(The Name of the Class)
(The Name of the Instructor)
(The Name of the Institution)
(Location of Institution)
Transforming the Modern Olympic Games
Introduction
“Although it is disappointing that softball was not reinstated in the Olympics, we are going to continue to keep growing the sport.”—Jennie Finch
The above quotation by Jennie Finch alludes to one of the various changes that the modern Olympic Games have undergone over the years. There are many who can argue both for and against those changes. This is because these changes have both yielded positive and negative effects as it pertains to the organization of the Games. However, one thing generally remains constant over the years is, as demonstrated in ancient times, the Olympic Games are held at the hosting country every four years (Kuper, G.H. & Sterken, E. 2001). Nevertheless, in 393 A.D. Emperor Theodosius of Rome “considered them to be pagan and decided to forbid the Games” (Kuper, G.H. & Sterken, E. 2001, 2). It was Baron Pierre de Coubertin who made the proposal to “revive the [G]ames in 1892” (Kuper, G.H. & Sterken, E. 2001, 2). He was successful with “his initiative and since 1896 the modern Olympic Games have been organized” (Kuper, G.H. & Sterken, E. 2001, 2). B. Christine Green (2008) explains that Coubertin had the vision to use the “modern Olympics as a tool of peace and understanding” (129). Furthermore, B. Christine Green (2008) explains that it was Coubertin of the belief that sport can be a “vehicle for social and personal change” (129). Nonetheless, despite the intentions of Coubertin who had originally proposed that the Olympic Games be used as a “tool for social change,” the mega-event has undergone some organizational changes, as indicated previously, which appear to support economics, and securing the mega-event, and focusing on the winning medals at the expense of true competition. In assessing the available literature, it has been discovered that the three key ways in which the modern Olympic Games since their inception in 1896 include the following:; countries’ focus on winning rather than participating in the mega-event; the cost of hosting the Olympics has increased substantially over the years; and the number of sports involved in the games.
Section 1: The Three Key Ways in which the Olympic Games have changed since their Inception in 1896
Gerard Kuper and Elmer Sterken (2001) explain that the “very first editions of the Summer Games competition was not fierce in most of the events” (2). In those early days of the competition “[p]articipation” was “more important than winning” a medal (Kuper, G.H. & Sterken, E., 2001, 2). However, over time “winning became more important and competition increased” (Kuper, G.H. & Sterken, E., 2001, 2). This became even more evident during the Olympic Games that were held in 1936. Kuper and Sterken (2001) mention that during this time the Games were “politicized by Nazi Germany” (2). It was during this period that Nazi Germany that both “national” and “individual performance” were the “focal” points of “attention” (Kuper, G.H. & Sterken, E., 2001, 2). Mark Baimbridge (1998) contends that this politicization of the games by Nazi Germany was an attempt by Hitler to show how Germany athletes were “‘necessary for national standing’” (161). Furthermore, Baimbridge (1998) explains that this strong emphasis on winning by Germany in 1936 was a “testament to Nazism,” which is a divisive ideology that threatens the unity of nations even at the Olympic Games (161).
Nevertheless, Kuper’s and Sterken’s (2001) study shows that although the “economic condition” of a country can influence the country’s ability to participate at the Olympics, it does not have an effect on the country’s ability to win medals (11). However, it should be noted that the “home advantage” is important for “winning gold medals” (Kuper, G.H. & Sterken, E., 2001, 11). Kuper and Sterken (2001) confirm through their research that even before the Second World War guaranteed that the hosting country will have increased “participation and success” in winning medals (11).
Therefore, this explains why countries are willing to spend multi-millions of dollars to win the bid to host the Olympic Games. In fact, Stephen Essex and Brian Chalkley (1998) contend that during the period of “1960 and 1984” the Olympic Games were considered to be too “large and expensive for hosts” (1). In addition, the “staging” of mega-events such as the Olympics posed certain security problems, such as “political interference” and “terrorism” (Essex, S. & Chalkley, B., 1998, 1). Nevertheless, the commercial success of the “Los Angeles Olympics of 1984” and the “urban transformations” connected to “the Barcelona Games of 1992 have renewed interest in the event” (Essex, S. & Chalkley, B., 1998, 1). Correspondingly, the total number of bids has increased from 1984 to present (Essex, S. & Chalkley, B., 1998). Essex and Chalkley posit that the “remarkable growth in the number of candidates” is the “clearest possible evidence that cities” now consider that it is possible to obtain “major benefits, related in part to the globali[z]ation of television coverage” (Essex, S. & Chalkley, B., 1998, 2). On the other hand, when one considers the “increased scale of the Olympics” and their “major infrastructural requirements,” few countries in continents, such as Africa and South America, will unable to have the finances to host the Olympics (Essex, S. & Chalkley, B., 1998, 2). Essex and Chalkley (1998) contend that if the “distribution of host countries” is not “more equitable” then the “value of the Olympics as a genuinely global event will be diminished” (2).
