Amateurism, Professionalism and the Olympics

[RFC]

As I've said before, I'm a total Olympics junkie. I watch it all.

Working at home today with NBC on my desk TV and track cycling streaming in the corner of my computer screen. I may not get much done today, but I'm in a great mood!

One cannot watch the modern Olympics without seeing Simone Biles washing with Tide and Michael Phelps pushing Omega watches.

And it doesn't bother me for a second.

I grew up in the era of pure amateurism. IMHO, it was a tragedy, a farce and, much to my embarrassment, to quote He Who Shall Not Be Named, "the system was rigged."

Elite endurance athletes who slept on couches and lived on Romen noodles.

College track stars (i.e. Cliff Branch) who lost their amateur status the moment they signed pro football contracts.

Soviet Army Officers who spent all of their time training for their events.

Medalists disqualified because of the ambiguous acceptance of a gift.

Mark Spitz giving up his amateur status and selling his mustache to Gillette.

The Olympic champions deserve the fortune as well as the fame.

But, the reality is that, except for a few super stars in popular events, the majority of the Olympians still have to figure out how to make a living.

I think this is expressed well in a 1994 SNL interview with the medalists.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/sports-talk/2868156

Your thoughts?

[malcolm]

I worked in an ER for years and one of the female security guards was an olympic medalist. I can't recall her name it's been years ago, but I had known her for years and she never mentioned it. So yeah all of them don't see the fortune part of it.

[MattTuck]

It is a spectacle for spectacle's sake. Let's take cycling for example. We already have annual world championships in both road racing and time trialing, which professionals compete in, representing their country.

What is the point of having another race, which only happens every four years, with the same group of guys competing? It is just for more ratings, to get more recognizable athletes involved to drive up the viewing audience.

Does having professional athletes included increase the level of competition? Absolutely. But is that really the purpose of the olympics? I'm not sure. There is something about the commercialization of it that doesn't sit right with me.

[ptourkin]

It is a spectacle for spectacle's sake. Let's take cycling for example. We already have annual world championships in both road racing and time trialing, which professionals compete in, representing their country.

What is the point of having another race, which only happens every four years, with the same group of guys competing? It is just for more ratings, to get more recognizable athletes involved to drive up the viewing audience.

Does having professional athletes included increase the level of competition? Absolutely. But is that really the purpose of the olympics? I'm not sure. There is something about the commercialization of it that doesn't sit right with me.

Absent the "commercialization" how would it exist?

[54ny77]

it's a slippery slope, but i'm in the camp of let 'em get whatever they can in terms of sponsorship, income, etc.

i'd venture a guess that a great many, if not majority, of athletes and their families have sacrificed so much to get where they are today.

take a read on the family background of simone biles, for example. it's unbelievable. my wife was reading some things to me about her youth as she was perusing them on the web. what a remarkable journey that young lady has had. she deserves every reward she earns and has available.

good article today on a related topic in bloomberg:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-12/olympics-sponsors-want-nothing-to-do-with-team-usa-shooters

[MattTuck]

Absent the "commercialization" how would it exist?

Point taken.

I guess the whole thing just seems unsustainable.

[rnhood]

The biggest downfall was professionalizing the Olympics, imho. I realized some countries like Russia would get around the rules by merely state sponsoring their athletes. But allowing professional athletes with salary and contracts to participate is an abomination in my opinion. Watching a bunch of overgrown pros run around slam dunking the ball while slaughtering their opponent and laughing is not the olympics of the past, and not the olympics I want to see.

Fortunately, we do have a contingent of amateurs and its enjoyable watching them compete. Its the primary reason I watch it. And some events like swimming and gymnastics have been quite good in Rio. Its still fun to watch it all, just that its not an amateur event. Guess it never will be.

