The Olympic motto is “Citius, Altius, Fortius—Communiter,” Latin for “Faster, Higher, Stronger—Together.” Together: a great unifier! To me and many others, the Olympics have signified a grand unification of nations across the globe, coming together in sportsmanship and competing in good faith.
However, we’ve witnessed this is not the case through the years.
From doping scandals with this year’s Chinese swimmers and years past Russian athletes to Canadian soccer coaches spying on New Zealand, there is plenty to warrant the investigation of the Olympic Games’ seedy underbelly. Ultimately, we may conclude that what this event attempts to rise above inevitably becomes the most prominent example of international inequality we see on a global stage. From which nations’ wars are deemed acceptable for competition to how women are treated to the financial barriers that may have as much to do with who wins as athletic prowess, there is plenty to unpack about inequality at the Olympic Games.
International diplomacy stood on rotten pillars from the beginning of the Paris 2024 Olympic Games. At the opening ceremony, there was a massive difference between how the crowds and fellow athletes greeted Palestine and Israel. Palestine was welcomed with loud cheers and support from fellow athletes who opted to wear pins with the Palestian flag. Palestinian athletes wore traditional colors, waving their flag proudly. In contrast, fans standing by the river booed Israel’s boat dramatically. Posters were plastered around Paris protesting the inclusion of Israel in the 2024 Olympics.
It is particularly hypocritical that Israel be allowed to compete when Russia and Belarus were banned from the games this year due to the invasion of Ukraine. It seems the Olympic committee recognizes war on European soil but not Western Asia. One may conclude the dichotomy to be racial or religion-related—France does not recognize Palestine as a country; they also outlawed Hijabs, Burqas, etc, in 2021.
And yet, in regards to Russia and Belarus, athletes from these countries are allowed to compete—outside their country’s flag. 14 Russians and 11 Belarusians were permitted to compete in a few sports, such as gymnastics and cycling. They are not allowed to wear colors related to their country’s flag, nor is their country’s anthem allowed to play, but they are recognized as Individual Neutral Athletes (AIN acronym in French) and barred from participating in the opening ceremony. This is all despite Ukrainian athletes requesting there be a blanket ban on all Russian athletes.
The throughline indicates that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is far more concerned with maintaining the status quo and keeping up appearances than rocking the boat with political statements that could alienate their most favorable UN Security Council Country members: China, France, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. In the IOC’s best interests, recognizing the crimes of Russia as the U.S., France, and the U.K. see them is an essential placation of their policy, but also allowing Russian athletes to compete neutrally is a politically polite nod to Russia. Ignoring the plight Israel has caused Palestine is in the best interest of the majority of UN Security Council members whose foreign control relies on having a Westernized country in that geographical region.
As for the refugees of war-divided countries, homophobia, religious persecution, and more—recognized or not by these powers—a notable inclusion at the Paris Olympics is the IOC Refugee Olympic Team. Though first founded before the Rio 2016 Olympics and included in Tokyo 2020, the team is back for Paris 2024 and Dakar 2026. This is, in part, possible through the Olympic Refugee Foundation. However inspiring and heartwarming it is to see people rise from such harsh circumstances to be able to compete in their chosen discipline, the question remains whether these athletes have access to the same opportunities and training as those from leading countries.
Some Palestinian Olympic athletes no longer qualified for the Olympics despite past medal success, due to the living conditions at refugee camps along the Gaza Strip, Rafah, and Egypt. This also reflects how Israeli bomb strikes massacred Palestinian athletes among the populations of murdered civilians. The same is true for some Refugee athletes competing on the Olympic team. Yet, we need to consider: Are their prospects to win equal to those had they not been forced to succeed on their home turf? The team may be a testament to what athletes can achieve against all odds, but is it also a prop for the Olympics to claim unity despite inhumane treatment and circumstances?
There must be a line drawn where we can simultaneously celebrate refugee achievements while also holding space for their grief and rallying actions to better their circumstances and ensure others do not suffer the same fate. Not to be a Debby Downer, but has anyone considered that instead of feeling inspired, we should feel angry that people have been treated this way? These people’s lives result from injustice, and as they find their footing and happiness, it should be our job to ensure their pain is not endured in vain. Alas, the Olympics is supposedly “neutral,” but I counter that if you stand on nothing, are you neutral or complicit?
In another display of supposed neutrality, the Paris Olympics have been labeled gender-equal by major media outlets, as the same number of men and women compete in the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Yet, how much of that is true in the nuances of sexism and when the stigmas surrounding gender are ever-present, particularly at the intersection between gender politics and racism?
Algerian women’s boxer Imane Khelif was struck with online hate when waves of transphobic public figures such as JK Rowling and Elon Musk accused Khelif of being a man, when Italian boxer Angela Carini made a stink about how hard Khelif hit her in their match—i.e. “White woman crying at press conference triggers racist transphobes.”
There is no evidence that Khelif is not a cisgender woman, nor does she identify as anything other than a cisgender woman; Khelif, if anything, is biologically stronger than other female athletes, which sketches outside the lines of what some people deem a woman. The uproar over that is not just transphobic but sexist, as it puts gender in a box of societal expectations rather than realistic diversity. The consensus of the Olympic Committee is that she is eligible to compete, which is all that matters as Imane Khelif won gold on August 9. Khelif has also filed a cyberbullying lawsuit that names Rowling and Musk in France, which will likely rule in her favor. However, Imane Khelif is not the first woman to be questioned about her gender.
Women from southern hemisphere countries are more frequently required to partake in genetic sex testing than women from northern hemisphere countries.
