Olympic Bullshit

Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Patrick Swayze said:
socialist mass entertainment with lots of flags, national anthems and james bond. a national socialist rally for children.
Click to expand...

By that argument, any big public spectacle that's intended to bring people together is "socialist"; throw in some flags and it's "national-socialist". But I think that only works if you stretch those terms to breaking point. How many national-socialist or Fascist rallies can you think of that featured delegations proudly representing almost every country in the world?

And if there is one thing this Games is resolutely not, it's "socialist", surely? Of course I'm no expert on the history of Olympic sponsorship but by the sound of it, there's a good case to be made for 2012 being the most corporate Games ever. Can anyone chip in on this? Has there been quite this much emphasis on expunging every trace of Pepsi or Burger King from a previous Games?

I haven't seen the ceremony yet as I was at work while it was on, oddly enough, but I'll try and catch in on youtube (assuming it's there) this evening.
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
More on the stuff Idlerich was mentioning upthread - pasted in full since you probably don't have a Times login.

Sanya Richards-Ross is leading a campaign to remove restrictions on athletes making money
Some of Team USA’s top athletes are demanding changes to sponsorship rules so that they can cash in on appearing at the Games.
Sanya Richards-Ross, a two-time gold medal-winner in the 4 x 400 metres, said that the Olympic ideal was at odds with reality and that athletes should be allowed to make money from their success. “Six billion dollars is being traded here so why do we compete for free?” she asked.
She is leading a Twitter campaign to remove the restrictions on what can be promoted. The International Olympic Committee’s Rule 40 bars athletes from using their names or image for advertising during the Games period.
Richards-Ross says that the rule penalises those who do not share sponsors with the IOC. “Rule 40 is restricting us because only 2 per cent of athletes have been able to tweet because they have IOC sponsors. That means 98 per cent of their peers can’t, and we are disgruntled. We understand the IOC are protecting their sponsors but we want to have a voice too. The Olympic ideal and the Olympic reality are now different.”
Promoting sponsors on social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook is only one matter of contention. Richards-Ross and others also believe that athletes should be paid to compete. If Richards-Ross wins the 400 metres in London she will net $100,000 (£64,000). The British Olympic Association offers no such incentive.
Mark Adams, the IOC communications chief, said: “For one month we ask [athletes] not to endorse products not related to the Olympics.”
Click to expand...
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
Thanks Steve. Nice to see that some athletes are rebelling a little bit... if only to get more money for themselves rather than against the actual nature of the thing itself.
This bit

"Well you do sign up when you join your national team. And it's there in the contract."
Click to expand...
But (correct me if I'm wrong) there is no way that you can compete and be part of the national set-up if you don't sign up? You have a choice between competing and advertising or not? I guess I don't complain about football teams wearing the relevant shirts but this seems quite different to me somehow.
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
IdleRich said:
But (correct me if I'm wrong) there is no way that you can compete and be part of the national set-up if you don't sign up?
Click to expand...

Not at the moment, I guess. I suppose contracts are imposed by national associations and they're dutybound to include all IOC's rules. So you have one trolley-load of tie-ins not to infringe (IOC's) and then another (BOA for a Brit) - and obviously the two don't trample on each other's toes.

Trouble for athletes is that while they can make £££ running on the European circuit, they rely almost entirely on Olympics and World Championships for recognition. While that remains the case, athletes will just have to suck it up or find some form of collective bargaining. There are very, very few who could menace their national associations by threatening individual withdrawal.
 
B

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
North Korea 4th in the medals table. Pretty impressive really. Will be quite funny if they finish above Britain (won't happen, obviously - Britain are far too good at cycling and other stuff i can't remember)
 
Bangpuss

Bangpuss

Well-known member
Both Sun and Mirror have cut-out Bradley Wiggins sideburns on their front pages today. Just shows that the 'public imagination' isn't really that imaginative. He can grow facial hair and ride a bike fast. Oooh!
 
Patrick Swayze

Patrick Swayze

I'm trying to shut up
Mr. Tea said:
By that argument, any big public spectacle that's intended to bring people together is "socialist"; throw in some flags and it's "national-socialist". But I think that only works if you stretch those terms to breaking point. How many national-socialist or Fascist rallies can you think of that featured delegations proudly representing almost every country in the world?