[malcolm]

it's a slippery slope, but i'm in the camp of let 'em get whatever they can in terms of sponsorship, income, etc.

i'd venture a guess that a great many, if not majority, of athletes and their families have sacrificed so much to get where they are today.

take a read on the family background of simone biles, for example. it's unbelievable. my wife was reading some things to me about her youth as she was perusing them on the web. what a remarkable journey that young lady has had. she deserves every reward she earns and has available.

good article today on a related topic in bloomberg:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-12/olympics-sponsors-want-nothing-to-do-with-team-usa-shooters

This. Most of these folks have spent countless hours training. I'm a fan and especially love seeing the younger athletes win and corny as it may be I enjoy their stories.

[RFC]

Maybe there is some type of distinction that can be drawn between those sports that have a big time pro circuit (basketball, hockey, cycling) and those that have none, i.e., the Luge.

But then there are the in betweens:

-- Figure skating and the Ice Capades

-- The womens' gymnastics team going on tour

-- Prize money for the top finishers in major marathons

And what about sponsorships and endorsements?

[Mark McM]

Absent the "commercialization" how would it exist?

And more to the point, absent of "commercialization", why would it exist?

The Olympics combines the worst part of Fifa (secrecy and corruption) and the worst parts of the NCAA (exploitation of athletes).

Just take a look at Olympics Rule 40 (http://www.wired.com/2016/08/olympians-take-back-social-media-rule40/), which basically blocks advertising from companies that sponsor athletes directly, in favor of companies who pay their sponsorship money to the IOC.

[paredown]

...
Just take a look at Olympics Rule 40 (http://www.wired.com/2016/08/olympians-take-back-social-media-rule40/), which basically blocks advertising from companies that sponsor athletes directly, in favor of companies who pay their sponsorship money to the IOC.

Oh, I'm sure that rule was written for the good of the sport.;)

[Joxster]

They've kinda relaxed the rule because of athlete endorsments, just as long as there is no mention of the Olympics in the advert and it has been screen and OK'd by that countries Olympic commitee or the IOC if it is an international ad.

As an athlete you're only allowed two sponsors logo per item, so before I went to the start line the IOC official was there with his black tape asking which logo I wanted taped out. As a team we had sat down before had and figured out which skinsuit logos to cover and the tape would 'fall off' during racing.

[ik2280]

But allowing professional athletes with salary and contracts to participate is an abomination in my opinion. Watching a bunch of overgrown pros run around slam dunking the ball while slaughtering their opponent and laughing is not the olympics of the past, and not the olympics I want to see.

Shouldn't the Olympics involve the best athletes in the world, in all sports? I know it can get boring watching Team USA's NBA stars crushing their opponents, but I'll take that over watching mediocre players face off against mediocre opponents to see who is the most...mediocre?

[echappist]

The whole amateurism thing is just a distraction. The rule was in place as the game was started by the landed gentry and the upper crust, and they wanted to limit the competition amongst the upper crust. Athletes of lesser means would undoubtedly need the additional income (form appearance fees or winnings) to make ends meet.

[MattTuck]

Shouldn't the Olympics involve the best athletes in the world, in all sports? I know it can get boring watching Team USA's NBA stars crushing their opponents, but I'll take that over watching mediocre players face off against mediocre opponents to see who is the most...mediocre?

What you're describing is a given sport's world championship, put on by a professional league of some sort. Whether it be basketball, cycling or gymnastics, there already exists an annual world championship event each year.

What made the olympics different was that they happened once every four years, and that they were amateurs (whatever that meant). The reality is, there are plenty of other stages for the best athletes in the world to go against each other at the highest levels.

Why not just call the olympics the REAL World Championships, which seems to be what you're in search of. But then, how is the olympic gold medal different than the world championship?

[choke]

The biggest downfall was professionalizing the Olympics, imho.+11ty billion. IMO whatever 'Olympic spirit' existed was lost when that event occurred.

I used to love the Olympics but once they let the pros in I stopped watching it altogether - I didn't even pay attention to the results. I started following it again with London 2012 but only for the women's RR and TT, due to my burgeoning interest in women's cycling. The women's RR is the only event I watched (or will watch) this year.