Furthermore, Vassil Girginov and Jim Parry (2005) indicate that the number of sports in the Summer Games is “28” sporting events and there were “7” sporting events at the Winter Games at the time they were writing their book (146). However, Girginov and Parry (2005) explain that “a dozen of other sports are” clamoring for “inclusion” by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) (146). The writers explain that “[a]ny new sport” means “additional facilities, transport, services, communications and additional costs” for the hosting country (Girginov & Parry, 2005, 146). Furthermore, it should be noted that Girginov and Parry (2005) contend that “the ever-increasing number of sports, events and athletes” creates the problem of “‘gigantism,’” which “would destroy the original spirit of the Olympics,” an idea that was “until recently” totally “rejected by the IOC” (146). It is because of this very reason that the IOC decided to identify a “number of sports that may have to be removed from the Games” program at a session in Mexico City in 2003 (Girginov and Parry, 2005, 146).
Section 2: How Countries’ Preoccupation with Winning Medals has affected the Olympic Games
Baimbridge (1998) argues that the “interest” in the Games is “diminished by the long-run ascendancy of a few countries, to the exclusion of the majority,” which “would appear counter-productive to the durability of mass participation” if “national interests failed to be” adequately “satisfied through the winning of medals rather than merely by participation” (161). However, it seems increasingly difficult for countries to focus on solely participating in the Games since some connect the value of their nationhood with the ability to win medals at this sporting event. For instance, Andrew Bernard and Meghan Busse (2000) describe a New York Times headline, which read “‘Despite its 108 medals, U.S. Rates Mixed Success’” (as cited in Bernard, A. & Busse, M., 2000, 2). Additionally, Bernard and Busse (2000) note that in “Mexico, Japan, Singapore, Colombia and Egypt” the low medal tally led to “national self-examinations” (2). Moreover, the writers recalled that after the Sydney Olympics, The Globe and Mail newspapers indicated that “‘Canada’s Olympic fears come true: Despite a few bright spots, athletes not only won fewer medals, they performed below their own and nation’s expectations’” (as cited in Bernard, A. & Busse, M., 2000, 2).
Furthermore, Bernard and Busse (2000) mention another headline that was printed in a British newspaper in 1996 that read “‘Olympic shame over Britain’s medal tally’” and another that read “‘Britain in danger of being left at the starting line’” (2). The British people in particular value the idea that performing well in a sporting event was an important part of developing a person’s “character traits such as equanimity, bravery, and honesty” (Llewelyn, 2012, 2). This might explain why the “passionate, Anglophile Coubertin” promoted the revival of the Olympic Games in the late 1800s (Llewelyn, 2012, 2). Additionally, it is this mindset that has allowed Britain to place such significance on winning medals at the Olympic Games.
Barrie Houlihan and Jinming Zheng (2013) argue that although many countries are satisfied with “simply” attending the Games but there are other nations that have “additional ambitions” such as “winning a medal, winning a gold medal, finishing in the top ten of the medals table and hosting” the Olympic Games (3). It is because of these “ambitions” that have led to the creation of a “strategy for the identification and development of elite athletes” (Houlihan, B. & Zheng, J., 2013, 3). Many of these “more ambitious countries” include developed nations and super powers, such as Great Britain, the United States, Russia and China (Houlihan, B. & Zheng, J., 2013, 3). The scholars noted that “almost all developed” countries the “domestic elite sport industry supported by publicly controlled resources either directly (i.e. taxation) or indirectly (from some form state lottery)” (Houlihan, B. & Zheng, J., 2013, 4). Houlihan and Zheng (2013) argue that although these countries will be pre-occupied with the idea of hosting the Olympics, “it is highly advantageous, if not quite essential, that the country has a record of success” at the Games (3).
It is because of industrialized nations’ focus on winning that Bernard and Busse (2000) contend that a method should be devised to determine “how many medals countries” are required to win in order to have true “national Olympic success” (2). This method would allow developing countries, which cannot afford to participate in all of the sporting activities at the Games, to be able to compete at the same level as the developed countries. Bernard and Busse (2000) posit that the “most ardent xenophobes would not suggest that a single country should win all the medals” or “even all the gold medals” at any one staging of the Olympic Games (3).
