The Olympic Spirit?

In ancient times, the Greeks of old would agree to get together and have their most impressive and accomplished athletes compete against one another. This was done in the spirit of cooperation and peace, so the competitions were an outlet for possibly violent impulses otherwise. That meant that the Olympic spirit exhibited back then truly were done in a beautiful and cooperative spirit.

Of course, those games did not last past the Greeks, and they were then relegated to the annals of history. At least, that is, until the 19^th century, when this spirit of peaceful competitiveness began to impress some enough that they tried to set up something similar, on the model of the games that the ancient Greeks played.

Thus it was that in 1896, the first modern Olympic Games were played. Pierre de Coubertin had come up with the idea of a new Olympic Games in the mold of the ancient Greek tradition. He got the idea from Much Wenlock, a small town in England that, nevertheless, hosted what were called the Much Wenlock Olypmian Games, which are still held in the present day, and which many locals suggest are a truer representation of what the "real" Olympics and the spirit behind them were really like, rather than what the official, trademark "Olympics" have now become.  

The present Olympic Games were a much smaller event than it has become now, of course. It was also done with a decent spirit in mind, and there was true cooperation between countries, for the most part. As such, it truly did follow the right spirit of the games from way back in ancient history, and seemed to be yet one more symbol of a greater, more enlightened spirit that existed between humanity and the nations that they separated themselves into. It was not perfect, to be sure. But it certainly was an improvement from the total absence of games beforehand. Certainly, these games did not prevent war, perhaps, and the games were, in fact, suspended during the major wars. However, they continued after the wars, and seemed again more to draw nations together, than push them farther apart, generally.

Hanging on for that long, one could make a compelling argument that the games were an unqualified success.

Something changed along the way.

The Olympics mean something else entirely in this day and age. They are supposed to represent good will between nations, and a 16-day respite from the tensions and problems of the world in order to enjoy the thrill of competition at the international level. Yet, it seems to be something else entirely these days, so what is it? What happened?

This is a short piece, plus I am not exactly an expert on the history of the Olympics, so this hardly qualifies as an extensive history lesson, so be forewarned. But that said, I think that it would not be entirely unfair to look at our history, see the parallels in time and circumstances and themes, and draw some conclusions about what sets apart that more idealistic approach to the games that seemed more prevalent in the 19^th century and early 20^th century (perhaps even to the point of naïveté), and what the games have gradually become over time.

The games these days are completely corporate infested. They are huge money, and they draw huge sums of money. People flock from the world over to come to see them, and people tune in on their television sets from all over the world, as well. These broadcasts are also filled with advertisers, filled with corporate sponsors.

Corporate logos adorn many of the Olympic events and the athletes themselves, in many cases. Sometimes, it is almost all hype. Remember “Dan” or “Dave” from the early nineties? They were two top American athletes who were supposed to be the best in the world, and they were essentially competing against one another, the rest of the world be damned, right? But as it turned out, one did not even qualify, and the other proved a huge disappointment. Advertisements like this do more harm than good.

Which brings me to the next point, and this, I think, is more specific to the United States, and to the American people that support their athletes, than to any other country in the world. Here, the Olympic athletes are almost like a well-oiled machine. They are supplied with a lot of money (by the aforementioned corporate sponsors with those deep pockets), and get top notch training – the best that money can buy, literally, in every sense. The best facilities, the best equipment, the best and most up-to-date training by the best coaches that money can buy, and so on and so forth.

Why so much money? Because, even though the games are essentially peaceful on a certain level, they also are geared on another level to raise up the fighting spirit, if you will. Testosterone runs rampant, and we thump our chests in pride and glory every time another American athlete wins another medal for US, especially if it’s gold! Then, they dominate the headlines, there are human interest stories, and their faces become familiar to one and all back home. There are background stories of them on the network showing the Olympics, then they come home and choose which late night show to go on first, maybe making the round on several of them, perhaps an interview or two on the nightly news, and probably a rally in their hometowns, where they are treated like heroes. It’s a win-win all around! Almost every Olympics, summer or winter, there is an Olympic medal count almost from the very first, and the United States, to it’s credit, features among the very elites, the leaders, almost systematically. In the end, we beat our chests over how well the athletes represented US.

So, is that so wrong?

Not necessarily. But the thing is, is that right? If the spirit of the Olympics was honest and fair competition, then it is fair to have them essentially have some measure of healthy rivalry. But like so much that we do in this country, it is greatly overdone, to the point of such extremity that our focus on ourselves and “our” superior athletes closes minds, rather than opens them. It is, once again, another illustration of the Olympic spirit being so tainted as to be rendered meaningless. Instead of a coming together of all the athletes from all over the world, the focus is on our athletes, and how they fair against the rest of the world. We focus almost exclusively on American athletes, and we barely even hear about athletes from anywhere else, unless they are the big favorites or wind up winning a medal away from US. Aside from those sobering moments when our athletes do not actually rank among the very top contenders, the virtually exclusive fixation on our own borders on narcissism.