[FlashUNC]

Anyone competing on the global stage of a multi-million enterprise deserves to get paid.

In the words of Sheed, cut that check.

[Mark McM]

What made the olympics different was that they happened once every four years, and that they were amateurs (whatever that meant). The reality is, there are plenty of other stages for the best athletes in the world to go against each other at the highest levels.

So, what you are saying is, despite the Olympics motto of "Citius, Altius, Fortius" (Faster, Higher Stronger), the Olympics should just be a quadrennial celebration of mediocrity?

[bfd]

Anyone competing on the global stage of a multi-million enterprise deserves to get paid.

In the words of Sheed, cut that check.

Agree. I don't know if its jealousy or what, but people complain that NBA players shouldn't be at the Olympics because they earn millions of dollars. Well, do you think Michael Phelps is earning peanuts and eating ramen? What about the track athletes like Usain Bolt?

More on topic, many of the pro bicycle riders are here and some get paid big bucks to cycle! Some even sacrifice themselves - think: Nibali.

Further, one guy says he only wants to watch "women cycling." Yes, they get paid substantially less than the men - and I agree that's unfair, but nevertheless, they get paid. So what does that mean? They're PROFESSIONALS!

Moreover, at the end of the day, all these athletes, paid or not, are just entertainers. They're really no different than say listening to Beyoncé, Taylor Swift or even watching, gulp, the Kardashians....ok, the last is a bad example, but they have millions, no 10s of millions of viewers, go figure!

So, if we want to watch the best compete, I say have at it. An Olympic gold is truly a lifetime thing, unless you're Michael Phelps. Good Luck!

[makoti]

What you're describing is a given sport's world championship, put on by a professional league of some sort. Whether it be basketball, cycling or gymnastics, there already exists an annual world championship event each year.

What made the olympics different was that they happened once every four years, and that they were amateurs (whatever that meant). The reality is, there are plenty of other stages for the best athletes in the world to go against each other at the highest levels.

Why not just call the olympics the REAL World Championships, which seems to be what you're in search of. But then, how is the olympic gold medal different than the world championship?

Matt, I agree with you. The Olympics should not have Pros in it. I liked it before. The sports dragging pros out are IMO, sad. Cycling, basketball, tennis... I just no longer care who medals. You won the World Championship already, not enough? Let some very talented amateur have their moment in the sun.
I have no problem with endorsement deals to help with the cost of competing, and I realize it's a thin difference between taking that money and a salary. I know that other countries subsidize their athletes so they can train full time, but I don't care. The ideal is amateurism. We may not win as many golds but who cares? We won what we won the right way.
So...the only thing I've seen of the Olympics is that womens road crash & that was on youtube.

[makoti]

So, what you are saying is, despite the Olympics motto of "Citius, Altius, Fortius" (Faster, Higher Stronger), the Olympics should just be a quadrennial celebration of mediocrity?

That's a stretch. Mediocrity? There are plenty of very talented amateurs out there. It's not like you'll be watching me in the next one if we cut out the pros.

[MattTuck]

So, what you are saying is, despite the Olympics motto of "Citius, Altius, Fortius" (Faster, Higher Stronger), the Olympics should just be a quadrennial celebration of mediocrity?

No, I'm saying that the idea of a once every four years contest to determine a champion in 20+ disparate sports, all in a central location, is an out dated model, and no longer different enough from individual event world championship events to merit a special place in our collective psyche.

Is a quadrennial celebration of mediocrity really so bad, compared to a quadrennial celebration of corporate advertising, carried on the backs of the athletes?

[choke]

Further, one guy says he only wants to watch "women cycling." Yes, they get paid substantially less than the men - and I agree that's unfair, but nevertheless, they get paid. So what does that mean? They're PROFESSIONALS! Yes, I'm fully aware that they are pros and get paid. I also realize that I'm not consistent in my anti-pros at the Olympics stance.

