I admit, I hate reaction to reaction pieces in most instances. You're beginning to read one from me right now, and while this in many ways only fans the flames of incendiary nonsense instead of starting meaningful discussion about deep-seeded issues, they shouldn't. Hopefully, the piece you are about to read about Colin Kaepernick's protest does spark discussions that are necessary, rather than 140 character badly thrown barbs at each other.
Last night, Colin Kaepernick decided to not stand for the national anthem before the Packers-49ers preseason game in protest.
"I'm not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color," he said after the game last night. "To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and away with murder."
Kaepernick is a "controversial figure", largely because of how his play has dropped precipitously from the season in which he lead his 49ers to the Super Bowl. While being benched in favor of Blaine Gabbert is pretty bad, his on-field performance is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. He is someone who has been a very vocal supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement and issues that have great importance to black America. He was called a "thug" for his tattoos during his and the 49ers rise to success earlier in this decade, so these "controversies" are not new to him. His taking a stand for issues bigger than football, especially in a league that doesn't like controversies like these as the NFL does, is admirable and should be praised.
But, as is customary, there is a major backlash to his protest. Most of the rebuttals are typical responses ranging from "protesting during the national anthem is the wrong time to protest"to "why would he protest a country where he could make the money he has" and of course, "if he doesn't like it here, he can leave". Most of these arguments have come from people who supposedly want to "Make America Great Again", though they never considered leaving to Canada even once, but again, that's missing the point.
Dictionary.com defines a protest as, "an expression or declaration of object, disapproval or dissent, often in opposition to something a person is powerless to prevent or avoid". The critical phrase in that definition is "powerless to prevent or avoid", and Kaepernick's protest is exactly that: a protest against the disproportionate violence against black people and the systemic and institutionalized racism that permeates our country. As an individual, even one with as much stature as he has, there is little he can do individually, other than start a discussion and potentially a movement. He is using his stature, much like Muhammad Ali, Mahmoud Abdul-Raouf and many others who wanted to protest issues facing this country by not rising during the national anthem, as is well within their rights to do so. But it is how the discussion of the protest that is defining this discussion, not the protest itself, and that's a shame.
In 2016 America, these protests are becoming almost ubiquitous. The Minnesota Lynx wore Black Lives Matter t-shirts in protest after the killing of unarmed black men just outside of Minneapolis, as is well within their right. That protest was met with much the same call as Kaepernick's protest was, and it's time to address these concerns one-by-one not to discount the right of people to disagree with it, but to show that there is a double standard that needs to be addressed.
"Protesting during the National Anthem is the wrong time to protest": As we saw in the definition of protest, there is never a "right time" to protest. In the first amendment (the same first amendment many are using to defend their points of view), it reads: "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to protest the government for a redress of grievances". The crafters of the Constitution knew explicitly that protesting the government needed to be protected because of precisely an argument like "there is a wrong time to protest". The country we are now having this discussion in was founded and created largely because the people couldn't protest the government for a redress of grievances. Once we lose that right because people say "there is a right time to protest", the fabric of what made this country begins to decay.
Then we see the second phase of this argument, which goes something like this: "The American Flag and the Anthem are indelible marks of freedom, liberty and American values and protesting them devalues that". I argue it actually strengthens it. There is nothing more American than protesting the government, and Colin Kaepernick is exercising the most basic and most powerful American ideals by doing exactly what his detractors are saying he isn't doing. Also, symbols are projective surfaces, and what they mean to one person doesn't translate evenly across all experiences and all sets of values. What the American flag means to me could be entirely different to what it means to someone in rural Alabama, or inner city Detroit, and that's the beauty of a country like our own. Accepting this as a bedrock foundation of our country is important, and that doesn't mean forcing your views onto someone else.
The third phase of this argument, which is arguably the weakest goes like this: "Kaepernick shouldn't protest because he has made millions of dollars in this country, and if he doesn't like it, he can leave". Just because someone has made millions of dollars in sports, business, entertainment or hitting the lottery doesn't mean they suddenly don't have a right to care about the political future of their country. Many people with more money than Kaepernick has use their wealth to dramatically influence policy in this country, and they don't get the same backlash for their opinions and beliefs as Kaepernick does. And the idea if someone doesn't like how the country is being run, then they should leave is so incredibly reductionist it almost borders on insulting. The problems facing many people like Kaepernick won't go away if he moves to Canada, for instance and if he doesn't then those he supports lose a critical voice in the discussion, while the tenor of the discussion doesn't change. "Leaving the country" is tantamount to putting your head in a bucket of sand to pretend problems don't exist, or turning to sports and saying "they're an escape".
