An Olympic Mulligan?

Women’s ski jumping is not worthy of Olympic representation, but golf is. That is the inference that the International Olympic Committee has made clear with their August 13th announcement that Chicago 2016 will officially reinstate golf as an Olympic event. This comes as a serious shock to me, and one that I find upsetting. The question as to whether golf truly deserves its spot in the Olympics is a hot topic amongst many athletes, myself and my teammates included. Canmore is an especially interesting place for this debate, given that so many of the residents are athletes, and so many of the tourists are golfers. To answer this question we first need to understand the broader question of what the Olympics are, and what they mean.
The Olympics are the pinnacle of human achievement, a celebration of the youth of the world. They are also an expression of freedom, one of the last remaining bastions of fairness and equality, a place of athletic triumph amidst an otherwise often bleak political landscape. With a warming planet, illegal wars, massive financial corruption, and a litany of other problems facing the world today, the Olympics should stand as a place where people can interact and compete without all the baggage of every day life, as equals on a level playing field, the sole goal being the celebration of personal and thereby collective accomplishment. As one of the founders of the modern Games, Pierre de Coubertin once said. “All sports for all people.” He declared. “In no way can sport be considered a luxury object.” Does golf, a leisure activity of the upper class requiring lots of money and little physical exertion, really belong alongside Olympic power lifting and the hundred-meter sprint? If not, what of other sports like curling, or equestrian? Clearly, there is more at stake here than another feather in Tiger Wood’s hat.
What is interesting about this question of golf is that it is the opposite side of a coin that’s already been tossed once before. Earlier this year, women’s ski jumping was faced with the same IOC decision, and sadly they lost. Immediately the issue of gender equality, for a sport that already has a long-standing men’s field, became a hot topic. Other arguments about the level of competition, and calibre of the athletes involved were also voiced. In her July ruling, Justice Lauri Anne Fenlon of the BC supreme court, which lacked the authority to overrule the IOC, did go so far as to say this: “Many of the men the plaintiffs have trained with and competed against as peers will be Olympians; the plaintiffs will be denied this opportunity for no reason other than their sex.”
While still considered a small victory for those involved, these comments are slightly off the mark. The IOC would very much like this debate to be about gender equality, just as they would like the golf debate to be about athleticism and tradition. Why? Because they have battalions of lawyers and experts ready and armed to fight those particular battles. What they don’t want discussed, whether in regards to ski jumping or golf, are their real motives. Baring women from ski jumping has, in reality, nothing to do with gender equality or competitiveness, just as allowing golf has nothing to do with the athleticism of the players. No, both of these cases are clear indicators of the IOC’s true objective: to bring in the highest TV ratings possible.
How else would one explain these two, otherwise contradictory rulings? The arguments against women’s ski jumping are based on the premise that the technical merit and competitiveness of the athletes is not sufficient to warrant Olympic gold medals. According to the IOC, men can compete in ski jumping, but allowing women, who train just as hard, the same opportunity would somehow water down the pool of potential gold medal winners, degrading the achievements of other athletes. And yet, they don’t see any problem with the possibility that somebody with the dubious athletic grace of John Daly might stand atop an Olympic podium (structural concerns aside)? Women’s ski jumping has a long pedigree of excellence, and a rich history, as does golf. Both require the perfection of a very difficult (and in the one case dangerous) skill. Both are very popular events, drawing crowds of thousands, but it is here that the similarities end. Ski jumping fans are primarily European, as are their major sponsors and equipment suppliers. That doesn’t hold much sway with the corporate backers of the Olympics, especially for Chicago 2016. Golf, on the other hand, draws thousands of spectators and millions of North American TV viewers, many of whom will then go out and buy from an industry that is one of the most profitable on the continent. The coincidence of golf being added in time for the next American Olympics is hard to ignore. If this really were not about capitalizing on golf’s money making potential, why not bring it back in time for London 2012, especially with so many host courses for the British Open already in place?
The discussion over which sports belong in the Olympics is an important one, and is crucial to the continued legitimacy of the Olympic movement. What troubles me is that, regardless of your stance, none of the real issues seem to be even on the table. As someone who is striving to be a part of the Olympic movement, I have to wonder if the interests of big business are being placed ahead of such important, healthy debate. Is this decision really about whether golfers like Tiger Woods, or ski jumpers like Canada’s Katie Willis deserve a place on the Olympic podium or is it about how much money can be made by putting them there?
On the mountain, as in life, always ride that high line, even if the IOC isn’t.