The Olympics

At first glance the Olympics seem like a global event.  I mean how could they not be with 204 countries and territories participating from mega powers like China to small island states like Samoa (Rosenburg 2012 n.p).  Surely an event with such inclusiveness and physical greatness could only be considered a positive one? 

What about the inequality?  Sure both Samoa and China have the opportunity to compete, but is it really a fair competition?  Is the Olympic's just rewarding those countries who have the money to put into Sports?

At the 2000 Sydney Olympics Eric Moussambani from the Equatorial Guinea was cheered on by crowds in his heat which he won (the other two competitors were disqualified for false starts) in what was his first swim in a 50 meter pool, the standard Olympic size (Chaudhary, 2000 np).  This was seen as a good news story and the Australian media held this up as an example of how the Olympics were a truly global event where every country had a chance. 

Really? I hate to be cynical but I don't see how this can be seen as anything other than a token gesture that does not promote the global event ideal but rather shows the glaringly obvious inequality that exists in the Olympics.  We only have to look at the current Olympics to see what it’s not impossible for poorer nations to beat the richer ones, but I don’t think that we can call the Olympics truly global there is more equality.

Reference List

Rosenburg M, (2012) 'Countries participating in the 2012 Olympics Games in London', About Georpaphy, 6 July. retrieved 8/8/2012 <http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/Countries-Participating-In-The-2012-Olympic-Games-In-London.htm>

               

Chaudhary, V, (2000) 'Swimmer sets Olympic record- the slowest', The Guardian, 20 September, retrieved 9/8/2012 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/sydney/story/0,,370709,00.html>