I was merely expressing that those events are the only thing that made the Olympics relevant to me once again. As a fan of women's cycling it's rare that one can watch an event live, so in this case I make an exception

[bfd]

Matt, I agree with you. The Olympics should not have Pros in it. I liked it before. The sports dragging pros out are IMO, sad. Cycling, basketball, tennis... I just no longer care who medals. You won the World Championship already, not enough? Let some very talented amateur have their moment in the sun.
I have no problem with endorsement deals to help with the cost of competing, and I realize it's a thin difference between taking that money and a salary. I know that other countries subsidize their athletes so they can train full time, but I don't care. The ideal is amateurism. We may not win as many golds but who cares? We won what we won the right way.
So...the only thing I've seen of the Olympics is that womens road crash & that was on youtube.

The problem I have is where do you draw the line? Yes, NBA players, the Williams sisters and most of the pro cycling peleton is out. But, if we really only want "amateurs" competing, does that mean Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt and anyone else who earns money competing or gets money from "stipends," "honorariums," "allowance," "endorsement," or any other synonym is out?!

[malcolm]

I always thought they allowed the pros in because the eastern bloc and Chinese were essentially pros. They have military or other bogus positions and basically their job was to train for competition. Is that not true.

[MattTuck]

The problem I have is where do you draw the line? Yes, NBA players, the Williams sisters and most of the pro cycling peleton is out. But, if we really only want "amateurs" competing, does that mean Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt and anyone else who earns money competing or gets money from "stipends," "honorariums," "allowance," "endorsement," or any other synonym is out?!

The point was already made that there is no going back. The olympics, whether you like it or not, is a multi-billion dollar events company and is going to do whatever it can to increase its reach.

However, if we are just playing hypotheticals, I think you can define amateur using several simple tests. Answering yes to any of these would disqualify you.

1.) Did you play in a national or international professional league of the sport you're competing in within the last 3 years? (could even go so far as to list all applicable leagues, and adjust the time frame)

2.) Did you receive (accept) significant prize money in any of the last 3 years in the sport you're competing in? (here, you could define some amount. Probably greater than CHF 15,000 in a calendar year.


I have no problem with an athlete who wants to go out and hustle for endorsements and sponsorships, and does speaking engagements or commercials. That is the athlete's persona. But if they are out making money by playing their sport, that is where I'd draw the line at professional.

[makoti]

The problem I have is where do you draw the line? Yes, NBA players, the Williams sisters and most of the pro cycling peleton is out. But, if we really only want "amateurs" competing, does that mean Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt and anyone else who earns money competing or gets money from "stipends," "honorariums," "allowance," "endorsement," or any other synonym is out?!

Personally, I'm good with them selling their image & endorsements. If the gov wants to kick in with something, I'd likely be ok with that. I don't know where you'd draw the line with track & field, swimming, diving, curling, whatever else you have for smaller sports but yes, the big-time, top dollar sports need to lose the pros.

[rnhood]

I have no problem with an athlete who wants to go out and hustle for endorsements and sponsorships, and does speaking engagements or commercials. That is the athlete's persona. But if they are out making money by playing their sport, that is where I'd draw the line at professional.

I think this is a good benchmark. As far as mediocre vs the true elite, its merely relative. If someone has difficulty enjoying or appreciating amateur sports because they are a half step down from the elite pros, then I'd say they need to be watching some other event or activity. If we only want to see the most elite levels, then hey, let them take drugs. Lets see just how high a level they can perform.

[bfd]

Personally, I'm good with them selling their image & endorsements. If the gov wants to kick in with something, I'd likely be ok with that. I don't know where you'd draw the line with track & field, swimming, diving, curling, whatever else you have for smaller sports but yes, the big-time, top dollar sports need to lose the pros.

You do know Phelps earns like $10 MILLION annually in endorsement and appearance fees; similarly, Usain Bolt supposedly earns $300,000 per appearance at any track meet and gets like $20 MILLION annually in appearance fees and endorsements.