Nor is this reserved to how we view the athletes. Let us remember that the Olympics these days are all about competition, on every level, in every way. That includes the drive to be host of the Olympic Games. The United States leads in that category as well – art least for now. We should not forget that the games were hosted by the United States more than any other country during my lifespan – in the last thirty-five to forty years. The Olympic Games were in Lake Placid for winter of 1980, they were in Los Angeles for the summer of 1984. They were in Atlanta again for the 1996 summer games, and most recently, they were in Utah in 2002 – after evidence of corruption was found in regards to bribes and such, ousting other potential candidates to host those winter games. Since then, the Olympic Committee seems to have gone away from the United States, perhaps as symbol to show the world that it would not always cater to America’s wishes and play the stooge.

In short, the very games and the spirit behind them that were supposed to open people's minds were, in many respects, doing quite the opposite, entrenching unhealthy nationalistic sentiments of superiority, rather than any promotion of some kind of fair competition. Let us not forget that in this, the largest capitalist economy in the world, we are supposed to welcome competition. The hypocrisy of the undercurrent of reality is reflected in the hypocrisy that the Olympic Games have come to represent. It sounds like a good idea in theory. But in practice? Well, the corruption allegations speak volumes, and the last time that the United States hosted the games (in Utah in 2002), there were widespread stories of corruption.

Need I say, of course, that this corruption is growing worse with time, and that more and more stories seem always to come out?

So suddenly, there is a long list of places aiming to get the games, and the United States keeps losing out to these. Chicago gets defeated by Moscow. London takes the 2012 games, and the winter games are in Vancouver in 2010, in Turin prior to that. But perhaps this new international spirit is tempered by recent history, when money spoke so transparently, that America seemed to desire to host every single Olympic Games, much like Hitler wanted to host every Olympic Games when he was Fuhrer, when he claimed that pretty much all of the Olympics after 1940 would be in Germany.

            When a city like Atlanta wins out and gets the centennial games of 1996 over the city of Athens, and the country of Greece, where the games had their roots, and where the first modern Olympic Games were held in 1896, has to settle for barely getting the 2004 games, and then on top of it gets blasted left and right for their "incompetence" because they simply do not have the seemingly bottomless supply of money, the bankrolls, that some larger countries (hint, hint) have, it seems that we have done something wrong, gone in the wrong direction, and lost sight of what the Olympic Games really were supposed to be about in the first place.

            Don't get me wrong, I still like the Olympics, and I will tune in. Many people will, hundreds of millions, perhaps even billions. And we all have a right to, as well. Just let's not pretend any longer that it is for some higher cause, or that it truly represents some unique spirit that is above the fray, and represents the very best of our collective values. Like all else, it is all about not just healthy competition, but a win at all costs obsession that has overtaken our country and, perhaps indeed, our world. That goes for corporations, who compete against one another and make backroom deals to try and get ahead. That goes for the coaches and the players, who dedicate their lives towards perfecting highly specialized skills in sports that they will not be able to utilize for a long term career, and who all too often turn to illegal, performance enhancing substances, in order to get the achievements that keep the money rolling in. All simply part of the big business wheel that crushes every last vestige of honor and dignity that once may have existed, known as the "Olympic Spirit". Finally, all of that goes for the fans, whose often rabid and biased support keeps the machine rolling. It may indeed once have been precisely that. But like almost all things in history, that has come to pass, and yielded

            When I was growing up, the Olympics were seen as a venue where amateurs competed for Olympic Gold once, and only once, in their career. That was already changing, of course, because many athletes in a number of sports began to compete in multiple Olympics, so it was hardly a one-shot deal. Yet, the working theory, if not always the reality, was that the Olympics were not the best athletes in the world, but the best amateur athletes. There is a difference.

            Things changed. Some athletes in figure skating competed for medals, particularly for gold, when they did not win it in their first Olympic appearance. The US Men's Basketball team in 1992, "The Dream Team", plowed through their games and easily won Olympic Gold, and started a trend that continues on to this day, with each American team being known as the "Dream Team" (gets a little stale, doesn't it?). Professionals now stop what they are doing in a number of sports in order to compete in the Olympic Games, in numerous sports, from basketball to hockey to tennis.

Maybe it can be claimed that we have added something in this regard, seeing the best athletes in any given sport represent their country, and compete for gold. But I would also argue that there is validity to the possible arguments that we have lost something, as well.