Ian ConstantineCorruption and The Olympics
April 20th 2008 06:18
Is the corporate involvement in sport and the Olympics a hindrance or are they a necessary evil? To answer this we must consider the demands of modern society and the importance placed on sport. Are we happy with what the Games have become, or are we simply oblivious to everything that goes on around us? The five rings used to represent everything innocent and pure, but now it seems more appropriate to associate them with the mighty dollar sign. Sport and society have evolved, with both being inextricably linked, but at what cost? A few decades ago the concept of sponsorship and professionalism were ridiculed, but now they are considered common practice. This can all be drawn down to a few key figures who quickly discovered the money that could be exploited through sport. These men changed the face of sport and the Olympics forever. This post will explore the evolution of the modern Olympics, the movement away from amateurism, the role of the media and will also discuss traditionalist views. By examining the role of Horst Dassler and also the role of the Los Angeles Olympics it will consider whether these contributions were good or bad for modern sport in today’s society. Was commercialisation of the Olympics inevitable and if so, is this necessarily a bad thing?
The Olympic Games in modern society are a billion dollar commodity. Money flows from media and television contracts, sponsorship or ‘partnership’ deals and ticket sales. They have become arguably the biggest sporting extravaganza in the world (next to the world cup) and thus are very powerful and influential to humanity. The Olympic symbol is one of the most recognisable and thus profitable symbols the world knows. This is a far cry from what the modern Olympics; reborn under De Coubertin, started out as in 1896. “The five linked rings are now one of the world’s most valuable commodities – in monetary terms. Just a quarter of a century ago they had a much rarer value, they could not be bought” (Jennings & Simson 1992).
Horst Dassler is widely accredited as the pioneer for the evolution of modern sport, in particular the Olympics and World Cup and the manner in which they are marketed to the world. Dassler was a revolutionist; he quickly discovered the value of having successful athletes wearing his Adidas equipment. Whilst there has always been sponsorship of one form or another at the Olympics, Dassler transformed it forever. His commercialisation movement is closely tied with corruption and it is argued he rigged elections to gain power.
“He wanted sports federations to sign contracts that committed their team to wear Adidas kit. He wanted individual stars to wear the three stripes. And he wanted the world to watch on television and follow his example. To get the contracts he had to have the sports leaders in debt to him. What better way than to put them in power?” (Jennings 2006).
Juan Antonio Samaranch was elected as President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 1980 with the aromatic influence of Dassler. It is strongly argued that Dassler rigged the election by bribing officials to change their vote. This blatant corruption went unrecognised and un-investigated for years and it gave Dassler almost total authority. He now had one of the world’s most dominant and powerful organisations owing an obligation to him. This deceit allowed him to earn marketing rights to the Olympics for over a decade unchallenged. Sport was quickly becoming a product rather than an entity and it was Dassler that was pulling the strings. “Were these men really the leaders of their sports, representing the interests of athletes and fans? Or were they agents of influence, puppet presidents owing their primary loyalty to Dassler?” (Jennings 2006).
The issue of commercialisation in sport became ever apparent in 1984; just four years after Samaranch had been elected president of the IOC. The Los Angeles games were a controversial landmark and forever changed the modern Olympics as we know them. They became know as the ‘McOlympics’ and symbolized what the modern games were becoming. They were heralded as “the first no-frills, debt-free, back to basics Games in modern history” (Kennedy 1984). It was by no means the first Olympics that McDonalds had sponsored, however it was the first Games run by a private organisation rather than a city. The Los Angeles Games were both highly controversial and contentious; nineteen countries including the Soviet Union boycotted the Games in protest.
“Many people object to such obvious commercialisation. They believe the essence of the Olympic spirit is the practice of sport for its own sake and that the modern games have distorted this principle. For these people the Los Angeles Olympics have come to symbolize new heights in the corruption of sport” (Chu & Segrave 1997).
