The Olympics: All About the Benjamins?
By Saxon Baird - Aug 18th, 2008 at 4:49 pmMichael Phelps just put on what was arguably the most spectacular exhibition of athleticism in Olympic history. Newspapers across the country have hailed him as possibly the greatest Olympian of all time. And while Phelps’ talent is undeniable, I can’t help but view his success as not just a demonstration of talent and hard work, but of resources and economic backing. Not to take away from Phelps’ historic Olympic success, but I have to ask: Would Phelps have done as well swimming for a country with fewer economic resources to support its athletes? I doubt it.
The top three medal winning countries as of today are China, the United States, and Russia. All of which are large, economically affluent countries. Australia, Germany, and France make up the fourth through six th spots. In the top 10 medal winners there are only three Asian countries, and none located in Africa or South America. The reason for this is clear: A country’s Olympic success directly correlates to the level of funding and the quality of training it can provide to its Olympic athletes.
Take Britain, for example. According an article in The Daily Telegraph, prior to the 2000 Sydney Olympics, Britain divvied up 5 million pounds among the 28 Olympic events in which it competed. In 2000, this funding was boosted and the end result was Britain’s best medal results since the 1920 Olympics in Antwerp. In 2006, Prime Minister Gordon Brown increased Olympic funding by yet another 500 million pounds. The outcome is that Great Britain has the third most gold medals and is sixth overall in the medal count so far.
Admittedly, this doesn’t appear to apply to every events. Less economically viable countries are often able to compete in sports like baseball, soccer, and volleyball. However, these countries also only excel in a few sports and will be nowhere near the top medal finishers. For example, Cuba’s baseball team is currently undefeated in Olympic competition. But Cuba is only competing in seven different sports. Or take soccer: Last Saturday, Nigeria and Cote d’Ivoire competed against each other in the men’s soccer quarterfinals (Nigeria advanced), but men’s soccer is the only sport in which Cote d’Ivoire is competing, while Nigeria is only competing in four and has not medaled so far.
The Olympics seem like little more than a self-congratulatory chance for rich countries to further bolster their claims of superiority by shelling out enough funding for their athletes to compete at the highest level. My Olympic watching is thus selective; if the global south doesn’t have a chance in a given event, then I don’t care about it. Congratulations to the G8 (plus China and the Aussies): You have officially asserted your dominance over the rest of the globe in yet one more way.
what about the population differences? it’s not true for every event, but to claim that a country with 300 million citizens and a varied climate should be on par with a nation of 10 million in an equatorial area is quite a logical jump.
rather than complaining and seemingly negating the accomplishments of such world-class olympians as usain bolt and francoise etone, we should be celebrating their accomplishments.
also, i hope it isn’t a surprise that more events featuring americans are shown than others. the network coverage your most likely to see is american, and the american public is generally more interested in seeing americans compete than others. the events may all be seen online, though.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:47 pm[...] But I think Saxon Baird at my other blog, Pushback, raises some really critical points when he reminds us that success and failure at the Olympics are not disconnected from economic or national [...]
August 20th, 2008 at 12:49 amRather long winded way of stating the obvious. So what? Should the G-8 just stay home and feel guilty about being “rich”? You talk about success as if it were a bad thing.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:57 am