With the opening ceremony due tomorrow – and much too late for old farts like me to watch live – the ugly side of international athletic competition is alive and well in South America.
When the world decided to resurrect the Olympic Games in 1894, it was, generally, with the best of intentions. Athletes, and sportsmen in general, were amateurs, and the spirit of competition was the main criteria.
Politics, power and racism aside, the founding principles remained for longer than perhaps could have been expected. But, humans being what they are, if its an ideal to strive for, why not screw it up.
And so the cheating, drug-taking, and a variety of other irritants began to emerge. But the worst of all was the competition that evolved between the countries putting on the games.
As soon as governments, and the forces behind governments, become involved in what should be a competition of athletic prowess, things are going to get screwed. Too much money, too much disruption, too many empty legacy promises.
So, here is a resolution, or maybe one and a half resolutions.
This is, fundamentally, a world-wide competition, and therefore it makes sense, and seems only fair, that the venue is in different parts of the world. However, as a world-wide competition, why shouldn’t the world pay for it. Why place a continuous series of countries into debt every four years, when all those who participate can contribute.
Different rates and levels of contribution would have to be negotiated – a nightmare in itself no doubt – but a rational means of maintaining a competition that, at its core, is based on fairness.
The other half resolution would either involve, financed on the same principle, permanent sites spread among the various continents/regions of the globe, which would detract a little from the ‘legacy’ advantages; or one permanent site. But would the world ever agree on that, or where it should be?
Just a thought.
cherokoffdotcom 