11/18/24
August 13, 2003
Michael Johnson speaks out on the Athens 2004 Olympics: saying that they will "pale in comparison" to Sydney's 2000 Games. He also says that he can see the IOC offering prize money to medalists, something Johnson "wouldn't disagree" to. (more inside).
posted by Ufez Jones to other at 11:02 AM - 13 comments
I disagree about the money thing. The whole cool thing about the Olympics is that (mostly) non-professional athletes compete to win. That's it. They may get $$ and endorsements afterwards, but the thrill is in the winning. If you throw money into it, it cheapens the whole thing. I'm already really really annoyed that professional athletes (hockey, basketball, etc.) can take part. The whole point is for non-professionals to do it. Then they can take their show "on the road" afterwards. But without the professional athletes and without the money, I feel it's the most "Pure" sports we can watch. I don't care if the Athens games are less money-making and modern than the Sydney games. I think it's cool that it's going to be there. If they can't handle all the people that Sydney could, then they should just sell less tickets and have better TV coverage. The price you pay for a symbolic tipping of the hat to the place that started it all.
posted by aacheson at 11:59 AM on August 13, 2003
One of the things we discussed here during the Winter Olympics was the role money already plays in these games -- rich countries have equipment and training advantages that poor countries can't match. I don't know that prize money would cheapen it, though it would make it technically impossible for any winner to be called an amateur again. However, when I take the gold in curling in 2006, I expect to be compensated handsomely.
posted by rcade at 12:21 PM on August 13, 2003
Its cool to see Iraq and Afghanistan getting invites today.
posted by garfield at 12:51 PM on August 13, 2003
I don't know that prize money would cheapen it, though it would make it technically impossible for any winner to be called an amateur again. The olympics are obviously far from being an amateur competition any longer. The advent of dream teams in basketball and hockey (to name the most prominent) sullied the Olympic name more than anything else. In some of the other sports the Olympics are about as high as you can go. Gymnastics for example. The gold medal there is the ultimate gymnastic goal. Ask most NBA rookies if they'd rather win a Gold Medal or an NBA Championship and I'd be willing to be that 9 out of 10 would say NBA Championship. For me with regard to the Olympics, it's relative for each sport, and that's why I don't personally think that compensation for winners (and I'm thinking a token amount here, like $100,000 for Gold Medal maximum) wouldn't tarnish the Games too much. It wouldn't be enough to be a striking motivator to somebody like Kobe Bryant, but to a marathon runner, it could be their largest potential payday. To make one last analogy, there are all kinds of bonuses built into athletes' contracts if they make it to the Super Bowl or World Series, and larger bonuses if they win. Does that tarnish those competitions? In my opinion no, because that is the ulitmate goal for every athlete that plays football or baseball. The olympics aren't the ultimate goal in basketball or soccer, so the athletes doing it are doing it for other reasons (national pride, for one). In figure skating or track and field, it gets no better than the Olympics and I really don't think that a token sum would change the motivation for these athletes.
posted by Ufez Jones at 12:51 PM on August 13, 2003
Ufez Jones: Athens is a largely symbolic choice. Even if their facilities aren't as good and the town isn't as prepared, does the atmosphere and significance outweigh the facilitation, at least from a fan's point of view? Only if they do the original versions of the sport. Like naked runners, or running in sandals over sand rocks, naked wrestling, stuff like that. I hope I can make it to Greece next summer. Mmmmmm, olives.
posted by worldcup2002 at 01:31 PM on August 13, 2003
You think $100,000 is a token sum? I want your job! The athletes are already motivated...to reach the pinnacle of success in their sport and be named the world champion. They get all the motivation they need from that now, so why add the money thing? Then theres the sticky wicket of: do you pro-rate it for sport popularity. Give the curling champs less (sorry rcade) but the gymnastics people more? Do you not give the basketballers and hockey players any? There are bonuses put into PROFESSIONAL athlete's contracts, and the Olympic athletes still aren't considered professionals. I like it that they are competing to win, not for money. In theory, I would like to give the people who have devoted their life to a non-big-money-making sport a little something for their effort, but I don't think think that what we will lose with regard to the "Olympic spirit" will be worth it. I have such a low opinion of professional athletes and how all they care about is the bling bling and endorsements. This is the last bastion of sports for sports sake.