I've written countless pieces on this website over the years about how sports and politics are forever linked, and to think otherwise is willingly turning your head the other direction, but especially in a year like 2016, these discussions and controversies are going to keep on occurring and the backlash will be exactly the same every time. This points to larger, underlying divisions in our society that go beyond Kaepernick's refusal to stand during the national anthem (or criticizing Gabby Douglas for not putting her hand over her heart during the anthem at the Olympics, when white athletes did the same thing and nothing was made over it, for instance). Athletes like Kaepernick have so much influence in the public sphere and they should be willing to use it to talk about political issues they feel need to be talked about without the fear of the backlash. More and more athletes, particularly black athletes, are doing this now and they should be applauded for it. Issues cannot be fixed without discussion first, and someone needs to spark that discussion. If singers, actors and other artists are allowed to do this, why can't athletes? And why can't they be just as vocal, if not more vocal, then their fellow American citizens?
Kaepernick's stand might well damage his career to a point where he cannot save it, and he acknowledged this and, even better, doesn't care. "This is not something I'm going to run by anybody. I'm not looking for approval. I have to stand up for people that are oppressed... If they take football away, my endorsements from me, I know that I stood up for what is right." And standing up for his beliefs in the face of that is what makes this stand and protest so important. He is like many other athletes who want to protest who know the capitalistic pressures put on them usually prevent them from protesting, and only very few can rise above that pressure. The fact that he doesn't care should encourage more athletes in similar positions to his to follow his example, and once enough of the public backs those stands, so too will the endorsers, teams and leagues. The 49ers statement, while not wholeheartedly endorsing his stand, didn't bury him either and showed some support for his endeavor. We may never know what is happening behind the scenes, but the public moves by the team are a good sign. The NFL's statement is much the same, and while they could easily say more, it's easy to understand why they aren't.
This entire controversy drives right into the heart of the racial divide in this country right now, and no matter whether we've made any progress in recent years, the fact that I'm writing this piece reminds us all that we still have a long way to go. And while we all can respect differences in opinion on this and other issues, as well as the right of people to have and own those differences, that goes too for opinions we don't agree with, and in many cases we might think are "wrong".
That is the crux of what the American flag means to me, and Colin Kaepernick, and millions of other Americans. The fear of the backlash should not discourage protests from anyone, and hopefully what Kaepernick has done is removed some of that fear for athletes and others willing to protest in the future.
There is nothing more American than protesting the government. Fear is un-American. All of us should not be afraid of other opinions and political viewpoints, because once we are, we are failing to uphold those true American values.
Subscribe To Matt's Sports Musings Here
Posts
All Comments
Saturday, August 27, 2016
Friday, August 12, 2016
2016-17 Premier League Predictions (As of Now)
Another Premier League season of drama, intrigue and craziness is on the horizon. And while it's going to be fun and dramatic, it certainly won't be predictable. There are so many different combinations of the 20 teams you could create for many different reasons, and the table is often incredibly fungible. Opinions on each of the Premier League's 20 could change dramatically as the transfer window closes (and is a time to make far better predictions anyway), but in the interest of fairness I will be posted my current predictions as things stand right now and updated predictions once the transfer dust settles. We're going from places 20 to 1 here, in order to build up some of the drama.
20. Hull City: This pick seems relatively straightforward and easy. They've made no first team signings, have no manager, and their squad wasn't nearly Premier League quality to begin with. Good luck to the Tigers, as Assem Allam would want me to call them.
19. Burnley: While their accomplishments are something for a club from a town of 80,000, they don't have the funds or the players to compete with even the lesser teams of the Premier League, who can spend a fair bit more than they can. They've made additions that are more akin to a decent Championship club as opposed to a team trying to stave off relegation. That could change, but this has the feel of another club destined to go right back down.
18. Swansea City: Their story has been quite astonishing, especially considering where they were. But they've been plucked fairly dry, and the investment in the squad isn't there to replace what they've lost, and they've lost quite a lot. Spending 15.5 million pounds on Borja Baston is a start, though it might not necessarily be the right one. Unless the new ownership starts spending markedly more, and in more places, then the Swans might well be staring at relegation.
