Team GB are hopeful that, being so close to home, Paris will this summer produce something approaching the buzz created by the 2012 Games. The London Olympics and Paralympics were utterly magnificent. First came the doubts about pulling it off, fears about the weather and general grumpiness about it being a waste of time. Then came the legions of brilliant volunteers, the sunshine and the feats of inspiring heroism and brilliance.
We were all hooked. I met families emerging from watching the trampolining astonished by its beauty, first timers in a velodrome mesmerised by the sheer speed and intensity of the track cycling. Fencing drifted into judo which in turn gave way to synchronised diving. There was an overwhelming sense of equality. Every medal embodied self-sacrifice, determination and skill.
It was not only the spectators who felt the wholeness of it all. In the build-up to the Rio Olympics I sought to catch up with every member of Team GB who had won gold in London and was struck by how fondly a boxer could feel about a heptathlete. After Anthony Joshua asked me to say hi to Jess Ennis-Hill, I formed a sort of daisy chain of hellos. It turned out that the most popular 2012 gold medal-winner among fellow Olympic champions was Peter Wilson, the men’s double trap shooting champion.
The Games have a mystifying way of bringing together experts and novices. It is remarkable how quickly you learn enough about the nuances of cycling’s keirin for it to have the same pull as athletics’ ever-so-straightforward 100m sprint. The inclusivity of it all is heart-warming.
Now, however, that is under severe threat. Last week it was announced that Olympic champions in the track and field events in Paris will each receive $50,000 (about £40,000) in prize money. This was presented as “empowering the athletes and recognising the critical role they play” by Lord Coe, the World Athletics president, as he ripped up 128 years of history. It will be the first time that an international federation has paid the winners within its remit.
Advertisement
Coe’s speech sparked plenty of debate about the purity of the Olympics and its amateur ethos. But given that highly paid professionals, such as tennis players and golfers, take part and many medal winners receive state funding and bonuses as well as often lucrative sponsorship deals, the whole notion of glory being all that is at stake evaporated many years ago. It would be tricky to seriously argue against anyone who wins a medal being rewarded financially. Tennis players practically never stop competing and are presented with cheques for doing so, but the Olympics has a demanding and sometimes cruel four-year cycle and many of its sports receive widespread recognition only at the Games. It is only fair that success comes with what is, in relative terms, a modest winner’s fee.
The real problem is that track and field events already occupy more airtime and attention than most other Olympic pursuits. There is a sexiness to being labelled the fastest man or woman on earth that trumps, say, the most accurate competitor with an air pistol.
Coe’s move only exacerbates that divide. We are in danger of there being two Games on show: the quirky version and the serious one that offers prize money. It would taint the Olympics if, when stepping on to the podium, an outstanding swimmer or gymnast feels second rate because there is no mention of the winner’s dosh that a few hours earlier was given to a steeplechase champion.
Talent ID programmes seek to ensure that keen sportsmen and women find the right pathway and the discipline where they could excel. But try encouraging a teenager to leave track running behind to try a sport that has no prize money to offer, even if you excel on the world stage.
The divide already exists, of course.
Advertisement
“We competed on Super Saturday [when Ennis-Hill, Mo Farah and Greg Rutherford won golds within a thrilling 44 minutes at the Olympic Stadium] and we were the only gold medallists who were not on the front page of some of the papers,” Andrew Triggs Hodge, of the men’s coxless fours, told me. “It was a realisation that we are a small sport. In spite of all our efforts we are just rowing.”
That sense of despondency will only be exacerbated by Coe’s decision.
You may argue that this is all about market forces, that more people tune in and turn up to watch the likes of Noah Lyles and Keely Hodgkinson on the track than Emily Campbell lift weights. But when it is your nation that has a chance of victory, in that moment all sports should feel equal and receive the same level of love and attention — and prize money.
