Heather Reid, Morningside College – Commercialism of the Olympics

Is commercialism affecting the spirit of the Olympics Games?

Heather Reid, professor and scholar of the philosophy of sport at Morningside College, discusses this issue.

Heather Reid is a scholar of the philosophy of sport at Morningside College in Iowa https://www.morningside.edu/ and is the author of six books related to sports philosophy and the Olympics.

Reid, who was recently voted distinguished scholar by the International Association for the Philosophy of Sport, is organizing a major academic conference exploring the philosophy of sport, to be held in September at the International Olympic Academy in Ancient Olympia, in Greece. There, she will deliver the Distinguished Scholar Lecture, which will later be published as an article in the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport. The title: “Why Olympia Matters for Modern Sport”. She was also recently invited to submit an article for a special issue of the journal Sport, Ethics, and Philosophy, which will focus on the concept of Athletic Heroes that compares modern “sports heroes” with ancient Greek heroes, like Heracles. Professor Reid earned her B.A. at the University of Virginia, and both her M.A. and Ph.D. at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Commercialism of the Olympics

One major change in the Olympic Movement of the new millennium is the demise of amateurism and the rising acceptance of commercialism. On the one hand, this change has improved the visibility and economic viability of the Games. On the other hand, it feels as though something important has been lost and a corporate paradigm is taking over with little opposition.

It is sometimes forgotten that Ancient Greek athletes were often highly paid and not at all averse to receiving lucrative prizes. But the Olympic Games prize of an olive crown was more valuable to them precisely because it lacked monetary value and therefore symbolized a higher, more divine calling than the practical need to earn a living.

For the first century of the modern Olympic Games, there was an attempt to express this spirit through the idea of amateurism. However, in practice, amateurism became a way of excluding poorer athletes and inaugurating a shadow competition among individuals and nations in bending the rules to gain an advantage.

The removal of amateur restrictions and inclusion of professional athletes—along with support programs like Olympic Solidarity–seem to have helped the cause of diversity. In fact, the wealthy professional athletes who compete in the Olympics today may best represent the ideal of “competing for the love of the sport” rather than some expected practical reward.

Capitalism seems more democratic—and therefore more Olympic–than the traditional social hierarchies familiar to the founders. The Games’ arrival in China and now Brazil may be evidence of that. But Capitalism also tends to concentrate and maintain wealth in the hands of a few, reducing the possibility for the have-nots of the world to compete with the haves.

Corporate sponsorship can actually promote Olympic values, but can also exacerbate the problem of economic disparity, as when BMW develops bobsled technology exclusively for the American team, leaving even their home country’s sleds behind.

In the future, I hope we may find a way to revive the spirit that underpinned amateurism without losing the benefits of commercial support for the games.