17. Bournemouth: Second season syndrome is a major concern for the Cherries, who have spent quite a bit of money but there are questions as to whether they've spent it wisely. Their defense is not very good, and it hasn't improved dramatically this summer. If a couple of bounces go wrong for them, they could be down.
16. Sunderland: David Moyes, like Tony Pulis, never gets relegated as a manager. But the constant turnover in the Stadium of Light dugout is never a good sign. The squad is a bit thin, but hasn't really been weakened this summer either. Moyes will be backed with some funds, and if he makes the right buys, the Black Cats might not need another great escape.
15. West Bromwich Albion: Most Premier League fans have wanted to see this club go down for years, but with Tony Pulis at the helm, they're likely not going to. He grinds out points when he needs to, and his team does what's required to stay in the division. Yes it means ugly football, but it means Premier League money flows into their coffers. With new ownership, maybe Pulis will have even more cash to spend.
14. Crystal Palace: Many have tipped the Eagles for relegation, and with Alan Pardew's track record that's not entirely surprising. But I'm not so sure. There's enough in that squad to at least keep them up, and Pardew could still easily be sacked and they could hire a better manager. Regardless of that, they'll find a way to scrape together enough points to stay up.
13. Middlesbrough: A welcome return to the Top Flight, Middlesbrough has a fascinating manager in Aitor Karanka and a fascinating squad to boot. He's added Premier League experience and quality while not disassembling the core of the side that got the club up. He's a combustible man though, so watch for drama.
12. Watford: Walter Mazzari is a fantastic manager that got short shrift at Napoli and Inter, and now finds himself at Watford. While you may criticize their technical side and how they move players in and out, their is little doubt that they can find quality in hidden gems. Mazzari's tactical flexibility, as well as good group of forwards should propel the Hornets up the table.
11. Southampton: This is not the club that has been a consistent top half side for the past few years under Pochettino and Koeman. This is a club that has been stripped nearly bare again by the vultures from everywhere domestically and abroad. Yet they always find a way, and Claude Puel is a manager that can develop youth and get the best out of what he's given. Saints won't be great, and the Europa League will hurt them, but they'll easily avoid relegation.
10. Stoke City: Mark Hughes has spent lavishly on fascinating players, but this seems to be Stoke's ceiling. They're very good in most areas (aside from striker), and very good can only get a team so far in today's Premier League. It might be time to ask questions about the ceiling for this Stoke squad, and whether they've hit it.
9. Leicester City: Last season's darlings have only lost one of their big three from last season, though N'Golo Kante is a massive lost. They've replaced him, and improved the squad in most areas. So why are they ninth? Well, last season's aligning of the cosmos won't happen again, as the Premier League's big boys will not be as bad as they have been, and Leicester's own obligations will change. They are a solid top half side, but repeating last year's exploits are basically impossible.
8. Everton: With Ronald Koeman, Everton will instantly be better than they had been recently under Roberto Martinez. But at the moment, their squad hasn't improved that much. The natural bump from being coached by a better manager will certainly get quite a lot out of this squad, but they're a work in progress.
7. West Ham United: Their move to the Olympic Stadium has coincided with spending big on some interesting players, including young Argentine striker Jonathan Calleri and winger Gokhan Tore. Their squad has a fascinating dynamic in it thanks to players like Dmitri Payet and others, but whether they can crack the Sky Six is another question. Likely Europa League obligations aren't going to help their cause much.
6. Liverpool: They will be better as a whole with more time learning Jurgen Klopp's methods and a better reshaping of the squad dynamic, but they're still a work in progress. No European football will definitely help them improve, but early injury issues as well as plenty of bloat still present across the squad means that they're not quite ready to reach for their heights from three years ago. They're an item for the future, but not the present.
5. Spurs: They haven't lost anyone of significance to this squad, they've improved in it two critical areas and there's added motivation after what happened at the end of last season. So why are they here? Depth isn't amazing, and there's a likely chance of regression for Harry Kane, Dele Alli and others even though they are still high quality players. They are a team that could easily be undone by one major injury, which is concerning. They're still really good, but their competition is too.
