Why I’m Glad Amateurism is Basically Dead in the Olympics
September 16, 2006 by Rico Mossesgeld
Filed under Sports Rumors
Amateurism officially died around the 70s, when the IOC dropped it from the charter. And I believe this was a change for the better.
Let’s accept a simple fact: Amateurism just doesn’t work for the Olympics. And it’s not because cities can allegedly win hosting bids through lots of money. Keeping athletes from earning money from sports is simply unfair.
The word amateur is actually French, meaning “lover of.” Thus the amateur ideal is someone who plays just for the love of the game, without expecting to win money. But I believe such an ideal is irrelevant in today’s world. I’m not saying Olympians nowadays no longer love their sports. I mean, only true passion will keep a person struggling through the many practices and trials required to develop the skill and talent to suceed.
The Olympics does bring out the best of the world, especially in Track and Field. Thus, to have any chance of winning, competitors must spend a lot of their time training. So if most of their schedule is occupied, how else will they be able to put bread on the table? They’ll need venues to prove their prowess, and be rewarded for such with money. That’s where non-Olympic or regional competitions come in. But the thing was, if you were paid for competing, goodbye Olympics. It didn’t even matter if you’ve earned money through a different sport, as Jim Thorpe found out the hard way.
It’s unreasonable to expect atheletes not to make money off something they spend so much productive time on. Recognition and fame is good, but like I said, you still need to put bread on the table. Such a problem wouldn’t exist for the wealthy. Much of their income is passive, and thus they can concentrate on their athletic dreams easily. And this was another unfair aspect amateurism unintentionally brought to the Olympics. It made it harder for the less fortunate to compete. The Olympics is the showcase of talent it is today because people from all walks of life now have a chance to compete. Who said that only the rich can do it harder, faster, better, stronger?
So I’m glad that amateurism is basically dead in the Olympics, because it allows people to be justly rewarded for simply following the dream of being the best in the world.
And this was another unfair aspect amateurism unintentionally brought to the Olympics. It made it harder for the less fortunate to compete.
I read in either Time or Reader’s Digest several months ago that this was intentional, at least in the modern incarnation of the Olympics. Those who drafted the charter wanted to limit participation to the wealthy.
As for the ancient Olympics, the athletes were not amateurs – at least not in the true sense of the word. They competed for glory, which brought money. This allowed them, if I remember correctly, to earn in one competition, what the average worker would earn in a whole year.
That’s what I remember. I can’t really cite anything now, but I’m pretty sure I’ll be digging through my shelves soon.
Haha, I think I read that issue too. Yeah, the athletes weren’t amateurs, and they weren’t above bribing the judge to fix the game. :o
And that’s what makes this Olympic “ideal” of amateurism even more absurd. I’m glad Baron Pierre de Coubertin revived the games, but I’m also glad that today’s Olympics are more open, and that wealth is no longer a requirement. A focus on passion and talent makes for an interesting game, no? :)