Imagine for a moment that you are one of the most influential members of the International Olympic Committee, and the new Chairman, Jacques Rogge, gives you an assignment: figure out the criteria a new sport must fit in order to be admitted to the Olympic Games.
You know where this is coming from. Greece is in trouble. Athens has found that the facilities and challenges faced with hosting the 2004 Summer Olympic Games are greater than they expected. There are constant reports that Athens may not be ready in time. Their troubles have awakened a sleeping giant.
With this in mind, you know that implicit in Rogge’s request is a methodology for determining how to reduce the total number of athletes who compete. You know that the number of athletes is one of the primary problems a host city has to deal with as the number of athletes has swelled from just over 5,000 in 1980 to almost 11,000 in 2000.
You know further that the IOC wants desperately to have both Africa and South America – the only two continents (aside from Antarctica) never to host a Games – win a bid for the Games, but that this is increasingly unlikely as the number of athletes and specialized facilities needed for many of the sports continues to grow.
You decide to not to begin with the definition of a sport (too complicated and with the IOC recently defining Chess and Bridge as “mind sports”, you decide it would be a losing battle). Instead, you decide to think about what makes the Olympics special. Part of it, you think, has to do with the goal of the Olympic Movement, which is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport. With that in mind, you develop your first principle:
Principle Number One: When considering new sports, give preference to those where athletes from non-traditional powers are potential medal winners.
Not bad. This would mean the potential inclusion of athletes from countries who are not currently part of the Olympic Program or the addition of athletes from countries who send only a few. Two of the sports up for consideration do this admirably: squash and rugby.
You move on. You think about the unbelievable drama that you have witnessed in the Games and you think about the fact that so many athletes point toward this singular moment for their entire lives. Your second principle soon springs to mind:
Principle Number Two: The Olympics should be the most significant championship for the sport in question.
Now this has real implications. Tennis and men’s soccer can go (and there are probably a bunch of others). The four grand slam tournaments and the World Cup, respectively, are much bigger events than are the Olympics. That takes care of about 500 athletes. Nicely done. (By the way, the Olympics would be squash’s biggest event – I know you have a hidden agenda.)
Finally, you also have in mind that the Olympics actually need money to keep going, so you create a third principle:
Principle Number Three: The sport should be able to add significant revenues to the Games.
(Now you can claim to be a realist, and, you hope, this adds credibility to your other principles.)
So, what did the International Olympic Committee actually decide to do? Unfortunately, they did not use your principles. In fact, the principles that they used lacked clarity, to be sure.
First, they recommended a reduction of four current events from the current program: slalom from Canoe-Kayak, eventing from Equestrian, one discipline of Wrestling, and Racewalking. They reduced the quota of athletes in Sailing, Synchronized Swimming, Shooting, Rowing and Badminton. They excluded for good Roller Sports, Polo, Surfing and – thank goodness – mind sports like Bridge and Chess.
What about squash? Squash was in a list of sports not to be admitted for the 2008 Games in Beijing (but not necessarily forever) that included Air Sports, Billiards, Boules, Dance Sport, Bowling, Racquetball, Water Skiing, Underwater Sports and Wushu.
Finally, and somewhat disappointingly, the IOC proved not to be immune from Tigermania and ruled that Golf be admitted, along with Rugby.
Rugby seems like a good choice (the Games would be the biggest event, it brings new countries in as potential medal winners and would likely increase worldwide revenues). But golf fails on every principle except possibly bringing in new revenues, and it would not shock if Tiger declined to play (thus defeating the Tigermania principle).
Squash, of course, more than just about every sport except Rugby, would seem to be the ideal sport (with 127 countries playing, many of them non-traditional powers, and the Olympics becoming without question, the sports biggest championship). But first we need to continue to improve our Olympic politicking, and we need to increase the television revenues worldwide.
You think that your criteria seem strong and help point the way, but then again, Jacques Rogge didn’t actually ask you, did he? Too bad. You did a good job.