4. Arsenal: Right where they always end up. Signing Granit Xhaka addresses a major issue, but that's all they've done so far this summer. No high quality striker looks to be coming in, which is becoming the new not signing a defensive midfielder for the club, and their injury issues are also noticeable and could adversely affect the start of their season. Until something dramatic changes, either via transfers or change in manager, Arsenal will finish where they always do and with the same narratives they always do.
3. Chelsea: Not much has changed with a squad that finished 10th and shouldn't have been anywhere close to that, which is mildly surprising. But when one considers how horrible so many great players were, it makes sense to tweak, not transform. N'Golo Kante and Michi Batshuayi will make the squad much better, but the addition of Antonio Conte in the dugout will make an already stout Chelsea even more stout. Could they do with more trims and tweaks? Of course. But the lack of European football will focus the squad for a good run this year, though they're not quite title contenders.
2. Manchester United: So much money spent, so much more Mourinho, so much more intrigue at Old Trafford. Gone are the Sir Alex Ferguson days, in come the Galaticos in Manchester. They've added so much quality, though they paid a pretty penny to do it. While they still have issues, United are a genuine title contender for the first time since Sir Alex last lead them to one in 2013. They could easily win it, though Mourinho's welcome at any club doesn't last long.
1. Manchester City: Pep Guardiola with anyone squad is terrifying, even with one that is still broken in many places. But the emphasis on buying youth, especially players like Leroy Sane, Gabriel Jesus and John Stones will make this squad better both in the short and long term. If Pep can fix the central midfield, and also get the most out of some of the older members of this squad, City will waltz to the title. And it's amazing to think they're not even the finished article yet.
So there are my predictions, as of now, for the new Premier League season. Feel free to tell me how wrong I am.
20. Hull City: This pick seems relatively straightforward and easy. They've made no first team signings, have no manager, and their squad wasn't nearly Premier League quality to begin with. Good luck to the Tigers, as Assem Allam would want me to call them.
19. Burnley: While their accomplishments are something for a club from a town of 80,000, they don't have the funds or the players to compete with even the lesser teams of the Premier League, who can spend a fair bit more than they can. They've made additions that are more akin to a decent Championship club as opposed to a team trying to stave off relegation. That could change, but this has the feel of another club destined to go right back down.
18. Swansea City: Their story has been quite astonishing, especially considering where they were. But they've been plucked fairly dry, and the investment in the squad isn't there to replace what they've lost, and they've lost quite a lot. Spending 15.5 million pounds on Borja Baston is a start, though it might not necessarily be the right one. Unless the new ownership starts spending markedly more, and in more places, then the Swans might well be staring at relegation.
17. Bournemouth: Second season syndrome is a major concern for the Cherries, who have spent quite a bit of money but there are questions as to whether they've spent it wisely. Their defense is not very good, and it hasn't improved dramatically this summer. If a couple of bounces go wrong for them, they could be down.
16. Sunderland: David Moyes, like Tony Pulis, never gets relegated as a manager. But the constant turnover in the Stadium of Light dugout is never a good sign. The squad is a bit thin, but hasn't really been weakened this summer either. Moyes will be backed with some funds, and if he makes the right buys, the Black Cats might not need another great escape.
15. West Bromwich Albion: Most Premier League fans have wanted to see this club go down for years, but with Tony Pulis at the helm, they're likely not going to. He grinds out points when he needs to, and his team does what's required to stay in the division. Yes it means ugly football, but it means Premier League money flows into their coffers. With new ownership, maybe Pulis will have even more cash to spend.
14. Crystal Palace: Many have tipped the Eagles for relegation, and with Alan Pardew's track record that's not entirely surprising. But I'm not so sure. There's enough in that squad to at least keep them up, and Pardew could still easily be sacked and they could hire a better manager. Regardless of that, they'll find a way to scrape together enough points to stay up.
13. Middlesbrough: A welcome return to the Top Flight, Middlesbrough has a fascinating manager in Aitor Karanka and a fascinating squad to boot. He's added Premier League experience and quality while not disassembling the core of the side that got the club up. He's a combustible man though, so watch for drama.
12. Watford: Walter Mazzari is a fantastic manager that got short shrift at Napoli and Inter, and now finds himself at Watford. While you may criticize their technical side and how they move players in and out, their is little doubt that they can find quality in hidden gems. Mazzari's tactical flexibility, as well as good group of forwards should propel the Hornets up the table.
