Time to right-size the Olympics

Once again, the Olympic Games have come round on their four yearly schedule, rather like a returning comet which gives a grand display for a couple of weeks and then fades from view for a long time. And what a strange display it is; a rag-bag of top-level international events contested by the best in the world, combined with some restricted, toned-down, deliberately devalued contests without star appeal. Along for the ride are some sideshow events in minority sports getting their 15 minutes of fame, including some which are so minority that their inclusion is out of place; down to the risible events which barely exist outside the Olympics themselves (what do Greco-Roman wrestlers do during that long 4 year interval?). All this bookended by extravagant opening and closing ceremonies, the self-regarding pomposity, the flame, the flag, and the wasteful absurdity of building huge stadia which, all too often, only ever hold one major event. The Olympics have long been bloated and costly, but only ever get bigger and more expensive. It’s time to right-size the Games; but what to keep and what to drop?

Athletics is the heart of the Games. Running, jumping and throwing are the most basic of competitive sports. Everyone can access them, millions participate globally, and the Olympics are on a level with the annual world championship events which fill those long, four-year gaps. Similarly, the swimming, cycling and gymnastics are top-level events in these accessible, mass-participation sports (although there are perhaps too many medals for very minor variations on these themes). But move on to, say, men’s football – the world’s most popular ball game and team sport – and the event is hobbled, restricted to under-23s and also held back by FIFA’s rule that clubs do not have to release players to participate. This is all about money, and not allowing the Olympics to get in the way of FIFA’s lucrative franchise, the World Cup. The actual matches are played in satellite venues, so the players don’t enjoy the atmosphere of the athletes’ village. Some players, offered the chance, decide not to play in the Olympic tournament, as it is of questionable competitive value and their club game comes first. But, if the event is deliberately held back from being a full, senior-level international tournament, why bother to hold it at all? What’s the point of following the Euros with a low-level sideshow of a competition with only a handful of superannuated star players (like Thierry Henry)? At least Olympic tennis gets the top players and is up there with Grand Slam events.

The Olympics have always provided a showcase for sports which get little attention at any other time. Events like water polo, fencing, and canoeing exist in much smaller worlds than athletics or soccer, but are respectable sports all the same, and arguably deserve to piggyback a little on the bigger events now and then. But when it comes to, say, curling, or Greco-Roman wrestling, one has to ask whether the inaccessibility of these sports, and the tiny global number of regular participants, means that their inclusion is anachronistic? Similarly, the equestrian sports are accessible only to people who can afford horses.

Possibly, though, they are not as anachronistic as some of the events confected purely to make up the Olympic roster, like the “modern” pentathlon, the biathlon, or some of the truly bizarre sports which have been dropped from the Games, like “plunge for distance” and pistol duelling. Actually, although “plunge for distance” comes up near the top of the list if you search for “weird Olympic events”, it’s more or less what they do at the start of most swimming races.

The Olympic movement is trying to update itself with the inclusion of new sports such as skateboarding, surfing, BMX cycling, snowboarding, sport climbing, and now breakdancing. But these “new” sports are actually decades old, and it’s just playing a very slow catch-up with other events like the X-games. While some of them are highly skilfull and athletic, they are only marginally classifiable as competitive sports at all. Too many events rely on a panel of judges giving marks for artistic merit, like artistic gymnastics, synchronised swimming and ice dancing. While the ice dancing is beautiful to watch, and gets a big audience, there’s a Strictly flavour to it which makes it sit awkwardly with events that are judged by objective criteria of time, distance, points scored, or crossing a finish line.

At least they’ve dumped the amateur principle. Believe it or not, although the “modern” pentathlon was invented as a test of soldiering skills, ordinary cavalry soldiers of a century ago could not take part, as they rode and shot for a living; while their officers were considered amateurs at these things, and therefore were allowed to compete. It was a game invented to cater specifically to the wealthy upper classes and military fetishists of Europe, which has survived right up to the present day. It’s hard to believe that the modern pentathlon would exist as a competitive event without the Olympics. We’ll have to see what becomes of it once the equestrian component is replaced by an obstacle race; many pentathletes come into it via riding, but nobody grows up competing in obstacle races.

