With the word ‘Olympic’ again prominent on the back pages of London’s newspapers beneath the names and faces of athletes so ‘elite’ that they are only ever seen by we mere mortals every four years, I am struck with the inadequacy of the word ‘games’ which follows it.
What part of the Olympics is a game?
Channelling my inner pedant I see lots of competition but no games and as the parent of a two year old daughter armed with both a tea party set and her mother’s bossiness, I am a man who has learnt a thing or two about games recently.
The delineation between game and competition begins somewhere around the level of seriousness with which the task is undertaken and whether the focus be on the participants’ enjoyment or result.
But with the title, Olympic Games, are we stuck and my search must continue.
Cynically I would suggest the games part of the Olympics is the bit where we all pretend that the organisers aren’t corrupt mini-megalomaniacs with ethical borders more porous than that between Texas and Mexico.
We crowd them with our great and good, listen to their speeches, cheer when they pronounce this ‘the best Olympics ever’. I’m quite sure some of them see this whole IOC thing as a bit of a game too.
Closer to the bone is the game where we pretend that we don’t notice when foreign born athletes drape themselves in the colours of their newly adopted country with exactly the same self-interest for which bankers are currently vilified and against which hundred of people are protesting in various ‘Occupy’ camps the world over.
More to the point we pretend not to notice the crass, win-at-all-costs mentality this identifies in our sporting administration and the way we have all come to rely on it to maintain our sense of self worth.
Too much of a whinge? Perhaps, but why did the Australian government lower the residential requirements for foreign born athletes from the standard four years, applicable to non-olympic hopefuls, to just two years?
Obviously the intention is to capitalise on those athletes’ prime years but try to find an answer as to why that doesn’t make you feel uncomfortable.
Does our government really believe that it is in the national interest that these people be able to represent Australia as quickly as possible?
Are Australians so delicately perched on their self-perception as world beating sportspeople that we value winners more than we value ourselves?
The issue isn’t a xenophobic one but rather more mundane. I am no great nationalist but shouldn’t Australian sporting representatives be representative of the state Australian sport?
If we do well in the Olympics shouldn’t that be because we are doing well in the backyards, fields and stadiums throughout Australia?
I am, I fear, doing precisely what I wanted to avoid and that is ‘harping on’ but the more I tease out the point the less satisfied I feel with the entire thing.
The answer is of course, as I am sure to be told in the comments section below, to just get out there and support your country but lacking the necessary wool and hooves to do so I must sadly decline the invitation in advance.
The other point often made is that these athletes, like everyone, have the right to earn a living in their chosen profession. And so they do however, this argument is then extended unquestioned to include their right to represent Australia.
There is a strange sense of 19th century colonialism in that thought and if the argument were true it follows that every athlete has the right to represent any country they should chose with the only hurdle being that they must be prepared to relocate there.
Why not just remove that hurdle altogether?
Why not begin the Olympics with a huge auction of athletes with countries bidding for the services of the world’s best. What a perfect way to put some excitement into the perversely dull and often embarrassingly jingoistic opening ceremonies.
Imagine the excitement as the world waits to see which country Usain Bolt will be running for and who is going to get lumped with Jamaica’s bobsled team.
Of course this would greatly advantage wealthier nations but isn’t that already the case?
The other option is that we turn the auction around and give the choice to the athletes instead.
Personally I find this solution much more acceptable to the subversive side of me and picture an opening ceremony where athletes reveal how much they are willing to pay to represent the flag of their choice.
An international popularity contest where athletes could show a little solidarity with countries going through a bit of a rough spell. After the shocking year New Zealand just suffered, I’d be happy to offer my services to the Tall Blacks for a game or two should they need me.
There is something so much more wholesome about throwing your lot in with a country you would pay to support rather than one that is desperate to pay for your services.
Perhaps the field could be expanded from just countries competing to include causes and charities. The world’s finest athletes could find themselves boxing for breast cancer or synchronised swimming for children in Africa.
I’d much rather see Help for Heroes or the Starlight Foundation heading the Olympic medals table than China or the USA.
