Are the Olympics an example of Capitalism at it's 'best'?

[Kid_Eternity]

Interesting read:

The Olympic Games are built on a series of fictions, but one myth towers above all others. It is that the four-yearly festival is a bastion of meritocracy, where success is determined by hard work and talent rather than privilege. This is central to the Games's global appeal and is particularly powerful because it chimes with common sense. Is not sport about the objective measurement of ability, leaving little room for entrenched privilege? Has not the Olympics been the traditional arena for the underdog?

Well, no.

Look beyond the propaganda and you will find that 58 per cent of Great Britain's gold-medal winners at Athens in 2004 went to independent schools. You will also find that in the past three Olympics 45 per cent of medal winners went to the non-state sector. Given that only 7 per cent of children attend independent schools, and assuming that sporting talent is spread evenly, this is a striking demonstration of how Olympic success is driven by wealth as well as by ability. Either way, the 93 per cent who attend state schools are chronically under-represented.

But this is as nothing compared with the global imbalance. India, for example, a country with almost one fifth of the world's population, won less than a fifth of 1 per cent of the medals available in Athens - one out of a total of 826. Africa, a continent dripping with sporting talent, won only 4 per cent of them. Can you think of a single global institution that is less equitable?

 

[girasol]

I think the Olympics are a good example of how amateur sport has been ruined by the Olympics

or something

actually amateur sport doesn't exist anymore does it? Not at this level.

 

[Fruitloop]

They are a good example of nationalist propaganda. And some folks that can run really fast and stuff.

 

[weltweit]

Why capitalism? I see no competing economic ideologies in this?

UK Private schools have fantastic sports facilities compared to most state schools so it makes some sense that there are quite a lot of people from a private schools background in the British olympic team. The questions you could ask are 1) why are private schools facilities so good, to which the only possible answer would be because they spend the required money on them. And 2) why are state sports facilities so bad in comparison to which the answer is because they don't spend the required money on them!

As to the global inbalance it comes I think also down to resources rather than populations. How much resource is spent getting the conditions right for atheletes to prosper. A capitalist country can do this and a communist country can also do this.

 

[el_starkos]

Maybe the Indians just don't like Olympic events? They're pretty kick-ass at cricket, which is about as public school as you can get (after croquet and bumming).

 

[London_Calling]

Look beyond the propaganda and you will find that 58 per cent of Great Britain's gold-medal winners at Athens in 2004 went to independent schools. You will also find that in the past three Olympics 45 per cent of medal winners went to the non-state sector. Given that only 7 per cent of children attend independent schools, and assuming that sporting talent is spread evenly, this is a striking demonstration of how Olympic success is driven by wealth as well as by ability. Either way, the 93 per cent who attend state schools are chronically under-represented

I like to consider the wider context and consider the less publicised angles but this is not a helpful statistic; First world countries with a relatively small underclass tend to perform well in sports which require high investment in infrastructure - pools, velodromes, rowing courses, etc., and also in equipment - bows, boats, bikes, etc.

That's because, world wide, these sports are less competitive (the infrastructure and equipment act as a barrier to entry).

Thus, in Olympics before this, GB has traditionally done well in sports like rowing and horsey stuff at least in part because they're less competitive.

Of course, you could argue the cost of participating also exclues the poor in the country itself (as well as poor countries elsewhere), but it would be a misrepresentation to argue that's a simple private/public school issue - people like Redgrave and Kelly Holmes demonstrate that.