The 1984 Games epitomised the new Olympic movement; under Samaranch the Olympics would become very profitable and highly commercial. This of course created extensive debate, sport and the Olympics were evolving at a very rapid rate, it was the start of a new generation. The media was very sceptical of this new movement with headlines such as; “L.A. Olympics are a gold mine for the U.S.” (Peters 1984), “The Olympic Surplus: who gets the gold?” (The Olympic Surplus 1984) and “A surplus of ill will” (Creamer, 1984). The movement signified or rather challenged society’s values; the Olympics had changed but for better or worse? “Their free enterprise format was seen by critics as a source of excessive profiteering and a ‘betrayal of sacred (Olympic) traditions’” (Simnov 1984).
The combined forces of nationalism, commercialism and professionalism had created a large and complex Olympic movement that was both; politicized and commercialised. The movement that was increasingly reliant on television has been criticized for a lack of realism and hypocrisy about politics and money (Chu & Segrave 1997). The Olympics had been drastically changed by the massive involvement of outside influences. But who were these new developments primarily benefiting? Were the changes for the good of the sport or were they good for corporate enrichment? This is where Dassler’s involvement is highly questionable, was he doing sport a favour, or was sport paying him the favour? “He made them presidents and let them remember… he could keep them in power, or push them out. All they had to do was play the game, which meant looking out for Adidas” (Jennings 2006).
The Los Angeles Olympics were revolutionary in that they were the first Games to record a profit. Host city’s vying for the Olympics now had a successful blueprint which almost guaranteed them a sizeable profit from hosting the Games. The commercialisation of sport meant that sponsors and host cities could make a fortune off the Olympic symbol. Samaranch and his new movement made a massive impact on sport and the Olympics. “They have led the way in the auction of sport and the once pure five rings to the highest commercial bidders” (Jennings & Simson 1992). This movement is blasted by critics who feel the very essence and innocence of the Olympics has been perverted, exploited and destroyed by those in power.
The progression of athletes from amateur to professional was a logical and inevitable step in modern society. It mirrored other changes in the workforce and was in a sense; unavoidable. Critics of this change are more concerned with how this evolution was being exploited by the powerful and how quickly they were able to commercialise the Games. Gradually the values and ideals of the Olympics were changing and they were not as valuable as the quest for financial gain. Olympism seemed destined to take a back seat to high priced athletes who cared more for winning than the sport itself. To add to the uncertainty, men like Horst Dassler were pulling the strings behind the scenes; ensuring that their product was well represented, marketed and looked after. “The race for sponsorship and endorsements, both by athletes and Olympic organisers assumed, greater importance than the eventual race for the finish line” (Chu & Segrave 1997). The Games were changing, but who was the beneficiary; the public, the sport or big business?
Traditionalists believe that the modern Games betray the ideas of Olympism and that the commercialisation of sport has ruined everything pure and true that the Olympics once stood for. They point to commercialisation as the reason for the increased instance of drugs in sport, arguing that the necessity to win has overshadowed the true nature of sport. This argument is made acknowledging that there have always been drugs in sport, it is the increased use of drugs and foul play that traditionalists object to and they sight commercialisation as the reason for this. “Amateur sport is only about the intrinsic value of healthy participation; the professional variant is all about making money, fun it may be, profitable it has to be but ethical- and democratic it ain’t” (Jennings & Simson 1992).
Corruption and the commercialisation of the Olympics are inextricably linked. The evolution of sport and the growing corporate involvement are also very much intertwined. The Los Angeles games showed that a profit could be made from hosting the Olympics. The Games were now big business; everybody wanted a piece of them and they would do just about anything to attain them. The Olympics which were meant to be a symbol of peace and fair play had become a product of the corporate world. The monetary value far exceeded the idealism behind them.
“There was unequivocal evidence that rules guiding gifts, hospitality, and services had been ignored by all parties. It was also apparent that that some IOC members and their relatives were recipients of extensive benefits from bid committees around the world” (Lenskyj 2000).