11. Southampton: This is not the club that has been a consistent top half side for the past few years under Pochettino and Koeman. This is a club that has been stripped nearly bare again by the vultures from everywhere domestically and abroad. Yet they always find a way, and Claude Puel is a manager that can develop youth and get the best out of what he's given. Saints won't be great, and the Europa League will hurt them, but they'll easily avoid relegation.
10. Stoke City: Mark Hughes has spent lavishly on fascinating players, but this seems to be Stoke's ceiling. They're very good in most areas (aside from striker), and very good can only get a team so far in today's Premier League. It might be time to ask questions about the ceiling for this Stoke squad, and whether they've hit it.
9. Leicester City: Last season's darlings have only lost one of their big three from last season, though N'Golo Kante is a massive lost. They've replaced him, and improved the squad in most areas. So why are they ninth? Well, last season's aligning of the cosmos won't happen again, as the Premier League's big boys will not be as bad as they have been, and Leicester's own obligations will change. They are a solid top half side, but repeating last year's exploits are basically impossible.
8. Everton: With Ronald Koeman, Everton will instantly be better than they had been recently under Roberto Martinez. But at the moment, their squad hasn't improved that much. The natural bump from being coached by a better manager will certainly get quite a lot out of this squad, but they're a work in progress.
7. West Ham United: Their move to the Olympic Stadium has coincided with spending big on some interesting players, including young Argentine striker Jonathan Calleri and winger Gokhan Tore. Their squad has a fascinating dynamic in it thanks to players like Dmitri Payet and others, but whether they can crack the Sky Six is another question. Likely Europa League obligations aren't going to help their cause much.
6. Liverpool: They will be better as a whole with more time learning Jurgen Klopp's methods and a better reshaping of the squad dynamic, but they're still a work in progress. No European football will definitely help them improve, but early injury issues as well as plenty of bloat still present across the squad means that they're not quite ready to reach for their heights from three years ago. They're an item for the future, but not the present.
5. Spurs: They haven't lost anyone of significance to this squad, they've improved in it two critical areas and there's added motivation after what happened at the end of last season. So why are they here? Depth isn't amazing, and there's a likely chance of regression for Harry Kane, Dele Alli and others even though they are still high quality players. They are a team that could easily be undone by one major injury, which is concerning. They're still really good, but their competition is too.
4. Arsenal: Right where they always end up. Signing Granit Xhaka addresses a major issue, but that's all they've done so far this summer. No high quality striker looks to be coming in, which is becoming the new not signing a defensive midfielder for the club, and their injury issues are also noticeable and could adversely affect the start of their season. Until something dramatic changes, either via transfers or change in manager, Arsenal will finish where they always do and with the same narratives they always do.
3. Chelsea: Not much has changed with a squad that finished 10th and shouldn't have been anywhere close to that, which is mildly surprising. But when one considers how horrible so many great players were, it makes sense to tweak, not transform. N'Golo Kante and Michi Batshuayi will make the squad much better, but the addition of Antonio Conte in the dugout will make an already stout Chelsea even more stout. Could they do with more trims and tweaks? Of course. But the lack of European football will focus the squad for a good run this year, though they're not quite title contenders.
2. Manchester United: So much money spent, so much more Mourinho, so much more intrigue at Old Trafford. Gone are the Sir Alex Ferguson days, in come the Galaticos in Manchester. They've added so much quality, though they paid a pretty penny to do it. While they still have issues, United are a genuine title contender for the first time since Sir Alex last lead them to one in 2013. They could easily win it, though Mourinho's welcome at any club doesn't last long.
1. Manchester City: Pep Guardiola with anyone squad is terrifying, even with one that is still broken in many places. But the emphasis on buying youth, especially players like Leroy Sane, Gabriel Jesus and John Stones will make this squad better both in the short and long term. If Pep can fix the central midfield, and also get the most out of some of the older members of this squad, City will waltz to the title. And it's amazing to think they're not even the finished article yet.
So there are my predictions, as of now, for the new Premier League season. Feel free to tell me how wrong I am.
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Olympics in Turmoil! Host Cities not Capable of Doing their Job! Fact, Fear or Both?
In the lead-up to any Olympic Games, summer or winter, one will notice a trend: something is wrong with the host city. Whether it be stray dogs and LGBT rights in Sochi, air quality in Beijing, the Swine Flu before Vancouver's games in 2010 or Zika/feces in the water in Rio, there is always a controversy surrounding the run in to any Olympics starting. That isn't new. But what feels new is the critical mass of criticism for Rio just before that city's big moment. Even Sochi and Beijing, flush with controversies themselves, somehow never got the negative press that Brazil's biggest city is. What does this say about the Olympic Games, their legacy on host cities, and what the future of the world's biggest communal sports gathering is?
