Many ‘things’ in life are deeply affected
by globalisation; it seems a natural (or not-so-natural) way of life. It “is a process in which
worldwide economic, political, cultural and social relations have become
increasingly mediated across time and space” (Rantanen, 2005, p8). So why would
we think that the Olympic Games’ would be any different? It certainly is no
exception to the rapidly and ever-changing world we live in. The globalisation
debate has many different pros and cons; amongst a variety of valid arguments
surrounding it.
The negative issues of gloablisation bring a long list of foreseeable
problems in the future to the Olympics and other major worldwide events. One of
the major problems that I view to contradict the motto of the Olympic ring
symbol is the coming together of the five different continents, (Africa, the Americas,
Antarctica, Oceania, and Europe). French aristocrat, Baron Pierre de Coubertin was the founder of
the modern Olympics and announced in 1914 that he had designed “the five rings, linked together to suggest
the unity of humankind” (Kennedy, 2012).
With globalisation comes a greater monetary
divide between countries. This can be viewed similar to that of the digital
divide, which “refers to the gap
between those who can benefit from digital technology and those who cannot”
(Warren Smith, 2010). This divide has created an obvious prediction on which
few countries will take the most gold and overall medals away from the Olympic
games. In 1896, The USA led the tally board with 11 Gold (database Olympics,
2011) followed by Greece with 10. The decades following, The United States of
America was always up near the top (excluding the years in which they did not
take place in the Olympics), which I believe has everything to do with the
economy of the country and their resources. They were able to fund and help
their athletes become the best they could be, whereas a country like Trinidad
& Tobago (with a GDP per capita of $20,573 International Dollars) had no chance to compete with the US, who have a
GDP per capita of $49,601
International Dollars - more than double Trinidad’s (Global Finance,
2010). It is no wonder that the US won
so many more medals than other countries with all the resources and technology
readily available to them in order to help and support their athletes.
VS. 
With Globalisation has also come the shift
from the US to China. As the most populated country in the world with 1,347,350,000 people (National bureau of
statistics China, 2012) closely followed by India with 1,210,193,422 people (Census
India, 2011), but what sets the two similarly populated countries apart is
their GDP per capita. As stated above the US has a GDP per capital of almost
$50,000, whereas India’s miniscule GDP per capita of US$ 1,455 shows they have
no room to compete with the giant USA. Globalisation has seen the rich becoming
richer (USA) and the poor becoming poorer (India), it sets the boundaries at
the Olympic Games of which countries have the most money to pour into such
events and which countries are left stranded behind. The digital divide shows
its role again to describe why the Olympics has become so globalised in the respect
to which countries will always come out on top.
I have experienced the
power that globalisation has on Olympic athletes first hand through my brother
Sam, 21, who had been training for the Olympics for many years previous to the
2012 London Olympics Australian trials. Sam has claimed titles such as the Australian
junior and youth champion for the 110m Hurdles many years running, he has also
claimed titles that leave him as the worlds fastest of his age group in the
year 2008 and the title of Commonwealth Youth Champion, which he won in India.
However competing for Australia, with little if any funding got the better of
him – he was approached by countless American colleges to come and compete for
them (an approach that has seen the US gain many athletes to compete for their
country). The physical flows of globalisation are evident through this example
and have affected the Olympics in the respect that the US have the power to
just about buy any top athlete from around the world, therefore these athletes
have taken to moving to a country that will help and support their athletic
careers. Deciding against moving to the
states, Sam was given little choice but to put aside his athletic career to
earn money in order to support himself. It was only recently that my family
decided that if Australia would no longer support his career, they would. He
was lucky in this respect as many families would not have the resources to do
so – and this is where the US and China have an advantage over other countries
(including Australia) that either do not have or are not willing to fund such
causes.
But the digital and
monetary divide between countries is not the only negative of globalisation the
Olympics has seen, there is also the matter of major advertisers and sponsors
that have taken the fun away from communities trying to support the Olympics
and their home countries. At
a happy time when countries come together as one, and athlete’s shine, it seems
all the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is concerned about is sponsorship
– rather than community spirit. “A 300-strong task force was prowling
the London streets during the Olympics. Their job is not to protect the
citizenry, but the Games' sponsors by cracking down on "ambush
marketing," (Toren, 2012) Their take on ambush marketing saw a young boy
heart broken that his home drawn Olympic rings logo was taken down from a shop
front in London. A little overboard you may think? Well the eleven sponsors including; “Visa, Coca-Cola, McDonalds, and Adidas” thought not. Having paid a
total of “$1.4 billion for the right” to soley have their brand associated with
the logo (Toren, 2012). So where will the line be drawn that kids are no longer
able to draw a simple logo in support of a major event, surely it was not a child’s
plan to use this logo as a marketing ambush? “The IOC ‘s sales of broadcast rights generated a revenue of US$2570
million for the four-year period up to and including the Beijing Games (2005-8)
– double the revenue generated by such sales for the four years to Atlanta (1993-6)”
(Hayes, 2011, p.4) With such figures, comes the responsibility of the IOC to
protect their sponsors by doing such raids as stated above.
When global events such as the Olympics are
worth so much money and profit to sponsors, the globalisation of it all is very
clear. From being a humble worldwide event in which Olympians display their
talents to the world and to claim a championship, it has now become a
phenomenon that is more concerned with making profits than the competition
itself.
However, in the midst of all these
negatives, a few positives linger too. We can thank globalisation for the
coverage of many different sports and events that can be brought to us live, as
well as through live streaming on the Internet. Supporting countries can feel
as though they are at the Games supporting their teams from the very comfort of
their homes. I believe that there are always two sides to every story and a
negative and positive that follows it. It is simply what you as an individual
choose to make from it that is the true truth – and how we interpret different
events and issues with different coloured glasses on. So my interpretation on
the globalisation of the Olympic Games is that although there may be some
hindrances in the mix – it is still a major event that will always bring the
world together in support of their countries and top athletes.
Reference:
Census India, 2011, Size, Growth rate and distribution of population, < http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/data_files/india/Final_PPT_2011_chapter3.pdf
> retrieved 2 October 2012.
Database Olympics, 2011, < http://www.databaseolympics.com/
>, retrieved 2 October 2012.
Global Finance, 2010, Country
Economic Reports & GDP Data, < http://www.gfmag.com/gdp-data-country-reports/
> retrieved 2 October 2012.
Hayes, G & Karamichas, J, 2011, Olympic Games, Mega-Events and Civil
Societies: Globalization, Environment, Resistance, Palgrave Macmillan, New
York, USA.
Kennedy, P, 2012, Who Made the Olympic Rings?, The New York Times, July 11 2012, <
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/magazine/who-made-the-olympic-rings.html?_r=3&ref=magazine&
>, retrieved 2 October 2012.
National bureau of statistics China, 2012,
< http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/newsandcomingevents/t20120120_402780233.htm
> retrieved 2 October 2012.
Rantanen, T, 2005, Theorizing media
globalization, Sage, London
Toren, B, 2012, ‘The most brazen Olympic branding violations’, CNN Money, <
http://money.cnn.com/gallery/news/2012/08/08/olympic-violations.fortune/index.html
> retrieved 2 October 2012.
Warren Smith, C, 2010, “Digital Divide” Defined (Hint: it’s not
about access.), < http://www.digitaldivide.org/digital-divide/digitaldividedefined/digitaldivide/
>
