The Olympics: Leveling the Playing Field

The Olympic Games, a global sporting event held every four years, bursts with diversity. Two thousand nine hundred and twenty athletes from 92 countries participated in the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea, and competed for more than 300 medals. But as an international competition and a celebration of skill, the Olympics prominently highlights wealth inequality more than anything else.

Countries that dominate the games, like the United States, Russia, China, and Great Britain, also have some of the largest economies in the world, facilitating the existence of a stronger sports culture. There are fewer opportunities for athletes from poorer countries, whose governments are often corrupt and even oppressive, to succeed in the Olympics. Olympic athletes face many obstacles regardless of their country of origin, including intense training and mental exertion. For athletes coming from less economically fortunate countries, the struggles they face, beginning from childhood, become even more arduous.

The United States, which has the highest medal count in Summer Olympics history, has a highly developed sporting infrastructure managed by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC). The USOC has invested tens of millions of dollars in establishing 17 Olympic training centers in 15 states that help prepare athletes, both mentally and physically, for upcoming competitions. These training centers boast high-end facilities and equipment for every sport, including six full-size basketball and volleyball courts and an aquatic center with analytical underwater footage cameras.

Unfortunately, many other countries cannot afford to provide their athletes with the mental and physical training and support they need in order to have a high medal count in the Olympics. For example, swimmers and ice skaters require training infrastructure, such as pools and ice rinks, to practice and improve their athletic ability. South Korean ice skater Yuna Kim, for example, had to train either very early in the morning or late at night in public rinks that were often too cold, therefore increasing the possibility of injury. Additionally, South Korea’s lack of skate shops forced her to wear uncomfortable and ill-fitting shoes, which made it hard to balance on the rink.

And athletes from impoverished African countries suffer from inadequate access to quality water, food, housing, education, medical services, and thus, sports facilities. Kenya, for instance, has poor management of its government-sponsored Olympic programs. The Kenyan Olympic team reported not having received any government funding for adequate accommodations and travel for the Rio Olympics. Corruption in the form of government officials embezzling money geared toward preparing athletes for the upcoming Games is a common problem in many developing countries.

For countries like America and China, the Olympics serve as a measuring stick for national prestige. Such countries believe their victories signify success. With so much importance placed on Olympic success, countries like America set aside immense amounts of money to prepare their athletes for the Games. China has an “Olympic system” set in place, which rigorously trains children for the Olympic Games. In China, there are thousands of government-funded boarding schools that center around sports in hope of preparing athletes for Olympic glory. According to gymnastics coach Zhao Genbo, “China’s economic development prompts our sports development. Our coaches and athletes go through great pains and hardship for glory…[countless boarding schools] feature state-of-the-art training facilities for kids to hone their talents…That’s what we’re designed to do: produce medals.”

On the other hand, countries like India or South Korea tend to focus more heavily on academics than sports, and therefore do not have as much of a “sports culture” as their American counterparts. India, one of the world’s most populous nations and fastest growing economies, has a relatively empty medal cabinet; more medals have been won by Michael Phelps than by the entire country since 1900. This can be credited to India’s lack of participation in Olympic sports. There is a popular Hindi saying that translates to, “If you study hard, you will live like a king, but if you play sports, you will ruin your life.” Indian society views education as the highest priority in life, with sports considered a “time-passing” activity just for recreational purpose.

Similarly, South Korean athletes have also faced the hardships of coming from a country prioritizing education and lacking in sports culture. Chloe Kim, a Korean-American snowboarder, noted the hesitation of her relatives back in Korea in response to her pursuit of an athletic career. She said that, “I think at first it was a little hard for them to support it because, you know, I feel like a Korean’s ideal thing is their kid being, like, a lawyer, a doctor.”

In addition to a lack of sports culture, various countries have cultures that discourage women from participating in sports. For women living in conservative Muslim countries, exercising and playing sports is heavily restricted. This leaves many of these nations with much lower female participation rates and inadequate success in women-only events. Saudi Arabia and Qatar, for instance, only began including women in their teams in 2012, in contrast to China’s team, with more than half of the athletes being women. By discouraging half of their population from participating in sports, many Muslim countries fall short in the Olympic medal count in comparison to many of their more progressive international counterparts.

In response to the additional disadvantages many athletes face on the road to Olympic success, the idea of a two-tier Olympics has gained traction. Under this system, separate Olympics would be held for the developed world and for developing countries in order to level the playing field. However, this proposal is antithetical to the spirit of the competition. The Olympics, though competitive, allows for athletic interaction and unity among the international community. Creating two seperate competitions further weakens the worldwide unity the games are supposed to bring.

Instead, the International Olympic Committee should dedicate a portion of its funding toward helping athletes from economically disadvantaged countries, or countries with inadequate training facilities, effectively prepare for the games. These funds would go toward hiring coaches, subsidizing traveling costs, purchasing expensive equipment, and maintaining training infrastructure, such as swimming pools, modern gyms, and ice rinks. With such additions, disadvantaged athletes can focus on their Olympic careers in adequate and productive environments.

Retired coaches may also help athletes prepare by working for free in countries that may not be able to afford to pay them. Additionally, the IOC can use a portion of its funding to allow disadvantaged athletes to train in countries that have a steady supply of equipment, training facilities, and psychology programs, such as the United States. If such procedures were carried out earlier, Olympic athletes like Yuna Kim might have had the proper equipment and infrastructure available during their earlier skating years to better prepare for their careers.

The Olympics seems to always end in similar results, with the United States and China dominating the medal count. Nevertheless, it is inaccurate to label American and Chinese athletes as objectively superior to their counterparts. Rather, they don’t have to face the additional challenges that many athletes in developing countries unfortunately face. By providing athletes with sufficient resources to train for and succeed in the Olympics, the IOC can level the international playing field once and for all.