What is sometimes known as the ‘cult’ of amateurism has a long history in sport and sport research. Its implications and meaning can be seen as both benign and pernicious. Pierre de Coubertin saw the idea of amateur competition from the idealistic perspective of the Olympic Games revival, with its emphasis on healthy and amicable international rivalry undertaken for the love of sport itself. Other theorists see it in a darker light as betokening class exclusion and hypocrisy. And of course – as with most controversies - there is plenty of evidence for both these points of view.
The rapid approach of London 2012 is being reflected all around us, especially in TV advertising, with British athletes appearing for their commercial sponsors, and presumably being paid to do so, actions which would have rendered them ineligible to compete in the Games not so long ago. Ultimately, though, the amateur idea could not be sustained by an IOC which sought to maximise its own wealth and power through lucrative sponsorship deals. So the ‘cult’ has been unceremoniously dumped - at least in the Olympic arena.
The corporate and commercial nature of the Olympic Games is now firmly established and totally unequivocal. This has to be good for the elite athletes, who can freely market their skills and be amply rewarded for them. But how has this changed the way we regard the Olympic Games, and is there any room in the future for the ‘higher’ ideals that motivated people like de Coubertin? Would he subscribe to the ethos of the current Games or would he set about creating new ones, untainted by considerations of monetary reward?
The cult of amateurism in sport has had a bad press in academic circles because it has notoriously functioned – or at least historically - as an instrument of social exclusion; but in its original, literal form denoting a ‘lover’ of sport it still thrives among thousands of people who take part in sporting competition for its own sake. Will we see amongst these genuine amateurs a movement towards an Olympics-style competition which operates strictly on an amateur basis? Such a movement would feed into the ideas of some commentators that the Olympic Games have become impossibly large and corporate, and that they ought to be ‘de-mythologised’. For host nations too, in the present world recession, the demands and expectations which inevitably accompany the holding of an Olympics may have become too inflated and unrealistic to sustain. The unspoken idea that each Games have to be better than the last creates daunting challenges and effectively prevents less developed countries from acting as hosts. Do we really want the Olympics to be the sole province of the wealthier countries?
There is no gainsaying the fact that the Olympic Games as a spectacle are an enormous crowd pleaser. The drama and the excitement of watching elite athletes at their best could not easily be equalled in any other way. As sports fans, would we look forward so eagerly to a competition between less gifted athletes, in an atmosphere of strict practicality and a whole lot less razzmatazz? Perhaps we need to ask ourselves these questions honestly.
References
Eisenberg C , ‘Playing the market game: cash prizes, symbolic awards and the professional ideal in British amateur sport’ in Sport in history: journal of the British Society of Sports History 2011, vol 31(2) p197-217
DS shelfmark: 8419.623500
Amateurism in British sport: it matters not who won or lost? edited by Dilwyn Porter, Stephen Wagg. London: Routledge, 2008
London reference collections shelfmark: SPIS306.4830941
DS shelfmark: m08/11877
D.J Taylor, On the Corinthian spirit: the decline of amateurism in sport. London: Yellow Jersey, 2006
London reference collections shelfmark: YC.2010.a.6751
DS shelfmark: m06/27381
Allison, Lincoln Amateurism in sport: an analysis and a defence. London: F Cass, 2001
London reference collections shelfmark: YK.2001.a.12930
DS shelfmark: m01/33931
Comments