Stage 3: The Ways in which Countries’ Preoccupation with Winning Medals at the Olympic Games have not benefitted the Games
Although it should be noted that there are positive benefits for countries having the ambition to win medals, such as gaining positive recognition for the country and instilling national pride, placing too much emphasis on winning medals by one can lead to other nations being disadvantaged. Kuper and Sterken (2001) argue that it is wealthy countries that can afford to “specialize in sports, to train athletes better, to provide better medical care, to send a larger group” to the Olympics and so on (4). In addition, “richer countries” have been able to participate at “more events than developing countries” (Kuper, G.H. & Sterken, E., 2001, 4). This has enabled many wealthy countries to win more medals than developing countries. Bernard and Busse (2000) explain that although “China, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh have a huge share of the world population” all of these countries “together account for under 5 percent of world GDP in 1996, roughly equal to their share of medals” (3). It is because of these statistics it is said that the “[r]eal GDP” of a nation is the “best single predictor” of this nation’s “Olympic performance” (Bernard, A. & Busse, M., 2004, 413).
As mentioned previously, it is usually the wealthy countries that can afford to host the Olympic Games. Therefore, this means that developing countries will be able to miss out on the benefits that come with hosting the Olympic Games. One of these benefits includes the creation of new jobs, as witnessed during the preparation of the Atlanta Olympics of 1996. It has been verified that “over 580 000 new jobs in the region between 1991 and 1997” occurred during the preparation of the Atlanta Olympics, while it occurred, and after it took place (Malfas, M., Theodoraki, E., & Houlihan B., 2004, 212). Furthermore, it was during the Atlanta Olympics of 1996 that “major infrastructural development” took place (Malfas, M., Theodoraki, E., & Houlihan B., 2004, 212). Additionally, it has been proven that countries hosting the Olympics “typically win an additional 1.8 percent of the medals” outside of “what would be predicted by their GDP alone” (Bernard, A. & Busse, M., 2000, 19).
It is because of the concern that developing countries will be placed at a disadvantage at the Olympics at the expense of wealthy countries who are able to garner the resources to host the Olympics and prepare their athletes (which allow them to be compete and win medals) that scholars have argued that for a formula to be developed to determine the number of medals that need to be won for a country to compete successfully at the Olympics. Bernard and Busse (2000) argue that since “athletic talent is randomly distributed” and “therefore medal winning should be proportional to population” (19). It is based on a formula similar to this one that has allowed the “United Nations Population Information Network” to declare “Tonga the winner of the Games” of 1996 (Bernard, A. & Busse, M., 2000, 3). This is because Tonga had a “medal to population ratio more than twice as high as the nearest competitor (9.4 medals per million inhabitants)” (Bernard, A. & Busse, M., 2000, 3). The scholars argue that “population should play a role in determining country medal totals” (Bernard, A. & Busse, M., 2000, 3). This is because countries with large populations have a “deeper pool of talented athletes” and, hence, have a “greater chance at fielding medal winners” (Bernard, A. & Busse, M., 2000, 3). When this formula is utilized then poor countries will be able to compete at the same level as the wealthy ones. If this is not done then academics, such as Baimbridge (1998), contend that if only a few wealthy nations are given the opportunity to be successful at the Games then there could be a “potentially less successful future for” the Olympics in the “new millennium” (164).
References
Baimbridge, M., 1998. “Outcome uncertainty in sporting competition: the Olympic Games 1896–1996,” Applied Economics Letters, 5(3), pp.161-164.
Bernard, A.B. and Busse, M.R., 2000. “Who wins the Olympic Games: Economic Development and Medal Totals.” NBER Working Paper Series.
Bernard, A.B. and Busse, M.R., 2004. “Who wins the Olympic Games: Economic resources and medal totals (Notes).” Review of Economics and Statistics, 86 (1), pp.413-417.
Essex, S. and Chalkley, B., 1998. “Olympic Games: catalyst of urban change,” Leisure studies, 17(3), pp.187-206.
Girginov, V. & Parry, J., 2005. The Olympic Games Explained: A Student Guide to the Evolution of the Modern Olympic Games, New York: Routledge.
Green, C. B., 2008. “Sport as an Agent for Social and Personal Change.” Management of Sports Development, pp. 129-147.
Houlihan, B. and Zheng, J., 2013. “The Olympics and elite sport policy: Where will it all end?” The International Journal of the History of Sport, 30(4), pp. 338-355.
Kuper, G.H. and Sterken, E., 2001. “Olympic participation and performance since 1896,” Available at SSRN 274295.
Llewellyn, M.P., 2012. Rule Britannia: Nationalism, Identity and the Modern Olympic Games, New York: Routledge.
Malfas, M., Houlihan, B. and Theodoraki, E., 2004. “Impacts of the Olympic Games as Mega-Events.” ICE.