As absurd as this is, it would provide a wonderful ethical counterbalance to the corruption at the heart of the Olympic movement and perhaps ensure a legacy beyond the usual white elephants of unused facilities and ridiculous debt. I can’t decide which but I feel I am either onto something or on something.
Either way, this feels right.
Matthew Skellett
Guest
While I agree with many of the points raised in this article and though the 2000 games turned out be one of the most drug-soaked games on record -I was one of the volunteer drivers for the Guatemalan National Team and I have to tell you that I have never known such a joyous/happy feeling that I experienced in those 2 short weeks and to see my glorious city take part in such joy and happiness was something wonderful that anyone who was a part of it will always treasure in their hearts .
Tom Costain
Guest
Firstly let me congratulate you on a well rounded, erudite, column....even from most of your repliers. I agree that the Olympics have been hijacked...largely by "Big Business"..and the first world countries. First among these countries is, of course, my own USA. Who pushed hardest for tennis?? Moguls? Who is pushing for Olympic golf, and baseball??? What next..Skate boarding?? BMX?? America Football??? Guess!! The Olympics were not only started to promote competition between athletes...they were to demonstrate the participants abilities in the "martial arts". All the original sports had an application in battle....think javelin (spear) and discus...both weapons. One last point...and the one that grieves me the most. You said somewhere that "Anyone should have the right to be able to make their living at their chosen sport"..(or words to that effect). Everyone seems to have forgotten that the Olympics were, up until recently, for AMATEURS...professionals were not allowed to compete. I strongly believe it is time they returned to that state.
Johnno
Guest
No it doesn't Joh. Coz there i a market to for non performance enhancing sports , and the athlete has the right to joinh them, if there is no market for that then that is how the market works anyway. ANd many athletes already get health problems trying to keep up. Creatine, and all these protein powders , and various tablets are some example.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
It's precisely this sort of thinking that allows the Olympic industry in Australia to flourish - funded 99.99% by taxpayer dollars.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
My response is: tough. If you're interested in the Olympics, fine, just find a way - or go get a job like the rest of us. I had a dream once of being a rock star - but I couldn't pursue it because I had to get a job.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
I was a kid pre-1976, when hardly any taxpayer money was spent on sport - and my memory is that we all played sport - lots of sport.
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Crawford found that for all the money spent on creating Olympians the past 30 years, and for all the success we have had winning medals the past 16 years, obesity levels have risen. So the question has to be asked: what has been the purpose of spending 100s of millions of dollars on allowing a few dozen individuals to hang medals round their neck?
sheek
Guest
Ian, Brazil tend not to commit much energy, money & talent to the Olympics. They mostly play association football, the world's most popular football code, & look at the results - 5 world cups - 1958, 62, 70, 94 & 2002!
sheek
Guest
Jiggles, That's what an Australian sports doctor - Tony Miller - kept on saying in the 70s & 80s. It was politically incorrect of course, & he was derided for saying so, but it was the reality. Authorities didn't have the will to challenge drug cheats, & the multi-media moguls 7 sponsors didn't want numerous cheats exposed, because it would have affected their product, & bottom line. So Miller was basically saying, let's cut the crap & pretendies, & bring it all out into the open & let everyone who want to soup up, do so. Let's face it - we're such a hypocritical species.....
JohnBGoodington
Guest
This forces everyone to take them to keep up. The adverse effect is that rather than being miles healthier than the general population, your Olympic athletes will have stuffed kidneys, messed up hormones and all sorts of damaged bodily functions.
Hoy
Roar Guru
I don't know why, but I take pride in how Australia does in the medal tally. I will be close to clinical depression if England pants us this year. I just don't think I could handle it. I know it is going to happen, but I will just feel terrible to have those damn Poms have more gold than us. And they are doing it with our coaches in many sports... Because funding isn't there to pay the coaches in those sports in Australia. I would rather fund the damn odd sports than some stupid 20/20 visionary meeting that did squat for our country anyway, or the half arsed funding for a computer for each child in school that never happened, or any other wasted excess our government usually throws away. Naturalising other athletes is an odd one, I am not entirely comfortable with. I can't handle the League World Cup when players seem to be able to pick and choose which country they want to represent after they fail at selection for their desired country, and then come back again after it when their form improves. I just can't stomach that.
