but at least it would mean something. But as many people have pointed out, it’s all about the money these days…
Pauly Walnuts said | August 19th 2009 @ 8:50pm | Report comment
Cleary the Olympics could not be limited to amateurs, a ridiculous proposition. It’s like masterchef, winning the comp doesn’t mean your the best cook/chef in australia. Your the best out of the people who applied. The Olympics offer the gold medal winner the satisfaction and prestige of knowing that they are the best (person or team) in that sport in the world (as the majority of countries do field an olympic team). If you won the gold medal for golf, being the best golf amateur at the Olympics would be farcical.
QC said | August 19th 2009 @ 9:05pm | Report comment
Sadly thats not completely tue Pauly, for rowing a country can only supply one crew per class catergory. I’m not sure how laden other countries are with rowers but I know NZ and Germany could field two plus teams in some catergorys where they would all challenge for medals. So depending on the actual sport it does not necessarily mean you are beating the best there is when some aren’t able to compete due to the restriction of entry.
simon said | August 19th 2009 @ 9:29pm | Report comment
ActuallyQC the example is even more telling in table tennis. In reality, the best Australian may not even be in the top thousand best chinese players in the world, yet with restriction on numbers from countries, the best Australian will get to play the best player from China.
hazey.the.bear said | August 19th 2009 @ 10:43pm | Report comment
I agree Pauly that it’s extremely unlikely to ever be that way now, but I understand that’s how it used to be…And to me, I find it much more appealing: that an ordinary person, who is *not* paid to compete in the sport he/she loves, reaches a pinnacle in that sport. That seems to be the problem for many people – that professional athletes already have multiple tournaments/competitions, and the inclusion of these sports makes it seem like a money-grabbing opportunity for them and the IOC.
I don’t necessarily agree that all amateur competitors would be farcical – Try telling that to the 1980 USA Hockey team…As for the best golf amateur at the olympics being farcical – Is that any more farcical than the situation we find ourselves in now?
Pauly Walnuts said | August 19th 2009 @ 11:06pm | Report comment
The situation we have now isn’t that farcial IMO. Only where a sport is included in the olympics but the best in the sport do not take it seriously and a substandard competition exists. An olympic gold medal should be of equal worth/ recognition/ acheivement across the sports (there may be a loophole in my general statement there), but when substandard teams/ players attend and the competition for the gold medal does not represent the highest standard of the sport including the sport in the Olympics definitely would require re-examination.
Another point that I’m not sure has been covered is the ambitions of youth watching the OIympics.
If I’m a 5 year old kid playing say Basketball, and my goal isn’t the NBA, but to represent Australia in the Olympics, to have that dream snatched away from me in 20odd years when they reassess the inclusion of the sport would be cruel. Some consistency is required regarding the sports included, and therefore sufficient scrutiny/ effective decision making when adding and removing sports from the Olympics.
Pauly Walnuts said | August 19th 2009 @ 10:51pm | Report comment
Ok I concede that a silver or a bronze may not be a true indication of a person’s world ranking, as an Aussie might get 2nd place, whereas in a true non Olympic tournament, 1-10 may have been filled by Chinese table tennis players. But as for the gold medal, the Chinese player that takes it out has already competed against all his/ her countrymen/women and proved that he/she is the best to compete for his/her country.
Going even further off tangent… Steven Bradbury is a good example where the “best” team or person in the world didn’t win gold. Bradbury was strategic and fortuitous. A bit like italy at the last world cup, not necessarily the best national team in the world at the time, but clearly in line for the least sportsmanlike/ dirtiest (I can’t think of the most appropriate word to describe the diving…).
Barney said | August 20th 2009 @ 7:17pm | Report comment
The commitment shown by the IRB to remove the world cup in order to position rugby 7s with the greatest chance of Olympic inclusion is a tremendous show of faith to the cause. I totally agree with this article rugby 7s embodies the ethos of the Olympics and golf will always have other interested that will eclipses the games. It’s got to be rugby 7s day to be included.
constantine said | October 20th 2009 @ 1:35am | Report comment
brilliant article, i also dont understand some of the criteria. futsal and beach soccer should definately be in it. futsal especially. i used to think it was the games where olympics are the pinnacle of the sport, but why then (as pointed out) do they allow football, tennis and golf in. i understand they have headaches with football, on the one side they have to have a sport tournament with the mother of all sports, but on the other side its miles off the pinnacle lagging behind world cups, continental cups (euro etc), champions leagues, domestic competitions and then comes the olympics. they made it that countries send out u23 teams to ensure that countries participate and even then alot of clubs are unwilling to release their stars. all in all i tend to beleive that the big hitting international games like tennis and football slightly undermine the credibility of the olympics. whereas track and field will send the best they have, i really doubt we will see messi, ronaldo, gerrard, henry etc being released for olympic duty
SideShowBob said | October 20th 2009 @ 1:46am | Report comment
Aussie Rules 9s for the 2028 olympic games in Melbourne.