I guess that puts them on the same level as the top NBA players like LeBron. So it is hard to draw the line....It's all entertainment people. Good Luck!

[Mark McM]

That's a stretch. Mediocrity? There are plenty of very talented amateurs out there. It's not like you'll be watching me in the next one if we cut out the pros.

Isn't the point of the Olympics to crown the best athletes in the world? Professional athletes are simply those that have found a way to make a living at their sport - usually because they are some of the best at it. If you purposely disclude many of the world's best athletes, how can you claim to crown a champion?

The argument to disclude professionals from the Olympics is both disingenuous and absurd, and always has been. It just as ridiculous as when the Little League Baseball banned non-US teams from the Little League World Series in 1975 after non-US teams won the previous 7 out of 10 championships (talk about taking your ball and going home!)

[FlashUNC]

"I like watching amateurs." == "I like watching people not being compensated for their labors in a multi-billion enterprise."

Its like rooting for Mr Potter in Its a Wonderful Life.

[Mark McM]

"I like watching amateurs." == "I like watching people not being compensated for their labors in a multi-billion enterprise."

Its like rooting for Mr Potter in Its a Wonderful Life.


I do like to watch amateurs. There's something affirming in watching people compete for the pure joy of sport.

But when you put them through rigorous selection processes to find the best, commit them to structured training programs, and then put them on the world's stage to compete for fame and glory (and the lure of large sponsorship contracts) ,they are far, far away from being "amateurs" anymore.

[ojingoh]

Lots of great arguments here.

For me the Olympics are a propaganda relic, specifically of the Cold War era that I have an attachment and interest baked into me from the 70s and 80s. I don't know how younger people view them. I don't think that most of these sports would stop being sports if you pulled the Games out of them, they'd just have another world championship that year, if they don't already (UCI is still holding Worlds in Qatar in October.)

I love watching them, but honestly if they went away I wouldn't be bummed about it.

[Mark McM]

I don't think that most of these sports would stop being sports if you pulled the Games out of them, they'd just have another world championship that year, if they don't already (UCI is still holding Worlds in Qatar in October.)

The IOC doesn't organize or run any sports at all. For a sport to be included in the Olympics, it has to already have its own international organizing body. It is these organizing bodies that actually regulate and/or run the events at the Olympics.

So, yes, some sports might suffer without the Olympics, but they wouldn't disappear.

When the modern Olympics started, world travel was still difficult, and it was hard to get the best in the world all in the same place at the same time. The structure of the Olympic games helped to facilitate a world meeting of sports. But now, world travel is commonplace, and arranging many sports can easily stage their own world championships on an annual basis. In recent years the Olympics has grown to be an outsized, and outdated monstrosity, which has outlived its purpose, and is even showing signs of collapsing under its own weight.

[MattTuck]

"I like watching amateurs." == "I like watching people not being compensated for their labors in a multi-billion enterprise."

Its like rooting for Mr Potter in Its a Wonderful Life.

Yes, but by what mechanism do you propose a fair allocation of compensation to the athletes? Should the olympics just hand out monetary prizes commensurate with their standings on the podium? 1st, 2nd and 3rd? or give prize money all the way to the top 10? or perhaps they could be paid hourly, based on all their training hours.

I mean, there is a big difference (to me) between an NCAA D1 football player being exploited over 4 years of televised games and ticket sales, basically an employee of the school, and an athlete that comes to represent his/her country once every 4 years.

[FlashUNC]

Yes, but by what mechanism do you propose a fair allocation of compensation to the athletes? Should the olympics just hand out monetary prizes commensurate with their standings on the podium? 1st, 2nd and 3rd? or give prize money all the way to the top 10? or perhaps they could be paid hourly, based on all their training hours.

I mean, there is a big difference (to me) between an NCAA D1 football player being exploited over 4 years of televised games and ticket sales, basically an employee of the school, and an athlete that comes to represent his/her country once every 4 years.

