LOLympics legastainability: withdrawal and hangover, thus far.

[alaimacerc]

Some thoughts on the Olympics, recycled from the unsuspecting QI forum.  Probably tl;dr for there, and what's worse, it's grown in the meantime...

Comments

[mr_malk]

I enjoyed the Olympics. I usually do, which is slightly surprising in some ways. I'm not even vaguely interested in most of the events in it most of the time, and the World Championships certainly doesn't get me to sit down and watch them, but there is some magic about the Olympics that all the money and corruption that so clearly permeate the Olympic organisation as a whole fails to snuff out.

I won't comment in detail, but I will put forward a defence of Underdog of the Day. I don't agree with you. It wasn't racist. I can see why you'd think it was, as most if not all of the participants were furriners, but it's exactly the same attitude that turned Eddie "the Eagle" Edwards into a household name, and if the British Sporting Authorities were a bit more relaxed about letting Britons participate in events that they palpably no hope of even being competitive, then the Home Nation's Right to Enter Everything would probably have thrown up more home grown entries.

Actually, that focus on "Meet Medal Targets Or We'll Cut Your Funding" is probably the thing that I have most reserves about in the aftermath. Much as I loved seeing the Home Team doing so incredibly well, I do feel very uncomfortable that we have parted company so explicitly with the "It's not the winning, it's the taking part" ethos. I suppose you can't have one without the other these days, but hopefully, if all this talk of grass roots legacy sport participation takes hold, it will make it easier to live with.

[alaimacerc]

I do agree about the "magic". At the risk of us both sounding like Andrew Roberts, this time. The athletics might be the core of it, but on their own at the WCs, there's something a little... brisks and clinical about it, without the minority sports with their inflated medal counts, privileged access, and general silliness. :)

I think there were UK (and/or clingy dependencies!) entrants in every *sport*, though admittedly not necessarily in every *event*. I suspect it's constrained as much by Olympics qualification standards as by sports body willingness. If you're already sending a massive team, you're not going to be special-cased in to particular events on the Z-Standard for "development" or "inclusivity" reasons. I think the furrinerness is key. Even if they *might* have featured an Eddie the Eagle in the same way, the connotations would have been rather different. And Eddie's coverage was never quite so patronising as to reduce him to a 30s clip underscored with the "Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em" theme. It's a bit like Mitt Romney coming over and 'gaffing' by saying... a somewhat milder version of what most of the UK has been complaining about with some venom for months. In-group commentary is inevitably different from out-of-group commentary, especially in a context that's already putting *huge* stress on said group distinctions. I happened across an article by a US journo (on AOL, I think -- that still exists?) smirking at the degree to which the UK coverage and commentators were "homers", as he put it. You know things are pretty bad when the star-spangled flag-drapers are accusing you of laying on the chauvinism a bit thick.

I do agree about the "we're paying you by results, dammit!" attitude. That's been well telegraphed for quite some time, though, and I'm not anticipating it getting any better, anytime soon. Grass roots participation... let's hope so. Either in those indoor sports, or after this island group has been towed someplace less squelchy.