posted by aacheson at 01:36 PM on August 13, 2003
There are bonuses put into PROFESSIONAL athlete's contracts, and the Olympic athletes still aren't considered professionals. Really? Kobe Bryant, Allen Iverson, and Jermaine O'Neal have been added to the 2004 US Olympic Basketball team. They join Ray Allen, Mike Bibby, Jason Kidd, Karl Malone, Tim Duncan, and Tracy McGrady. (as an aside, Kobe's status is presumably pending). You think $100,000 is a token sum? I want your job! Hell no, that's more than three times my salary. Stretched out over four years (bare minimum) of training, though, I think it's nominal enough to not have someone retire after winning one gold medal but reward them for something well deserved. Don't get me wrong...I wouldn't sign a petition advocating fiduciary benefits for winners unless it helped the Olympics stay afloat somehow. I'm just saying that if it did happen, IMO, the benefits to those athletes that wouldn't ever see that kind of money for a single compeition would outweigh the eye-rolling that would be caused by those athletes for whom it would be chump change. Oh, and wc2k2, you do realize that if we go back to the old school nekkid-ways, only men would be competing, right?
posted by Ufez Jones at 02:23 PM on August 13, 2003
However, when I take the gold in curling in 2006, I expect to be compensated handsomely. HA! Because there're so many curling arenas in Florida, right???
posted by billsaysthis at 06:26 PM on August 13, 2003
I mean, name one legendary javeline thrower. Tom Petronoff And it's javelin. Oh never mind. Professional athlete's have taken part in the Olympics since it's Greek inception. The whole amateur issue is largely a North American conceit at this point. aacheson: I understand what you're saying about "Olympic Spirit” but much of what you perceive is what NBC would like everyone to feel. The truth is for many of these athletes (largely the foreign ones) success in the Olympics means financial reward as many countries pay their athletes for winning medals. Even in the US we reward athletes in some Olympic sports for reaching an international level of proficiency – although not directly for winning medals. The one benefit to monetary reward might be getting more athlete’s into some of these less popular sports. I’ve known any number of guys who could have been near world class sprinters, jumpers, etc. but instead chose to play football at Cal State Nowhere because they were sure the next stop was the NFL.
posted by kloeprich at 07:32 PM on August 13, 2003
My point is that it's not a direct line to money at this time......WIN MEDAL = GET MONEY FROM THE OLYMPICS directly. If their countries pay them, then fine. But that's different than the Olympics paying them. Am I dancing around a silly line in the sand here? Maybe I'm sugar coating the Olympics (and when I said "the Olympic athletes still aren't considered professionals" I meant the real ones... not the hockey and basketball players. I think we all know that's a load of B-S that they are involved in the Olympics) and turning it into more than it is. Maybe I've swallowed NBC's shtick. Ah well.
posted by aacheson at 11:30 AM on August 14, 2003
I think we all know that's a load of B-S that they are involved in the Olympics I don't know about that. What makes a professional athlete so unqualified for the Olympics? What is it? swiftest, fastest, strongest. Anyway, I used to think that the Olympics were/should be pure and all nicey nice, but the last instalment's sour taste cured that. Pay 'em if you must, just don't dope 'em! - even that measure of purity is questionable nowadays. As drug free Serb ain't on par with a drug free Yank.
posted by garfield at 12:00 PM on August 14, 2003
aa: I'm going to guess that if you were a Kenyan distance runner who would get $100K for winning a gold medal you wouldn't put too much distinction on who signed the check. So, yeah, you're dancin'. But I understand where you're coming from. I've danced there myself.
posted by kloeprich at 07:49 PM on August 14, 2003
This is reported exactly one year before the opening ceremony of the 2004 games. 2004 will mark the 100th anniversary of the modern games and Athens is a largely symbolic choice. Even if their facilities aren't as good and the town isn't as prepared, does the atmosphere and significance outweigh the facilitation, at least from a fan's point of view? And how do you feel about reward money for medalists? From my point of view, I think it's great for those athletes in the less popular sports. I mean, name one legendary javeline thrower. But the endorsements for those athletes in the popular sports (and I'm not even going to bring up the NBA guys playing) will probably far outweigh any token prize money the IOC could offer.