This idea was sparked by a short post from the Ringer advocating holding the Olympics in one city, permanently. Why should this idea be taken up? According to the author Claire McNear, it's because the games always go over budget, and that budget is insanely high to begin with, the proposed economic benefits for citizens of each city are never realized and the venues built for the games are often temporary and when they're not, they often become white elephants. All of this is 100% true. And it does look like future bids for Olympic Games, summer or winter, are coming from non-democratic states, and the 2022 Winter Games are cited as an example. A simple rebuke comes from looking at who is bidding for the 2024 Summer Games: Rome, Paris, Budapest and Los Angeles, but that misses the point.
While the Olympics have drifted away from their original message of world unity, shared responsibility, the glory of amateurism and athletic accomplishment to excess, commercialism and corruption, this is not a new trend. The last two Olympic Games to be held in the US; Atlanta in 1996 and Salt Lake City in 2002 are not bastions of everything pure and holy, are they? Both were defined by commercialism, patriotism and corruption... sound familiar? Moscow's Games in 1980 and LA's in 1984 were political pawns in the early 80's escalation of the Cold War, and recent games in cities like Athens, Beijing, Sochi and Rio have been opportunities for those cities, and countries, to announce themselves as 21st century world influencers. While the pitch for hosting the Olympics is almost entirely forged in lies and puffed up promises as the IOC takes its money and runs, when has that ever not been true about the Olympics and their organizing body? It's possible we're all paying more attention to it now that the games have been hosted in non-Western cities such as Beijing, Sochi and even Rio, because as much as we don't want to admit it there's a wider world beyond the US and Western Europe. Corruption largely favors these types of cities and states, and the IOC has been rife with corruption recently, but again, when has that not been true?
It is incumbent upon the IOC to change their message of what hosting the games will do for these cities and countries, and they have tried to at least forge that path recently under Thomas Bach. That has largely not been successful recently, but there is so much excess and corruption to overcome that it will take more than one man to force that change through. External organizations, people and countries need to be the ones taking that impetus, and hosting the games in one city permanently will not ever change the notion pervading the Olympics at present.
Presumably, that one city would be an American city, because the need to overspend on facilities won't be there, the infrastructure that most up-and-coming cities need to build already exists and there won't be any concern about Zika, feces in the water supply, slums or air quality. But if the goal of the Olympics is to bring the world together and expose new faces to us all, is that even possible if the Olympics are permanently held in Los Angeles, for example? Part of the glory of these major international sporting events is seeing the new cities, learning about their history and cultures as they become as much a part of the games as the athletes do. The IOC has to take ownership of the Olympics' reputation and realize that forcing cities to stick to arcane bidding plans and not change with the times for budget or any other reason is asinine and only hurts in the long run.
The modern Olympic Games are not anything like what the pure ideals pushed by Baron De Coubertin in the late 1890's were. There will always be controversies with every host city for every Olympics going forward, and totally cleaning up the IOC of what has pervaded it for so long seems an impossible task. But if the IOC, the cities and the public re-frame their expectations as to what the Olympics are about, and what the benefits are, the potential is still there for the Games to not become only about the host city being wrecked by the traveling circus. The IOC is trying desperately to change the perception of the Games by altering the bidding process, attempting to root out corruption, re-focusing the Games themselves on sports that may matter more to the individual hosts, and whether they're doing enough remains to be seen, but at least they're trying,
Rio's Games were awarded under an old system with an old President. So too was Sochi and Pyeongchang and Tokyo too. We may not see the true future of the Olympic Games until 2024, and whether anyone wants to wait that long to see progress is unlikely. But to say that Rio is the tipping point after almost all host cities before it dealt with the same problems manifesting themselves in different forms is a bit silly.
That doesn't mean that Rio's problems shouldn't be covered and covered extensively. They should. But they should be understood in context, not sweeping generalizations. Maybe these Games were over Brazil and Rio's heads, and likely they are. But that means we should cover the issues of these games well after the circus has left town, and look towards the IOC and the organizing committees and governments themselves and force them to change.
