Can the IOC be any more obvious in its desire to turn the Olympics into the X Games? Paris 2024 has unveiled the list of additional sports it has recommended for Olympic inclusion. Three of them--sport climbing, skateboarding and surfing--will already be part of the Olympic program next year in Tokyo. The fourth is, and I can't believe I'm saying this because it's so ridiculous...break dancing. But, hey, at least e "sports" didn't make the cut (at least not officially, more on that in a bit)!
All of this is in a blantant attempt to make the Olympics "more relevant to youth." And apparently they were successful in that objective. They did a survey right after the announcement and 79 percent of French people approved of the new sports, with that jumping to 89 percent favorable among 15-25 year-olds.
It was rumored that they'd also be proposing e "sports," but that seems to be off the table for now. At least as a medal event. Although, they're evidently planning on having some sort of offshore racing event in sailing, which would include some interactive elements. And sailing isn't the only sport to have that idea, either. Word is they're considering it in rowing and cycling, too.
The IOC has been obsessed with appealing to younger generations for a while now. That's why they created the Youth Olympics, the beast which unleashed break dancing on the world in the first place. Break dancing (or "breaking") was one of the most popular sports at the 2018 Youth Olympics in Buenos Aires. And evidently that's all you need to be included in the regular Olympics now.
I'd like to see the results of that same survey among fans/viewers of the traditional Olympic sports. Because that's the risk the IOC runs by adding all of these X Games sports to the Olympics. You want more youth to watch, but they aren't your core audience. And you risk alienating your core audience by catering to younger fans/athletes at their expense.
Not to mention the federations of the 26 core Olympic sports, who the IOC is basically telling, "We don't care about you." They're so concerned with appealing to youth that the traditional Olympic sports--the ones that are guaranteed places on the program--are forced to play second fiddle to these potential one-off sports that are guaranteed nothing beyond the one Olympics that the host has decided to include them in.
Another thing that can't sit well with the international federations is the 10,500-athlete cap that the IOC insists it wants to maintain, even with the addition of new sports. The only way to add new events/sports and have the same number of athletes is to take quota places away from existing sports. So, they're all directly impacted by the new sports. Because even if you have just a men's and women's event with 20 competitors each in those four sports, that's still 160 athletes (at a minimum). Which means you're taking 160 athletes away from other sports.
And how do you think golf and rugby must feel? They go through this rigorous process that required years of trying and multiple attempts before finally getting (deserved) Olympic inclusion in Rio. Only to see the process totally overhauled where all a sport needs to do is be popular in the host country of a given Games. Which, frankly, isn't fair to those that have been fighting for inclusion for so long, only to be rejected over and over again (seriously, what does squash have to do?).
After the addition of golf and rugby, they completely changed their own rules (which, granted, is their prerogative). Instead of a sport-based program, Tokyo will be the first Olympics to feature an event-based program. As a result, we have the five additional sports, bringing the total to a record 33, and a record 339 events. (Apparently the irony is lost on them that at a time they're having trouble finding bidders because of rising costs, the added sports will result in the largest Olympics ever.)
Meanwhile, there's no guarantee that these sports will even stay on the program. Sport climbing, surfing and skateboarding all retained their places for Paris 2024, but karate (which is an unnecessary addition in the first place) will be a one-and-done, and baseball/softball, after fighting 12 years to get back in, will return to the Olympics for one edition before being skipped again, even though you know they'll be back again in LA.
Tokyo didn't have the same restriction on working the new sports into the 10,500-athlete limit that Paris does. Which left virtually no room to add a team sport. So baseball and softball were screwed before the process even started. They aren't popular sports in France to begin with. Then that artificial athlete cap essentially sealed their fate. Because they're not allotting 150 athletes (and taking them away from other sports) to a sport that will only award one gold medal!
That's my biggest problem with the "event-based" program that has resulted in the addition of these sports. Either a sport is part of the Olympics or it's not. All of this back-and-forth, on-and-off doesn't benefit either the sport or the Olympics.
Which is why I preferred the old process. Deciding what sports are on the Olympic program should be up to the IOC. Not the organizers of the individual Games. Because the IOC knows what sports will provide the most benefit to the Olympic movement as a whole. I'm not a fan of their arbitrary (and now gone) 28-sport limit. But they shouldn't be adding and removing sports on a whim, either.
There's a massive difference between being an Olympic sport and not being an Olympic sport. That's why so many sports on the outside are desperate to get in. And that's why the competition is intense when there's an available spot (or two). Yet, by letting the host countries (who may have their own motivations) decide, they're dangling that carrot, only to potentially pull it away and make them do the whole thing all over again.
This isn't even about the sports that Paris selected. Although, that is a part of it. The Olympics got along for decades long before the X Games even existed. And, for much of its history, the X Games and fans of extreme sports took great pride in the fact that they were considered "alternative." Olympic recognition, while it would legitimize them, goes almost completely against that "alternative" culture.
As much as they might try to convince themselves otherwise, they don't need each other, either. They draw two completely different audiences. People who watch the X Games aren't going to watch the Olympics and vice versa. Combining the two isn't going to change that. In fact, it could very well end up having the opposite effect. Which doesn't benefit anybody.
No comments:
Post a Comment