COLUMN: Not Without its Merits

provides athletes with the funds necessary to pursue their competitive dreams. Seventeen days was all it took for what many people have been preparing a lifetime for. Only 17 days of excitement, tears, sweat, and struggle to perform at your best or go home knowing you could have done better. For the Olympic athletes, this was an event that they will never forget. Some will try harder to capture that elusive gold medal in Sydney at the 2000 Games. Others will be satisfied with their efforts, retiring to find another challenge: life after athletics. And what do we remember most about these centennial Olympic Games? Is it the multitude of spectacular achievements like Kerri Strug's gymnastics vault sealing America's first gymnastics gold in several decades, Michael Johnson's world-record run in the 200 meters, or even the women's version of the basketball Dream Team sweeping up the gold? On the other hand, do we visually remember the Coca-Cola Olympic Torch Relay, the Budweiser Sportsdesk, the AT&T; Global Village, or the Nike 'swoosh'? What marks these games in your mind? The athletes or the commercials? The marketing departments at the various vendors hope you remember their products. Coca-Cola spent an estimated $260 million in commercial advertising and promotion on these Games, partly because it was in their hometown and partly because it is the biggest viewing audience ever. With over eight million tickets sold for these games (Seoul and Barcelona combined) and at least ten times that many people watching the games around the world, major corporations were willing to take the gamble and spend millions of dollars to promote themselves and sponsor athletes. All of this sparked a heated debate among Olympic organizers, especially by the president of the International Olympic Committee, Juan Antonio Samaranch. Quoted in the New York Times from August 5, 1996, he said, "that while commercialization was necessary, it had to be controlled by the organizers of the IOC. He said the IOC wanted future Olympic hosts to have financial backing from their governments as opposed to the procedure here, where the budgeted $1.7 billion was raised privately." He further added in a German newspaper (as paraphrased by The New York Times), "I don't like the Olympic Games organized by a private firm as they were in Atlanta. The city, region and country must be involved in the organization in order for it to function properly. I don't want to say that in Atlanta they were not doing the best they could for us, but perhaps it could have been better." So what does this all mean for the upcoming Olympic Games and sports competitions in general? Is President Samaranch's remarks indicative of a movement towards less corporate dollars? And how will this affect the athletes, the primary subjects of these games? And, is commercialization good or bad for athletics in general? To tackle these questions is not a small task. Essentially, the main debate revolves around the advantages and disadvantages of corporations sponsoring athletes? We all know that, like most college students, athletes are poor in general. Excluding such highly-paid professional sports like basketball, track & field, and soccer (to name a few), athletes put everything they have into their sport, including their livelihood. UPS, for instance, promoted themselves in a television advertisement of supporting potential Olympic athletes within the ranks of their employees, giving them the needed funds and time to practice for the Games. Is this so bad? Athletes don't have the luxury of millions of dollars to support them; rather, they live hand-to-mouth much of the time, toiling away in the name of competition. Many of these athletes must find other ways to support themselves, not being able to rely on their parents, the government, or corporations to pay for their training. Like Dot Richardson, a member of the women's gold-medal winning Softball Team. She is an orthopedic surgeon and a part-time Olympian on the side. Or Kerri Strug, whose parents moved so she could train with Bela Karolyi and his famed gymnastics program. But not many Olympians are as fortunate. In one of the few nations that do not actively support amateur athletics, corporate sponsors are, for some, their only hope for achieving gold. But does everyone want to associate our amateur athletes with UPS? Or know them as the Nike runner, the Saturn bicyclist, the Gatorade basketball player, the Budweiser swimmer, or even the official Coca-Cola fan? It seems everywhere we turned during the Olympic Games, whether on television, in the newspapers and magazines, or on billboards, there was an athlete waving a corporate logo. Nike had Sheryl Swoopes of the women's basketball team on a three-story tall billboard in downtown New York, San Francisco, and Atlanta. Unfortunately, many athletes have no other choice. As long as they get the shot at winning gold, they don't care whether Nike or Bob's Truck World sponsors them, as long as they get the chance to compete. So what reason do we have to encourage less participation by corporations in the Olympic Games? By doing so, are we choking off athletes only viable source of survival? It is quite obvious that once companies like UPS or International Paper are told they would no longer receive a significant return for their investment, they will turn and find another area for their dollars. What do athletes do then? Do they turn to the government, who so far has given them little? Do they turn to their parents? Do they beg in the streets? What actions can they take to prevent themselves from losing out? The answer may seem easy to Juan Antonio Samaranch about cutting the commercialization of the Olympic Games. But for the Olympic athletes, that is merely cutting their own throats. No athlete, after spending their life trying to reach the one attainable honor that everyone dreams of, wants to be told, "No, you can't pursue your dreams because you cannot afford it." Corporate sponsorships for now seem to be the only way for athletes to support themselves. Until the American government steps in and starts substantially supporting the Olympic Team, corporate sponsorships will always be the best alternative. I would rather see the Nike 'swoosh' on a runner placing last in the marathon than the tears of her not being able to compete at all. Josh Rockoff is an Egyptology major from uh?