When talking about the Olympics in class recently, we discussed Olympism and the ideals of Olympism. To me, it seemed as if Olympism was just that, idealistic, and not much more. In theory, this concept seems great. It is very nice to think that everyone will come together to compete in these games for enjoyment. Another nice thought about Olympism is that everyone can put aside their differences for duration of the games and have friendly competition. Unfortunately, I think that is not at all how the Olympics are perceived by the athletes competing, members of each nation, and spectators around the world.
The Olympics are very similar to every sporting event around the world in that everyone wants to win. Like Herm Edwards famously quoted in a press conference, "YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!" Merely participating is not enough anymore. Was it enough for USA men's basketball to not win gold? No, and that's why they hired Coach K and transformed the environment of the team. Was it enough for Michael Phelps to win a few medals? No, and that's why he murdered his body and swam about 14 times to win eight gold medals. If it was enough just to participate, countries would not have training centers for children at extremely young ages to prepare them for the Olympic games ten years down the road. I remember hearing a story about the Chinese national beach volleyball program. From the story i heard, China had bought an island for all of their potential beach volleyball Olympians to live on and train on. They also submersed their players in southern California so they could play against some better competition throughout training. These things do not happen if the goal of the Olympics is to just participate.
The thought of Olympism also reminded me of similarities that surround the NCAA. The commonality is that both have great theoretical purposes. The Olympics are supposed to bring nations together who might not always have the same views and allow them to compete in friendly competition for two and a half weeks. The NCAA is supposed to provide a place where student-athletes can flourish as just that: students and athletes. Again, we would be lying to ourselves if we thought that the ideals of the NCAA were upheld, especially at the Division I level. Examining just men's basketball and football in the NCAA, you find that many of the student-athletes are not graduating from their institutions. They use their scholarship to have a full time job of athletics in hopes of reaching the professional level. It is very much one sided as opposed to the idea that each individual can succeed in both realms. Now, obviously there are those who can do both in intercollegiate athletics. And there are obviously some Olympic athletes who are there for solely the experience. However, in both instances you would be remiss to think that there is not a higher purpose. Nowadays, the purpose of both these events is to win and to get paid. This is from the athletes' standpoints as well as those of the sponsors.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would be tempted to say that you are being cynical about the NCAA and the Olympic ideals if I were not in agreement with what you have written. While you mentioned that "Olympism" is more of an ideal than a reality, another way to think of this is that it is an ideology. It operates as an idea that people want to embrace. It is the reason that so many people tune in to watch and hope to be inspired by this ideal. And yet, underlying these high-sounding ideals (whether of "Olympism" or in the case of the NCAA, the notion of "amateurism"), NBC or CBS, or whoever happens to have the broadcast rights, is banking on our emotional investment in those ideologies. In that sense, I totally agree with you that these ideals sound good "in theory." I will not even try to play "devil's advocate" on this. The one thing I will say is that no matter how skeptical I am about the ideologies underlying the Olympics and NCAA sport, I still find myself caught up in what they profess. So, how is it that I (and others) am/are so easily duped?
ReplyDeleteSteven and I get along pretty well and I think the two of us, at least with sports, think along similar lines.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that the idea of student-athletes at the big time DI level is a joke, AT TIMES (certainly not ALL of the time).
I can't believe that Derrick Rose went to many classes while at Memphis for a year (if so, good for him), and all of the athletes that were just found to be cheating at Florida State and when Jim Harrick was at Georgia and his son was doing papers for kids. The list could go on and on and on. It's like the secret that everybody knows but rarely wants to talk about.
But with the Olympics, I don't think much of them during the "off season" but I love them when they're on. I love the competition and the fact that people come from all over the world. I love the stories of people battling through adversity, injuries and setbacks.
But I think we build things up in our mind and we build people up over time and the media also plays up the good in a story and downgrades the bad, especially when it's in their best interest to do so.
People say, "those were the days." I think it can be like tall tales, they get better and better as time passes. "He won by a step, he won by a second, he won by a mile!"
I believe people are inherently good, for the most part, and I want to believe that Michael Jordan was superhuman. I want to believe that Michael Phelps is just the epitomy of all that is good and all that is right.
But they're just people with coveted abilities within athletics. They have their vices just like anybody else. MJ experienced a lot of issues with gambling and he had his share of marital trouble. And Phelps' down falls were obviously well exposed.
So I'm duped by the Olympics as well and I like extracting the good and leaving the bad alone as long as it's typical stuff.
I find it a bit interesting what our conception of Olympism is especiallyafter we watched the video about Olympic history. The video did not describe an event of enjoyment for the athletes. It was an event that revolved around winning. There was much shame in losing. Perhaps the Games were more pure in their original state, but I still think there was equal if not greater pressure put on the athletes to perform. There were no multi-million dollar endorsement deals waiting for the star athletes nor was there a media to put an athlete on a pedestal. There was much more at stake for them. Winners were remembered for “eternity.” That was their guarantee that they would not be forgotten. Where did the modern idea of Olympism come from? I think the original Games confirms what Steven wrote in his blog that it is more of an idealistic image that we have created about the Olympics and one that we would all like to be true.
ReplyDelete