It's now time to let the Games begin, problems in all. Problems have now become a part of the Olympic Program along with track and swimming. Rio is not the first city to host these new games, nor will they be the last.
This idea was sparked by a short post from the Ringer advocating holding the Olympics in one city, permanently. Why should this idea be taken up? According to the author Claire McNear, it's because the games always go over budget, and that budget is insanely high to begin with, the proposed economic benefits for citizens of each city are never realized and the venues built for the games are often temporary and when they're not, they often become white elephants. All of this is 100% true. And it does look like future bids for Olympic Games, summer or winter, are coming from non-democratic states, and the 2022 Winter Games are cited as an example. A simple rebuke comes from looking at who is bidding for the 2024 Summer Games: Rome, Paris, Budapest and Los Angeles, but that misses the point.
While the Olympics have drifted away from their original message of world unity, shared responsibility, the glory of amateurism and athletic accomplishment to excess, commercialism and corruption, this is not a new trend. The last two Olympic Games to be held in the US; Atlanta in 1996 and Salt Lake City in 2002 are not bastions of everything pure and holy, are they? Both were defined by commercialism, patriotism and corruption... sound familiar? Moscow's Games in 1980 and LA's in 1984 were political pawns in the early 80's escalation of the Cold War, and recent games in cities like Athens, Beijing, Sochi and Rio have been opportunities for those cities, and countries, to announce themselves as 21st century world influencers. While the pitch for hosting the Olympics is almost entirely forged in lies and puffed up promises as the IOC takes its money and runs, when has that ever not been true about the Olympics and their organizing body? It's possible we're all paying more attention to it now that the games have been hosted in non-Western cities such as Beijing, Sochi and even Rio, because as much as we don't want to admit it there's a wider world beyond the US and Western Europe. Corruption largely favors these types of cities and states, and the IOC has been rife with corruption recently, but again, when has that not been true?
It is incumbent upon the IOC to change their message of what hosting the games will do for these cities and countries, and they have tried to at least forge that path recently under Thomas Bach. That has largely not been successful recently, but there is so much excess and corruption to overcome that it will take more than one man to force that change through. External organizations, people and countries need to be the ones taking that impetus, and hosting the games in one city permanently will not ever change the notion pervading the Olympics at present.
Presumably, that one city would be an American city, because the need to overspend on facilities won't be there, the infrastructure that most up-and-coming cities need to build already exists and there won't be any concern about Zika, feces in the water supply, slums or air quality. But if the goal of the Olympics is to bring the world together and expose new faces to us all, is that even possible if the Olympics are permanently held in Los Angeles, for example? Part of the glory of these major international sporting events is seeing the new cities, learning about their history and cultures as they become as much a part of the games as the athletes do. The IOC has to take ownership of the Olympics' reputation and realize that forcing cities to stick to arcane bidding plans and not change with the times for budget or any other reason is asinine and only hurts in the long run.
The modern Olympic Games are not anything like what the pure ideals pushed by Baron De Coubertin in the late 1890's were. There will always be controversies with every host city for every Olympics going forward, and totally cleaning up the IOC of what has pervaded it for so long seems an impossible task. But if the IOC, the cities and the public re-frame their expectations as to what the Olympics are about, and what the benefits are, the potential is still there for the Games to not become only about the host city being wrecked by the traveling circus. The IOC is trying desperately to change the perception of the Games by altering the bidding process, attempting to root out corruption, re-focusing the Games themselves on sports that may matter more to the individual hosts, and whether they're doing enough remains to be seen, but at least they're trying,
Rio's Games were awarded under an old system with an old President. So too was Sochi and Pyeongchang and Tokyo too. We may not see the true future of the Olympic Games until 2024, and whether anyone wants to wait that long to see progress is unlikely. But to say that Rio is the tipping point after almost all host cities before it dealt with the same problems manifesting themselves in different forms is a bit silly.
That doesn't mean that Rio's problems shouldn't be covered and covered extensively. They should. But they should be understood in context, not sweeping generalizations. Maybe these Games were over Brazil and Rio's heads, and likely they are. But that means we should cover the issues of these games well after the circus has left town, and look towards the IOC and the organizing committees and governments themselves and force them to change.
It's now time to let the Games begin, problems in all. Problems have now become a part of the Olympic Program along with track and swimming. Rio is not the first city to host these new games, nor will they be the last.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)