Globalisation of the Olympics

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/ >