Just because it might not have a simple solution is an inadequate reason for not figuring out a solution.

NBC agreed to pay $7.75 billion through 2032 to air the olympics in the US. And that's just one broadcast agreement.

The fact athletes see none of that and folks want to watch "amateurs" is galling.

[Mark McM]

Yes, but by what mechanism do you propose a fair allocation of compensation to the athletes? Should the olympics just hand out monetary prizes commensurate with their standings on the podium? 1st, 2nd and 3rd? or give prize money all the way to the top 10? or perhaps they could be paid hourly, based on all their training hours.

You say that like you didn't know that this has already been happening for decades:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2016/08/04/american-olympians-fighting-for-25000-gold-medal-bonuses-at-rio-olympics/#929de9928f4d

[makoti]

Isn't the point of the Olympics to crown the best athletes in the world? Professional athletes are simply those that have found a way to make a living at their sport - usually because they are some of the best at it. If you purposely disclude many of the world's best athletes, how can you claim to crown a champion?

The argument to disclude professionals from the Olympics is both disingenuous and absurd, and always has been. It just as ridiculous as when the Little League Baseball banned non-US teams from the Little League World Series in 1975 after non-US teams won the previous 7 out of 10 championships (talk about taking your ball and going home!)

Actually, it was the "Dream Team" in basketball that did me in, and it was no different than the Little League example you gave. We lost the the Russians! The Horror! Bring in the pros & wipe the court with those Russians! Well, it worked. And now it's a foregone conclusion that the US will win.
Tell me, do you think that the USA hockey win over Russia in 1980 would have been ANY where near as exciting if it was a team of NHL stars, like it is now?

This is an interesting read on all this: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/22/opinion/greene-olympics-amateurs/

"The pros are there for a reason," the esteemed sports journalist Ron Rapoport, who has covered six Olympics, told me the other night. "People will tune in to watch athletes they know. The pro athletes are pre-sold to the public, which means increased viewership."

I agree with this, except for me, it's backwards. I don't want to see the athletes I know from another team playing together like it's some epic pick-up game. We have the all-star games for that & we all know how great they are to watch.
Maybe it's because, for amateurs, that gold medal may be all there is for them. There is no big paycheck waiting, yet there they are. Working out crazy hard, struggling, knowing that this is it. This is EVERYTHING for them. The pros? Meh, win, hey that's great! Toss it on the mantle next to the other trophies. Lose? That's ok, season starts in two weeks. No big deal. Give me the guy who worked 40-hour weeks at UPS while working in his training every time.

[MattTuck]

Just because it might not have a simple solution is an inadequate reason for not figuring out a solution.

NBC agreed to pay $7.75 billion through 2032 to air the olympics in the US. And that's just one broadcast agreement.

The fact athletes see none of that and folks want to watch "amateurs" is galling.

The great irony is that the broadcast rights would probably be much less valuable if it was truly limited to amateurs. The real value in those contracts is in the ratings and ability to sell advertising, and the big name professionals are the ones that get the ratings. By the nature of this type of thing, the ones that create the most value in this format are probably the ones least in need of compensation.

Also, one could argue that the exposure on the olympics creates value for the athletes in terms of sponsorships and other ways to make money from their success. I mean, what you are railing against is happening now. So it seems that it is a separate issue than the amateur/professional debate. It is a structural (one of MANY) deficiency in the current organization.

For me, the amateur/professional thing just comes down to, if it is open to professionals, what is the point? other than making money for the IOC? It is just another way to crown the 'best in the world', but most sports already have an annual way to do that. So, taken with the other issues like bankrupting host cities, the joke that was PED controls in Sochi, etc., it just makes me scratch my head and wonder whether we even need the Olympics (in its current form).

[Joxster]

Isn't what you are all describing an international version of the Pan-Am or Commenwealth Games?

As an Athlete the rank of the list is as follows.....

National Championship
World Cup meetings
Commenwealth/Pan-Am Games
World Championships
Olympics

There is still a kudos to be Olympic champion over world champion, some sports don't care like football and golf.