And if there is one thing this Games is resolutely not, it's "socialist", surely? Of course I'm no expert on the history of Olympic sponsorship but by the sound of it, there's a good case to be made for 2012 being the most corporate Games ever. Can anyone chip in on this? Has there been quite this much emphasis on expunging every trace of Pepsi or Burger King from a previous Games?

I haven't seen the ceremony yet as I was at work while it was on, oddly enough, but I'll try and catch in on youtube (assuming it's there) this evening.
Click to expand...

the mass delusion and enforced enthusiasm on the radio tv etc is quite creepy. I don't actually think that its similar to nazism though.

I didn't say it was socialist.

but to answer your question, I guess the 1936 Berlin Olympics.

I think those games were all about legacy too.
 
Leo

Leo

Well-known member
the olympics can be a bit of a headfuck for the average middle-age male. first i started to feel like a bit of a perv while watching the women's gymnastics, since they're all about 16 years old in skintight leotards. then i flipped over to women's swimming, where they all look like they could kick my ass.
 
B

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
the olympics would be fine without the absurdly over-the-top nationalism, the absurdly over the top corporatism (leading to a lot of horrible treatment of people in the name of Ronald McDonald), the theft from the public purse to pay for it (whilst allegedly it couldn't have happened without the sponsors) and the sailing.

After that, you're left with some pretty good sport.
 
Last edited:
Patrick Swayze

Patrick Swayze

I'm trying to shut up
Mr. Tea said:
Well they're not enforcing it very well if your comments are anything to go by.



Then why did you say it was, other than to be oh-so-shocking? You've Godwinned yourself pretty hard here, it has to be said.
Click to expand...

im not on tv or radio

I was exaggerating, in the spirit of the grand opening ceremony. I don't think it's shocking (even ironically) but it seems to have been, eye-catching, at least.
 
L

Lichen

Well-known member
baboon2004 said:
the olympics would be fine without the absurdly over-the-top nationalism, the absurdly over the top corporatism (leading to a lot of horrible treatment of people in the name of Ronald McDonald), the theft from the public purse to pay for it (whilst allegedly it couldn't have happened without the sponsors) and the sailing.

After that, you're left with some pretty good sport.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And as a viewer it's in your capacity, as it is in the competitors', to focus on the good stuff.
 
B

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Well yes, but you can focus on both. Doesn't mean you enjoy the sport bits you like any less, just means you wish the circumstances were different and corporatism hadn't sullied the thing.

Any figures on relative investment of corporates versus the public?
 
Leo

Leo

Well-known member
as irritating as it might be, i can't imagine how a gathering of thousands of athletes from around the world for almost two weeks of organized competition could possibly be accomplished without the "corporatization" factor, let alone government funding. not sure how it worked in the early years of the olympics before companies went sponsorship crazy (probably just more government funding, i suppose), but there's no way it could be possible today.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
They could save a lot of money by having events all round the country and using more existing stadiums and other facilities as they do in the World Cup.
Greatest ever Olympian? Dunno but seeing as you can win loads of events in swimming it's not comparable to sprinting that's for sure. Free-style is the fastest way to the end and back and compares well to a running race, having the other strokes as events in their own right is like having 100m hop or 100m running backwards as another event. They should get rid of breast stroke etc they're pointless.
Then again Redgrave can hardly be called the greatest ever Olympian, I appreciate that you can only beat what's in front of you and he has been very successful over a long period but ultimately you simply can't think about making that claim if you're in a minority sport - ninety nine percent of the world has never had the chance to row one of those boats that Redgrave kept winning in, for all anyone knows I would have been better than him given the opportunity. And if that seems like a stretch it's not unreasonable to suggest that one of the millions of people from Africa or wherever who never dreamt of rowing might well have been better.
For me, to be the greatest across all disciplines you need to a) be in a sport that is open to pretty much anyone (that rules out dressage or yachting but that should be self-evident anyway) b) win it by a long way or against the odds etc c) and do it more than once. Then once you've used those criteria to whittle it down you start talking about those extra factors that make them special.
Edit: there is some flexibility, a sport that's open to almost all is possible as long as the athlete excelled in the other categories and so on and so forth
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top