What role do the media play in the Olympics? Is it balanced and objective or is there an underlying motive behind the coverage and representation of the Games? Undeniably there is a lot of pressure on media outlets when the Olympics are being held. It is the ultimate big business; corporate sponsors from all over the world pour millions and millions of dollars into the Games. Where then is the loyalty of the media; to the people or to their affiliates? “Television coverage tends to present the Olympics in a way that has exploited the rhetoric of Olympism and has been intended primarily to serve the commercial interests of the network” (Edwards 1984). Thus, too many people, the Olympics have not changed, they think this because the media tells us that the idealism and Olympism are still present in modern society. This however may be far from the truth, the overbearing presence of sponsors have unquestionably modified the original philosophy behind the Olympics.
Has sport sold out? Is the commercialisation of sport necessary in modern society? There is no doubting the importance that mankind places on sport, it is an integral part of our lives. Critics argue that the evolution of the Olympics and corporate involvement has belittled the true meaning of the Games and that the quest for money and power has overtaken the original and true meaning of sport. They argue that athletes are heartless objects of big business owing their loyalties to a product and not to their designated sport. They sight the ‘McOlympics’ as a massive perversion of Olympic traditions and the catalyst for exploitation in sport. However I feel this view is exaggerated, old-fashioned and misguided. Society has evolved and traditionalists seem to ignore this fact. Commercialisation may have altered many aspects of the Games; however the involvement of the corporate world is necessary in modern society. Sport and the Olympics could not survive without this contribution. The two rely heavily on each other in a somewhat semiotic relationship; big business needs sport and sport needs big business. In modern society the two become one massive commodity. The Olympics are a compromise of old values and the demands placed on them by the evolution of society. We as sports fans demand the best athletes, the best performances and the best results. But at the same time we want the Olympics to be moral, ethical and fair. The progression of the Olympics is a product of contemporary civilisation, but have we tarnished De Coubertin’s dream? It may have been altered but the concept of Olympism still burns brightly today. The obvious and blatant connection between the media, sponsors and the Olympics should not deter us from enjoying the spirit of the Olympics. Sure it may have been modified and some critics may object to this but in the end sport is the big beneficiary. For the most part, the Olympic ideology is upheld and in return it gains exposure the world over. There are obvious examples of misconduct, bribery and corruption but these are very minimal when examining the whole picture. It may not be perfect but it is better than not having the Olympics at all. We must acknowledge its shortcomings and enjoy the benefits; the evolution of society demands a compromise and that is what the modern Olympics have become; for better or worse.
The Olympic Games in modern society are a billion dollar commodity. Money flows from media and television contracts, sponsorship or ‘partnership’ deals and ticket sales. They have become arguably the biggest sporting extravaganza in the world (next to the world cup) and thus are very powerful and influential to humanity. The Olympic symbol is one of the most recognisable and thus profitable symbols the world knows. This is a far cry from what the modern Olympics; reborn under De Coubertin, started out as in 1896. “The five linked rings are now one of the world’s most valuable commodities – in monetary terms. Just a quarter of a century ago they had a much rarer value, they could not be bought” (Jennings & Simson 1992).
Horst Dassler is widely accredited as the pioneer for the evolution of modern sport, in particular the Olympics and World Cup and the manner in which they are marketed to the world. Dassler was a revolutionist; he quickly discovered the value of having successful athletes wearing his Adidas equipment. Whilst there has always been sponsorship of one form or another at the Olympics, Dassler transformed it forever. His commercialisation movement is closely tied with corruption and it is argued he rigged elections to gain power.
“He wanted sports federations to sign contracts that committed their team to wear Adidas kit. He wanted individual stars to wear the three stripes. And he wanted the world to watch on television and follow his example. To get the contracts he had to have the sports leaders in debt to him. What better way than to put them in power?” (Jennings 2006).