In 2009, South African runner Caster Semenya won the world championship in 800 meters; however, officials benched her due to track and field rules about hormone levels. Semenya then spent the next few years fighting to compete without having to suppress her natural testosterone levels to race. Again, all evidence collected about her shows that Semenya was born female, yet due to her biological advantage over other female athletes, her gender was called into question.
Suppose you look back at Olympic and World Champion legend Michael Phelps. In that case, you’ll note that he, too, had a biological advantage over his competitors, yet he was celebrated for these differences. This goes to show how sexism and racism intersect when it comes to genetically testing sex hormones and chromosomes on non-white female athletes competing on the global stage.
On the flip side of gender inequality, we squabble over Nike’s USA Women’s uniforms being unnecessarily more revealing than the men’s. This is nothing new, and then, right on schedule, specific male demographics complain that other countries have moved from bikini bottoms to leggings; yet, the real issue is the fact that convicted rapist Steven van de Velde was permitted to compete under the Netherlands banner with volleyball partner Matthew Immers. This hypocrisy puts societal gender inequality on full display; while Imane Khelif is ridiculed online for doing nothing wrong, a convicted rapist is permitted to compete, and most major news outlets covering the games ignore it—not to mention TERFs like JK Rowling, who claim to have women’s best interest at heart but spend their time attacking women while missing entirely the one person who has actually caused harm.
Beyond that, there’s the issue of athletes’ compensation. The IOC does not compensate athletes for participation or medals. However, some countries, such as Singapore, Israel, the U.S., etc., offer “bonuses” for acquiring medals upwards of half a million dollars.
The Olympic Games originated as an amateur competition. No athlete participating was allowed to have made a professional gain from their selected sport. In recent decades, this has changed as, most notably, professional NBA, NHL, and FIFA players have been permitted to participate.
While some athletes get to compete at the Olympics and World Championships sponsored by private companies, their countries, or both, or work professionally through a league, many athletes are left applying to scholarships, crowdfunding, and working multiple jobs.
And don’t forget nobility and generationally wealthy athletes who lean on familial support to achieve their dreams. Most remembered is Great Britain’s Princess Anne, who competed in the 1976 Montreal Olympics as an Equestrian. Conversely, parents of Olympic athletes Gabby Douglas and Ryan Lochte faced significant financial strains and bankruptcy due to funding their children’s training for the London 2012 Olympics.
U.S. water polo captain Maggie Steffens asked for financial support from fans to help the team trek to the Olympic games this year despite already achieving record-breaking results and three consecutive gold medals. Steffens also alluded that many athletes rely heavily on second or third jobs to afford to chase their athletic dreams. Her Instagram post continued, “[M]ost teams rely on sponsors for travel, accommodations, nutritional support, rent/lodging, and simply affording to live […] Especially female sports and female athletes.” As inspiring as it was that Public Enemy #1 Flavor Flav sponsored Team USA Women’s Water Polo, most athletes are not saved by ’90s hip-hop artists.
And while athletes from world-leading countries struggle to make it to the Olympic games, imagine what athletes from developing nations and countries still rising to power must face in their race to the podium.
Brazil’s Rebeca Andrade, who gave Simone Biles a run for her money, comes from humble beginnings. Low-income families seeking athletic success for their children is seen as a quick path to economic and social mobility in their country’s current climate. The Brazilian women’s artistic gymnasts team’s historic wins this year result from public scholarships for low-income families.
Though Brazil prides itself on its public funding opportunity for athletes competing nationally and internationally, these athletes are selected based on their likelihood to win, which disproportionally funds some sports more than others and has historically leaned heavily on male-driven athletic programs, leaving underdog athletes to crowdfund their training as well as hold down secondary incomes to fund their way to competitions. Until 2018, Brazil’s women’s gymnastics had to create their own competition uniforms, and until 2023, athletes outside footballers (soccer players) were not endorsed and protected by Brazil’s employment laws. So, not only is this a systemic classist issue, but it is also a gender equality issue within the social structure of Brazil and many other rising nations.
According to a study by the University of Hohenheim and King’s University College, London (Ontario), “The greater inequality entails that a greater share of the population faces a significant cost hurdle to participation in the Olympics.” Essentially, the less financially stable a nation, the more financial strain on athletes attempting to qualify and compete.
Admirably, all Olympic profits are equally distributed among NOCs (National Olympic Committees), which provide funding to athletic programs at all levels internationally to balance the playing field for athleticism across the globe.
The success of this program may be justified by the athletes achieving the first medals for their country. Saint Lucia’s Julien Alfred won the first-ever medal for the small Caribbean Island at the women’s 100m sprint, beating out favored Team USA’s Sha’Carri Richardson. Dominica’s Thea LaFond also made history when she won the triple jump, granting Dominica its first-ever Olympic medal.
Are these unique wins and success stories of the IOC’s international funding programs a sign of the countries’ rise in notability or an anomaly from natural-born talent? As much as these wins are worth celebrating, it is also worth asking why this has taken so long. The profits may be distributed equally, but with countries in such different economic situations, it’s worth asking if equal distribution is really fair when some could use so much more assistance than others.
As the Olympic Games continue, I hope to see the results of IOC’s efforts to support international athletes reach new heights. However, from what I understand of modern international politics, capitalism, and intersectional inequality, I don’t think these issues are adequately addressed but rather swept under the rug as breakout athletes are painted as Cinderella stories without any ethical investigation into the systems that held back these athletes in the first place. It is time that Olympics coverage embraces the duality of celebration and international economic breakdowns so that the average viewer can learn and grasp just how remarkable these athletes are and how unbalanced the world is.
Published: Aug 26, 2024 04:04 pm