So I’d suggest the Olympics should be shaken up. It should limit itself to proper competitive sports with a global, mass participation base, and as far as possible with objective criteria for scoring and winning. It should only put on top-level events, attracting the best in the world, in which the Olympic title is on a par with the world championship. The events should be widely contested in national and regional competitions – so out goes 3×3 basketball and any other events which don’t exist at an elite level except for being in the Olympics. Global access is another issue – Africa has 860 golf courses (more than half of them in South Africa) compared to over 2500 in the UK alone, which suggests that it’s another rich-world event that doesn’t sit comfortably in the Games.

The events which cannot be held in the host city – like the surfing, and, usually, the sailing – should be dropped. Certainly, I’d give credit for the most skilfull and spectacular sports, over the slow, grunting, steroid muscularity of, say, weightlifting, because spectacle is important – which argues against the barely visible sailing events, and also the rowing – boring races held over courses which don’t even have corners. Target shooting and archery are simply not worth watching; they are something you might try at a fairground, but are highly repetitive and dull for onlookers. The most tedious event of all is air rifle shooting; people standing absolutely still, aiming at static targets. There is literally nothing to see. It fails completely as a spectator sport. The Games should celebrate human performance, so I’m also with the movement – which seems to be gaining ground – in favour of dropping the horse-dancing and show-jumping.

If all that cuts the Olympics down in size by about half, that would be good. Further, as the venues already extend around the world (this year’s surfing event was in the south Pacific), there’s absolutely no excuse for the continuing exclusion of African venues. Let’s make it cheaper to host the Games, so that African cities can bid, and be absolutely unbending in standing against corruption and drug use. In short, cut the crap; make the Games matter; and make them stand for something.

And that something should not be money. The “amateur ideal” was never ideal to start with (reflecting the class prejudices of a century ago, and favouring the rich), but since it was ditched, the Olympics have become ever more the creature of financial interests, with the sale of TV rights at the Paris games to Warner Brothers Discovery (limiting the amount of broadcasting by free-to-air public service channels) and sponsorship of the events by Visa and others (so you can’t buy food, drink or merch at a Games venue with anything other than a Visa card). The IOC grows ever more fat on such deals, which restrict access but are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Where does it all go? The host city still has to pay for the facilities. The IOC itself, deciding between bids by host cities, has long been notoriously corrupt – unsurprisingly so, when a fairly small number of people get to make such a big-ticket decision. The structure of the IOC (like FIFA) is a recipe for corruption, riddled with patronage and conflicts of interest, lacking checks and balances, and a tendency to be dominated by strongmen. There has always been vote-buying by cities bidding to host the games, and further opportunities for shady practices when big contracts are put out, including embezzlement, favouritism and overspending. It has always been a pity that, while the athletes aren’t directly paid to appear, people behind the scenes are making out like bandits. If the actual competitors are in it for their country’s honour and for the personal satisfaction of being an Olympian, certainly not everyone has such noble motivation.

This year, Britain’s athletes (I don’t like the “Team GB” brand) have come home with a respectable haul of medals, but they return to a country in which so many school playing fields have been flogged off, swimming pools closed, and other local authority facilities and sports clubs, run down and starved of funding. The lottery money which supports elite athletes keeps Britain’s end up at the Games, but we may ask whether it’s another example of extravagance for the few and squalor for the many. Lottery money is largely raised from lower income punters, and seeing it spent on show jumpers and rowers leaves a bad taste. Rather than pumping cash into the top level, I’d rather see the money spread wider, providing the widest possible access to sport, in and out of schools. Even if that means fewer medals at the Olympics. In the end, what is it all about unless it does something positive for young people inspired to take up sports, and even for older people who will never be competitive but who can participate for fun and health? Always we are promised a legacy of increased access and participation; but the reality is one of ever increasing obesity and shrinking lifespan.