Juan Antonio Samaranch was elected as President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 1980 with the aromatic influence of Dassler. It is strongly argued that Dassler rigged the election by bribing officials to change their vote. This blatant corruption went unrecognised and un-investigated for years and it gave Dassler almost total authority. He now had one of the world’s most dominant and powerful organisations owing an obligation to him. This deceit allowed him to earn marketing rights to the Olympics for over a decade unchallenged. Sport was quickly becoming a product rather than an entity and it was Dassler that was pulling the strings. “Were these men really the leaders of their sports, representing the interests of athletes and fans? Or were they agents of influence, puppet presidents owing their primary loyalty to Dassler?” (Jennings 2006).
The issue of commercialisation in sport became ever apparent in 1984; just four years after Samaranch had been elected president of the IOC. The Los Angeles games were a controversial landmark and forever changed the modern Olympics as we know them. They became know as the ‘McOlympics’ and symbolized what the modern games were becoming. They were heralded as “the first no-frills, debt-free, back to basics Games in modern history” (Kennedy 1984). It was by no means the first Olympics that McDonalds had sponsored, however it was the first Games run by a private organisation rather than a city. The Los Angeles Games were both highly controversial and contentious; nineteen countries including the Soviet Union boycotted the Games in protest.
“Many people object to such obvious commercialisation. They believe the essence of the Olympic spirit is the practice of sport for its own sake and that the modern games have distorted this principle. For these people the Los Angeles Olympics have come to symbolize new heights in the corruption of sport” (Chu & Segrave 1997).
The 1984 Games epitomised the new Olympic movement; under Samaranch the Olympics would become very profitable and highly commercial. This of course created extensive debate, sport and the Olympics were evolving at a very rapid rate, it was the start of a new generation. The media was very sceptical of this new movement with headlines such as; “L.A. Olympics are a gold mine for the U.S.” (Peters 1984), “The Olympic Surplus: who gets the gold?” (The Olympic Surplus 1984) and “A surplus of ill will” (Creamer, 1984). The movement signified or rather challenged society’s values; the Olympics had changed but for better or worse? “Their free enterprise format was seen by critics as a source of excessive profiteering and a ‘betrayal of sacred (Olympic) traditions’” (Simnov 1984).
The combined forces of nationalism, commercialism and professionalism had created a large and complex Olympic movement that was both; politicized and commercialised. The movement that was increasingly reliant on television has been criticized for a lack of realism and hypocrisy about politics and money (Chu & Segrave 1997). The Olympics had been drastically changed by the massive involvement of outside influences. But who were these new developments primarily benefiting? Were the changes for the good of the sport or were they good for corporate enrichment? This is where Dassler’s involvement is highly questionable, was he doing sport a favour, or was sport paying him the favour? “He made them presidents and let them remember… he could keep them in power, or push them out. All they had to do was play the game, which meant looking out for Adidas” (Jennings 2006).
The Los Angeles Olympics were revolutionary in that they were the first Games to record a profit. Host city’s vying for the Olympics now had a successful blueprint which almost guaranteed them a sizeable profit from hosting the Games. The commercialisation of sport meant that sponsors and host cities could make a fortune off the Olympic symbol. Samaranch and his new movement made a massive impact on sport and the Olympics. “They have led the way in the auction of sport and the once pure five rings to the highest commercial bidders” (Jennings & Simson 1992). This movement is blasted by critics who feel the very essence and innocence of the Olympics has been perverted, exploited and destroyed by those in power.
The progression of athletes from amateur to professional was a logical and inevitable step in modern society. It mirrored other changes in the workforce and was in a sense; unavoidable. Critics of this change are more concerned with how this evolution was being exploited by the powerful and how quickly they were able to commercialise the Games. Gradually the values and ideals of the Olympics were changing and they were not as valuable as the quest for financial gain. Olympism seemed destined to take a back seat to high priced athletes who cared more for winning than the sport itself. To add to the uncertainty, men like Horst Dassler were pulling the strings behind the scenes; ensuring that their product was well represented, marketed and looked after. “The race for sponsorship and endorsements, both by athletes and Olympic organisers assumed, greater importance than the eventual race for the finish line” (Chu & Segrave 1997). The Games were changing, but who was the beneficiary; the public, the sport or big business?
