Beijing Winter Olympics: let athletes do their talking by making magic moments, not embroiled in boycotts
- From Jesse Owens in Nazi Germany in 1936 to the Black Power salute in 1968, to the “Miracle on Ice” in 1980, sport and politics make for historical memories
- Depriving athletes the chance to compete next year at the Winter Olympics would rob them of chance to put politics aside, or bring them into the fray on their own accord
The 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin stand as a poignant moment in history. The Nazi regime had taken control of Germany and the world was on the brink of war.
The Games will be remembered for American Jesse Owens’ remarkable four golds in track and field, arguably the greatest sporting moment of the 20th century. Being an African-American, Owens struggled with the idea of going, fearing his life may have been in danger, but ultimately, felt the best way he could take a stand against Adolf Hitler’s Aryan agenda was toenter the lion’s den.
What popular history doesn’t remember about 1936 is the athletes who choose to stay at home as a form of protest. Harvard track star Milton Green, fencer Albert Wolff of France and basketball players from Long Island University actively boycotted the Games to bring light to anti-Semitism in Germany. Their stances were honourable, but received little fanfare in the end.
03:26
Will China face a massive boycott over the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics?
It’s difficult to disagree with Lyons. Boycotting the Winter Games centres on China’s alleged human rights abuses in the Xinjiang, where human rights groups cite United Nations reports and witness accounts that as many as one million Uygurs and others from Muslim minority groups are held in “re-education camps”. The reports allege that detainees face indoctrination, torture and forced labour. China is also under pressure for its rights clampdown in Hong Kong.
US considers joint boycott of 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics
But what does this have to do with international athletes?
Lyons makes a compelling case: athletes have spent years, even decades training for their moment in the sun. Many Olympians only get one shot at winning a medal. These are competitors who are not famous, or rich. They compete for the love of the sport, and the glory of winning for their country. Now they find themselves in the middle of a raging debate that doesn’t have anything to do with them.
The US Olympic Committee is a not-for-profit corporation which does not receive government funding, instead relying on donations, and, more importantly, companies who want to sponsor them. Most nations’ Olympic committees do receive some funding and financial support on a federal level, but to say Olympic athletes are government subsidised would be ill-advised, they are almost all amateurs.
The Canadian Olympic Committee states on its website that is it “independent and predominately privately funded” and the British Olympic Association’s website says it “receives no annual funding from the lottery or government, has no political interests and is dependent upon fundraising income to achieve its mission”.
We can’t ignore alleged human rights abuses of host countries. Those wanting to participate on the international stage expect a certain degree of ownership for what goes on in their own homeland. The International Olympic Committee has never been political, but a case can be made they have proven to be financially driven in their recent decisions.
The Games have also, in a competing narrative, long been seen as a sign of internationalism, where countries come together, leave politics behind, and focus on the amazing accomplishments of our world’s most talented athletes competing against one another.
The 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid, New York, are remembered for the “Miracle on Ice”, which Sports Illustrated named the greatest sports moment of all-time. What most don’t remember about that clash between the US and the Soviets, is that days before US president Jimmy Carter announced a boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics. The US boycott did little other than garner a mixed reaction from Americans, and it also failed to get other nations like Great Britain, France, Greece and Australia on board. But of course, nobody remembers that.
There is also the iconic image of the 1968 Olympics Black Power salute, in which African-American athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos shone an international light on racial injustice. The two, wearing their American tracksuits on the medal podium as The Star-Spangled Banner played, sent another defining message: you can represent a country and not agree with its policies or state of affairs.
Boycotting the Beijing Olympics for political reasons is forcing athletes to be proxy pawns in a larger Cold War 2.0 feud. Owens’ stance in Berlin sent a message to the world, one that history remembers loud and clear: he won regardless of race, politics or nationality. The “Miracle on Ice”, without the politics behind it, is just another hockey game. Athletes do much better when they’re allowed to compete and make memories we enshrine in the halls of history.
Countries should give their athletes the chance to make their own decisions, not force them to stay home in some political play aimed at currying international favour in an ongoing chest-thumping match. Athletes represent their countries yes, but as Owens proved, they also act as autonomous vehicles who should and could think for themselves. No one would know who Owens is today if he had decided to stay home as a form of protest, rather than compete, and win, in the shadow of Nazi Germany.
Athletes need the chance to write their own chapters in history, not have it taken away. They may wish to make statements and stay home, and can do so very publicly. But they also should be given the chance to forgo politics, choose to compete if they see fit and create memories we will never forget.
