With the venue for the 2016 Olympic Games decided, the International Olympic Committee now turns its attention to whether or not to admit golf and rugby sevens in time for the Rio de Janeiro games, with a vote taking place on 9 October. Adding sports to the games is always a tricky decision. On the one hand, a sport must not be too small, but on the other hand, if a sport is too big, the Olympic Games may struggle for relevance alongside that sport’s major events.
There are two extremes that the IOC is constantly balancing: either the games should only be for ‘traditional’ Olympic sports where a medal is the pinnacle of achievement, or it should be an all-encompassing jamboree that welcomes as many credible international sports as possible. The modern sporting world is an international and financially driven one, and it seems that most sports are chasing the holy grail of Olympic status. Governing bodies around the world know that it brings kudos, support, and funding. This time around, softball, karate, roller sports and squash have all missed out. Meanwhile others such as darts and snooker covet future places in the games.
For golf and rugby, there are different questions. Golf is undoubtedly a huge international sport. The question is whether it is too big. Despite assurances from the Royal and Ancient Society that the top players will all attend, questions remain about the attitude of the top professionals. Whilst Tiger Woods may be keen, as he has nothing left to win in the traditional calendar, will other pros really favour the Olympics over the majors? Looking at tennis, a sport with a similar calendar and culture, top players often compete in the Olympics, but not always, and it is clearly taken less seriously than the grand slam events. Witness Beijing last year, where Andy Murray admitted to being underprepared because he was focusing on the US Open, whilst Andy Roddick preferred to play a tour event in Washington, despite being a real contender for a medal. This is the situation golf must avoid. It must also battle perception, as traditionalists on both sides will see this development as unnecessary, and there will be something strange about seeing golfers on the podium, although admittedly golf does have an Olympic history dating back to the early modern games.
For rugby there is a different challenge. Rugby sevens has integrated nicely into the Commonwealth games, but it is a sport primarily played in those nations. Is rugby international enough? Would sevens properly represent the sport? Finally, how would it be taken seriously in an already packed international rugby calendar? Rugby arguably does not need the Olympics, it has its own prestigious world cup, and sevens is largely regarded as a sideshow that excludes many of the world’s top 15-a-side players. However, there are two key counter-arguments. The first is that outside of the major rugby nations, the game lacks funding and publicity. Olympic inclusion would bring both of those to national teams who would gain exposure and access to central funding, thus expanding the game. Secondly, the IRB has committed to abandoning the sevens world cup in favour of the Olympics, thus helping to create space in the calendar, and making the Olympic medal the biggest prize in sevens. With the games taking place in the European rugby off-season, many top players would be available, although those from the Southern Hemisphere would need to be released from Tri-Nations duty. The fact remains however, that throughout the rugby world, the Olympics would not be the biggest prize in the overall game. A situation may arise similar to that in football, where the games are seen as an annoyance in many circles, although there is greater enthusiasm in Africa and South America than there is in Europe, with its crowded schedule and powerful club game. Inclusion may be good for rugby, but whether it is good for the Olympics is debatable.
Ultimately it is for the IOC to decide what is best for the Olympic games. For those who see football and tennis as being surplus to requirements because neither sport cherishes its involvement, this will seem an unnecessary expansion that will only dilute the Olympics. Arguably one of the selling points of the Olympic games is that it is a showpiece event for sports that do not otherwise always garner such attention. The marquee events are the athletics and swimming, and those are what the public associate with the games, whereas rugby and golf will always be associated with other tournaments. Would squash and karate not have fitted in better with the current portfolio of sports? For others however, it will make the games more relevant, and ensure the presence of even more of the world’s top sporting stars.
It seems a given that both sports will be voted in, as they have been recommended to the IOC by its own executive board, and only time will tell whether or not rugby and golf fit neatly into the Olympic family.
No comments:
Post a Comment