Traditionalists believe that the modern Games betray the ideas of Olympism and that the commercialisation of sport has ruined everything pure and true that the Olympics once stood for. They point to commercialisation as the reason for the increased instance of drugs in sport, arguing that the necessity to win has overshadowed the true nature of sport. This argument is made acknowledging that there have always been drugs in sport, it is the increased use of drugs and foul play that traditionalists object to and they sight commercialisation as the reason for this. “Amateur sport is only about the intrinsic value of healthy participation; the professional variant is all about making money, fun it may be, profitable it has to be but ethical- and democratic it ain’t” (Jennings & Simson 1992).
Corruption and the commercialisation of the Olympics are inextricably linked. The evolution of sport and the growing corporate involvement are also very much intertwined. The Los Angeles games showed that a profit could be made from hosting the Olympics. The Games were now big business; everybody wanted a piece of them and they would do just about anything to attain them. The Olympics which were meant to be a symbol of peace and fair play had become a product of the corporate world. The monetary value far exceeded the idealism behind them.
“There was unequivocal evidence that rules guiding gifts, hospitality, and services had been ignored by all parties. It was also apparent that that some IOC members and their relatives were recipients of extensive benefits from bid committees around the world” (Lenskyj 2000).
What role do the media play in the Olympics? Is it balanced and objective or is there an underlying motive behind the coverage and representation of the Games? Undeniably there is a lot of pressure on media outlets when the Olympics are being held. It is the ultimate big business; corporate sponsors from all over the world pour millions and millions of dollars into the Games. Where then is the loyalty of the media; to the people or to their affiliates? “Television coverage tends to present the Olympics in a way that has exploited the rhetoric of Olympism and has been intended primarily to serve the commercial interests of the network” (Edwards 1984). Thus, too many people, the Olympics have not changed, they think this because the media tells us that the idealism and Olympism are still present in modern society. This however may be far from the truth, the overbearing presence of sponsors have unquestionably modified the original philosophy behind the Olympics.
Has sport sold out? Is the commercialisation of sport necessary in modern society? There is no doubting the importance that mankind places on sport, it is an integral part of our lives. Critics argue that the evolution of the Olympics and corporate involvement has belittled the true meaning of the Games and that the quest for money and power has overtaken the original and true meaning of sport. They argue that athletes are heartless objects of big business owing their loyalties to a product and not to their designated sport. They sight the ‘McOlympics’ as a massive perversion of Olympic traditions and the catalyst for exploitation in sport. However I feel this view is exaggerated, old-fashioned and misguided. Society has evolved and traditionalists seem to ignore this fact. Commercialisation may have altered many aspects of the Games; however the involvement of the corporate world is necessary in modern society. Sport and the Olympics could not survive without this contribution. The two rely heavily on each other in a somewhat semiotic relationship; big business needs sport and sport needs big business. In modern society the two become one massive commodity. The Olympics are a compromise of old values and the demands placed on them by the evolution of society. We as sports fans demand the best athletes, the best performances and the best results. But at the same time we want the Olympics to be moral, ethical and fair. The progression of the Olympics is a product of contemporary civilisation, but have we tarnished De Coubertin’s dream? It may have been altered but the concept of Olympism still burns brightly today. The obvious and blatant connection between the media, sponsors and the Olympics should not deter us from enjoying the spirit of the Olympics. Sure it may have been modified and some critics may object to this but in the end sport is the big beneficiary. For the most part, the Olympic ideology is upheld and in return it gains exposure the world over. There are obvious examples of misconduct, bribery and corruption but these are very minimal when examining the whole picture. It may not be perfect but it is better than not having the Olympics at all. We must acknowledge its shortcomings and enjoy the benefits; the evolution of society demands a compromise and that is what the modern Olympics have become; for better or worse.
| 52 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