The games in 92 were the first ones to relax the rules on pros competing and in the village you mixed with the superstars, I met the dream team and had lunch with them in KFC on the Ramblas.

[BdaGhisallo]

The whole amateurism thing is just a distraction. The rule was in place as the game was started by the landed gentry and the upper crust, and they wanted to limit the competition amongst the upper crust. Athletes of lesser means would undoubtedly need the additional income (form appearance fees or winnings) to make ends meet.

Exactly! Amateurism wasn't created to encourage the average man to participate. It was just the opposite. It was created for those who could, in effect, be professional athletes because they had other income and wealth so that they didn't have to work in order to support themselves while they trained and focused on their sports.

The Olympics themselves have become one big orgy of money and corruption that I don't even much care who is competing and why. On the odd occasions I tune in, I just want to see the best performing in events I may only see once every eight years. The rest is noise.

[oldpotatoe]

The IOC doesn't organize or run any sports at all. For a sport to be included in the Olympics, it has to already have its own international organizing body. It is these organizing bodies that actually regulate and/or run the events at the Olympics.

So, yes, some sports might suffer without the Olympics, but they wouldn't disappear.

When the modern Olympics started, world travel was still difficult, and it was hard to get the best in the world all in the same place at the same time. The structure of the Olympic games helped to facilitate a world meeting of sports. But now, world travel is commonplace, and arranging many sports can easily stage their own world championships on an annual basis. In recent years the Olympics has grown to be an outsized, and outdated monstrosity, which has outlived its purpose, and is even showing signs of collapsing under its own weight.

So how do these guys get their boat there?

[weisan]

To me, this is what Olympics is all about...dreams can come true, and it goes beyond just your individual achievements.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/the-coming-of-joseph/3039544.html

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore-s-joseph/3039770.html

[classtimesailer]

That is the point of contention. I MISS THE GOOD OLD DAYS!
From http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/joseph-schooling-to/3040022.html?cx_tag=morestories4ucna&cid=tg:recos:morestories4ucna:standard#cxrecs_s

SINGAPORE: Butterfly specialist Joseph Schooling, who clinched his first Olympic Gold medal at the 100m butterfly event on Saturday morning (Aug 13), can look forward to prize money of S$1 million.

To reward medal-winning athletes, an incentive scheme was devised by the Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC) in the 1990s. The Multi-Million Dollar Award Programme (MAP) provides a cash payout to athletes who win medals at the Olympics, Asian, Commonwealth and SEA Games.

Schooling, 21, clocked 50.39s in his pet event to beat the likes of American great Michael Phelps and South Africa's Chad le Clos.

In a report by American television network CBS, “student-athletes are not allowed to be paid”, under National Collegiate Athletic Association rules. As a Singaporean, however, Schooling is exempted.

[CampyorBust]

You say that like you didn't know that this has already been happening for decades:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2016/08/04/american-olympians-fighting-for-25000-gold-medal-bonuses-at-rio-olympics/#929de9928f4d

Uncle Sam wants a piece of that action...Victory Tax!

http://time.com/money/4449985/2016-rio-olympics-victory-tax/

"If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet"

Participation Ribbons for everybody! For a small fee of course;)

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j49/PedalPusher33/CLS_Peaked_Participant_Rainbow1_zpshpsc0dvg.jpg

The Wall of Gaylord...
https://youtu.be/x-A6zERn6yo

[makoti]

To me, this is what Olympics is all about...dreams can come true, and it goes beyond just your individual achievements.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/the-coming-of-joseph/3039544.html

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore-s-joseph/3039770.html

And then there's just pure sportsmanship. Just doing what's right.
https://www.facebook.com/sbnation/videos/10153187777826536/

[d_douglas]

I live in an Olympic trading hub for rowing in Canada - Victoria. It is frequent that you see giant lanky folks around the city in various settings as once they are finished their Olympic careers, they move on to other challenges, some more successful than others.