B.A Sports
While i don't like too many extra sports being added, sure they may help Germany, the USA, China or Australia pick up an extra medal, but maybe they are also providing those smaller countries with another opportunity just to compete?! I bet it was a wonderful moment for people from the Marshall islands, Tuavalu and Montenegro when for the first time in their countries histories they were able to watch their citizens compete against the best in the world! What a thrill for the kids of those countries.... And where else can Jamacia compete with the big first world countries? Afgahnastan won its first ever olympic medal - in Taekwondo. Sure we don't care much for the sport, but it would mean something to many Afgan's I was fortunate enough to be in the Olympic village for a month in Sydney 2000 (during the Olympics and Paralympics). I saw first hand the cultural melting pot. The way athletes got a chance to mix with athletes who they admired not just in their chosen field, but in sports they loved to watch. I could see how much it meant to these people, who work so hard in their chosen sport, often for little financial reward, and sometimes at their own expense, to have an opportunity to be somebody for a day.
Australian Rules
Guest
Jiggles, we have seen it. The 1988 Mens 100m - 7/8 runners in that race tested positive after the Games...imagiune what those guys could do with modern pharm techniques!
traread
Guest
I guarantee that some of the people on this thread who are saying that we should cut funding to Olympic Sports would be the same people who would say "why is there no government funding for sports?" if the tables were flipped and funding was cut and we had an Olympic Team sent every 4 years of about 30 people because individuals can't afford to become elite athletes on their own merit.
AndyMack
Guest
No, but it gets more people interested in archery, and those people then get down to the local clubs and become members. I dont have the figures, but im guessing the number of people joining archery clubs jumped after that guy won gold (forgot his name, but Bruce McAvaney had a massive man crush on him at the time).
purple_shag
Guest
Interesting that this piece is coupled with a picture of Bradbury. Surely given it's content, a photo 'our' other winter olympic gold medalist Dale Begg-Smith would have been far more appropriate. What a gun for hire story that was. I can almost hear that telephone conversation between Dale and the Aussie Ski Federation, after he was told he couldn't ski for Canada if he didn't come to all the training camps, which he couldn't because of his busy life as an internet entrepreneur (in which he ran a company that was responsible for pop-ups among other things). Dale: Hey there, my name's Dale and I want to ski for you. ASF: Ahhh, you any good? Dale: I'm the best moguel skier of my generation. ASF: Sure mate, sounds bonza. Our snow's for sh!t, so no need to move here. We'll send your uniform in the post & see you at The Games... er.. I mean The Competition. www.therestijustsquandered.com
The Cattery
Roar Guru
Duncan that's precisely where I am coming from, and is also the gist of the Crawford report - we're talking hundreds of millions of dollars to support a couple of hundred elite athletes in winning medals - none of that money is trickling down to grassroots participation.
Duncan
Guest
Andy, I think the point here is that the money isn't going towards those clubs to keep them going but towards the athletes - I use that term broadly when describing archers - who are in the elite category. Don't get me wrong I like archery and have played many minority sports at a pretty high level (squash, hockey, archery) all my life. Last year my son had his birthday party at an Archery Club and it was great, but I very much doubt there was much in the way of federal funding keeping that place afloat, hence the need for them to raise both interest and funds by hosting kids parties. I'd prefer my tax dollars to unearth the next archery superstar by keeping clubs strong than by supporting one or two athletes.
AndyMack
Guest
Is that a problem you can lay at the feet of the Olympics?? Wouldn't have thought so....
AndyMack
Guest
The way our footy players pursue glory at their own expense??? Would rather give a bit of tax money over to the sports that receive no sponsorship, but are important to keep going. Earlier you had a go at Archery, but do you know the 1000's of people of who get enjoyment from archery in their lives, as an activity? A bit of money will keep that going. We seem to idolise our footy players and cricketers, who all make very good money (some of them make obscene amounts of money) and some behave like jackasses but that is OK. So much cynicism towards these "lesser" sports is a bit unwarranted.