Amateurism, as I said previously, was a 19th century conceit. So athletes and teams and federations throughout the 20th century found loopholes. In rugby, these athletes became known as "shamateurs." In Wales in the early 20th century when coal miners played amateur Rugby Union, the players were constantly being poached by northern English Rugby League (professional) teams, so the proud Welsh towns that found identity and pride with their amateur rugby clubs did what the Soviet Union used to do -- they rewarded star players with houses and cars and other assorted "gifts." Only a contrarian lawyer or a moron would presume those gifts weren't income, so the clubs and athletes engaged in a big Kabuki routine pretending is wasn't so --- no, no, no Guv, nobody getting paid even so much as a shilling, hon-est. When you restrict sports events to amateurs, that's what you inevitably get -- shamateurs -- i.e. so-called "amateur" athletes that accept "promotional" positions from sponsors like breweries and soft-drink corporations where the athlete's "job" was to shake hands at publicity events with bigwigs and politicians. That's what happened with amateur rugby players in France, South Africa and New Zealand -- these players were used & abused. And when, say, a team from NZ had to do a 2-month tour of the UK, players that were farmers were not only expected to play for free, they were also expected to pay some other worker to run his farm for the two months absence. In fact, the amateur rules were so restrictive that an athlete couldn't write a book and accept profits off the sales of those books without giving up his amateur status. No athletic sacrifice is worth financial ruin. Amateurism is a great ideal, but as a working policy in athletics it is a sham. The sham has been exposed for far too long, and I for one don't need 19th century rules dictating order in a 21st century reality. Besides, the IOC receives billions of dollars on the backs of these star athletes ---- surely the athletes themselves deserve their slice of the pie.
I am not saying that the athletes do not deserve a share of the pie. I am all for an athlete pursuing and getting endorsements deals of their own, provided a) the deal does not necessitate that the athlete peform in any particular event or to any ceratin standard and b) the sponshorship is not on the athletes person at any time immediately before during or after a competition except for manufacturers of equipment (you don't think ALL skiers just happen to hold their skis with the bases showing towards the camera do you?). Am I picking nits in differentiating between pay for performance and pay for endorsing? Perhaps, but I for one would rather see a "team" of athletes than a "gaggle" of all-stars. And lets face it, what sports are we truly speaking of in the Olympics? For the Winter Games it includes hockey and..... In the Summer Games it means basketball and....baseball and softball are going away, some of the sailing but that is about it.... And baseball was never really a problem since MLB continued to play during the games. What we are really taking about here then boils down to hockey and basketball and soccer when it comes online as a medal sport...
mrhockey: Too few of those posting here realize just what a 'team' is, hence, the lack of want for the pro exclusion. So you're saying that everybody would agree with you if only they weren't so ignorant? Interesting way to win an argument. I'm not really even sure what you (and the column you linked to) are arguing for. Is it just the exclusion of NHL players? I don't think that will really solve the "problem." The US would still try to assemble an "all-star" team of the best non-NHL players they could find (in the minor leagues and in Europe). How would they be any more a "team" than the current collection? Or are you arguing in favour of a "true" national team, like the US and Canadian women's teams, that play and practice together for months before the Olympics? If everybody plays by the same rules, then I am sure that would make a very exciting Olympic hockey tournament. But if NHL players are allowed, and the US chooses not to use them, then the question becomes: do you really think that the advantages of playing and practicing together would give that collection of players a chance at being competitive? Would it be able to overcome the differences in talent? Or are you arguing that it shouldn't matter, and that the "principle" of amateurism should be more important than winning, anyway?
"I am all for an athlete pursuing and getting endorsements deals of their own, provided..." Athletes need to concentrate on training, not banging on corporate office doors with a tin-cup in hand. Every minute wasted trying to acquire sponsorship is a minute wasted training to be the best athlete -- and nobody gets sponsorship in minutes, it can often take months-and-years. TIME AND ENERGY WASTED. That's why athletes need agents representing their best interests -- and agents cost money. You then slap all sorts of provisions onto these endorsement deals. The policy seems a little bit too fascist for my liking -- what else can you call a corporatist body that sows an anti-materialist ideology, expects sacrifice, exalts nationalism, and imposes economic control over the individual? This is the 21st century. Men are free. They are allowed to sell their labor and the fruits of their labor at fair market price. These athletes have an immense global audience and the IOC, NBC and their sponsors makes billions of dollars off the backs of the athletes labour.
There is another link column here that is advocating figure skating is not a sport, and the writer there uses similar arguments to these. While I am distressed by the Bettman-bashing as well, the biggest problem with returning to a non-professional Olympics is not anything more difficult than enforcement of the rules. We all know how well this works with an outfit like the IOC. It doesn't, it just plain does not. They choose to enforce rules for some and not for others. And yerfatma, I don't think you got the point at all if you are asking the question. The organization that COULD do something about this is not Congress, it's the NHL itself. They arbitrarily decide to let the pros off for two and a half weeks, with no reduction in pay, and the fans get a porking in their butts because the only coverage is the wholly inadequate NBC network, which also does a shitty job of covering the Saturday NHL games and hires hellish commentators and play-by-play announcers. The best thing would be if the fan could determine who gets the Olympics, then the press would not get away with changing the name of the host city to a washed-up Ford model from Turin, which is, was, and always will be foremost the home of the FIAT motor car company.
Yay! We can post again! Too few of those posting here realize just what a 'team' is, hence, the lack of want for the pro exclusion. Dude, you're outnumbered, and all the minor-league experience in the world won't change that. As I said in my previous comment (and as Amateur said above), you're not going to be able to put together a cohesive team with a long-term training committment from any of the top tiers of hockey. The only levels at which you'd be able to do so are so low that the talent difference between them and the rest of the Olympic teams would negate any strengths from chemistry. I'm just not getting some of your argument. You don't like the television coverage, so therefore hockey should be amateurs-only?