My father in law was a gold medalist from the 56 Olympics and went on to be a pharmacist; my neighbour behind my house won in 2004 and is now a communications exec for the government; another guy two blocks away was in the same boat and is a motivational speaker, etc. (this guy is enormous - I've seen him on a bike and it looks like his thighs are going to blow through his jeans!!)

All this to say is that they took a challenge, pursued it at the highest level, and now have moved on to other challenges - some fare well, others do not, sadly. That said, it seems to me that the amateur component is in the true spirit of the Olympic Games

[bloody sunday]

Isn't the point of the Olympics to crown the best athletes in the world? Professional athletes are simply those that have found a way to make a living at their sport - usually because they are some of the best at it. If you purposely disclude many of the world's best athletes, how can you claim to crown a champion?

The argument to disclude professionals from the Olympics is both disingenuous and absurd, and always has been. It just as ridiculous as when the Little League Baseball banned non-US teams from the Little League World Series in 1975 after non-US teams won the previous 7 out of 10 championships (talk about taking your ball and going home!)

I agree 1000%

[malcolm]

Actually, it was the "Dream Team" in basketball that did me in, and it was no different than the Little League example you gave. We lost the the Russians! The Horror! Bring in the pros & wipe the court with those Russians! Well, it worked. And now it's a foregone conclusion that the US will win.
Tell me, do you think that the USA hockey win over Russia in 1980 would have been ANY where near as exciting if it was a team of NHL stars, like it is now?

This is an interesting read on all this: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/22/opinion/greene-olympics-amateurs/

"The pros are there for a reason," the esteemed sports journalist Ron Rapoport, who has covered six Olympics, told me the other night. "People will tune in to watch athletes they know. The pro athletes are pre-sold to the public, which means increased viewership."

I agree with this, except for me, it's backwards. I don't want to see the athletes I know from another team playing together like it's some epic pick-up game. We have the all-star games for that & we all know how great they are to watch.
Maybe it's because, for amateurs, that gold medal may be all there is for them. There is no big paycheck waiting, yet there they are. Working out crazy hard, struggling, knowing that this is it. This is EVERYTHING for them. The pros? Meh, win, hey that's great! Toss it on the mantle next to the other trophies. Lose? That's ok, season starts in two weeks. No big deal. Give me the guy who worked 40-hour weeks at UPS while working in his training every time.

I agree. The thing I like most about the Olympics is the athletes I've never heard of doing well or maybe not even doing well but having a compelling story. I don't tune in to see some professional league athlete and would rather not. Basketball in the olympics has become a farce, but hey it's played all over now but still really an american sport.

As far as the guy working a 40 hour week goes and finding time to be an olympian. I agree again, I love that story, but how do they compete with countries that have state sponsored programs and the olympics or worlds or what have you is their job. Isn't that the definition of professional?? Or am i off base and that really doesn't exist?

[makoti]

As far as the guy working a 40 hour week goes and finding time to be an olympian. I agree again, I love that story, but how do they compete with countries that have state sponsored programs and the olympics or worlds or what have you is their job. Isn't that the definition of professional?? Or am i off base and that really doesn't exist?

No, you're right & it's not fair. It's crazy for anyone to go out and try to best a state-sponsored athlete. And yet, for years and years, that's what our people had to do. And when they did win, it made it all the more compelling.
Yes, I have a view of things as they should be, not as they are. We'll never go back to amateur athletics. There is way too much money involved, and it really should be spread around to the athletes who bring it in. But, that doesn't mean I have to watch or spend anything on the Olympics and I choose not to.
A friend of mine's daughter was in line to go to Rio as part of the US Syncro Swim team. Talk about a no dollar, love of competition sport. But she puts in crazy hours training for it, all while working, going to school, and generally living a normal life. For various reasons, she didn't go but if she had, that would have been a great story to follow for me.

[bluesea]

Before Al Gore's internet there were our innocent dreams and the AAU.