The Olympics: Excellence or exploitation?

Submitted by cathy n on 25 August, 2008 - 6:42 Author: Pablo Velasco

Who could not be impressed by the sight of the Jamaican Usain Bolt running faster than any human being in history? Or other awe-inspiring performances on the track, in the pool, in the veladrome or countless other venues? All that training, the coaching, the commitment, the dedication, the sacrifice, to go “citius altius fortius” — faster, higher, stronger.

The humanity of the Olympics, the taking part, pushing yourself to the limits, the striving — and above all the apparent equality of competition, has an undeniable appeal. The veneer of internationalism, the prominence of women and black people, of people from all round the planet, all give the event the tinge of progress and liberty.

But what about the politics of the Olympics?

The Olympics were revived at the end of the nineteenth century by imperial social Darwinists anxious to prepare their nations (and races) for war or at least for social peace. Baron de Coubertin founded the Olympics while searching for answers to the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. These modern concerns fused rather well with the ancient Greek tradition, where the Olympics were part preparation for war, part worship of the gods.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has to rank as one of the most unrepresentative and reactionary organisations in history.

Avery Brundage, President of the IOC from 1952 until 1972 was an open supporter of the Nazi regime whose company got a contract in 1938 to build the German Embassy in the US. Brundage opposed the participation of women in the Olympics and was responsible for expulsion of US sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos from the 1968 Mexico Olympic after their iconic Black Power salute.

Juan Antonio Samaranch, was a prominent member of Franco’s fascist government in Spain of before he became IOC president (1980–2001). He was responsible for the sponsorship and broadcasting deals that have turned the games in an orgy of multinational capital, where McDonalds and Coca Cola associate themselves with health, while Nike and Adidas fumigate their sweated garments.

Apart from the suffocating nationalism, what spoils the Olympics is the big money — the involvement of capitalists and their lackeys in government. The 2012 London Olympics has a budget of around £10 billion, will be built by cheap, agency labour and transfer taxes and entrance fees into the pockets of the rich.

Despite efforts to present the Olympics as apolitical or non-political, the controversy has always been there. The Nazis used the 1936 Berlin Olympics to showcase their regime. The 1956 Melbourne Olympics were boycotted by some countries because of the Russian repression of Hungary and by others because of Suez. Both the Moscow (1980) and Los Angeles (1984) were boycotted by the other side because of the Cold War.

There have been more progressive interventions. The Black Power salute of was perhaps the most significant, but the Olympics were also affected by the anti-apartheid struggle.

The “Play Fair” campaign, in its own limited way, has exposed the exploitative labour conditions under which the merchandise is produced.

Should socialist favour the reform of the Olympics or its abolition? The Olympic brand is probably too far bound up with business profits, government corruption, geopolitical rivalry and nationalism to be salvageable. Any attempt to democratise the Olympics in the present world would have to take on powerful interests, and would have few powerful levers to change it.

For sure the IOC should be abolished and replaced with an association of sportspeople without national or corporate representation.

It is difficult to see how such a conglomeration of so many different sports at one event could survive the IOC’s break up. Perhaps better instead to have a series of competition of the best athletes, based on their performance at the start of the season, representing themselves with no national paraphernalia. Team events could involve random or equally weighted squads.

Of course inequalities would be hard to eradicate, given the financial and technological support provided in some countries. A system of transfers and subsidies to give opportunities to athletes from the poorest parts of the world would probably be necessary.

This is a long way from where we are today. But with the 2012 Olympics ahead, there is an opportunity for socialists to question the Olympics as currently constituted, while preserving the pursuit of sporting excellence. In terms of the construction work, the facilities, the costs of admission, and overall funding costs passed on to working class people, there will be opportunities to struggle in the years ahead.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.