Five controversies on Sochi 2014 and major sporting events in general

Brazilian unionists protest the privatization of public transport for the World Cup.

Much controversy has surrounded the preparations for the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. By itself that is remarkably unremarkable, as controversy always surrounds major global sporting events. Here I want to attempt to break down five sources of debate, some of which also apply to sports in general rather than to specific one-off events.

• THE HOSTS SUCK. To some extent, this objection is leveled to every venue for every event: Moscow in 1980 was communist, Atlanta 1996 was bought by Coca-Cola, South Africa in 2010 was dangerous, Brazil 2014 exploits poor workers, and so forth, all the way back to the most infamous, Berlin 1936. Now the latest is that Russia hates gays. No one place is immune from such social criticism... nor should it be, because the critics are usually right: most places do in fact suck, some worse than others. Hitler sucked worse than Putin; Putin worse than Roussef; etc. If we wait for morally irreprehensible venues, the next Olympics would be on the moon. Some might say that this just one more reason to give up on sports, but see my next point. (More subjectively, I am also deaf from that ear: whenever extremists like Italian journalist Bruno Vespa claim that we should shut down all the pro leagues, I just tune them out). If anything, major sporting events are occasions to highlight political issues and make them visible to the world at large. This can be done by participation, or by boycott, or by media attention, or in many other ways. Jesse Owens did it by winning. The USA in 1980 did it by boycotting. As no one is expected to boycott Sochi 2014, and given that human rights are a hot topic in the West right now, I expect there to be major media coverage of Russia's disgusting discrimination. This, too, is one of the functions of sport (think about the World Cup in Brazil 1950, or what the Seoul Olympics did for the North-South divide).

• Edit. Let me be very clear here. I am not trying to silence critics. Quite the opposite, in fact. I am saying that if you don't like the host country, your only options are not to either submit or to call for the cancellation of the event. You don't like that Russia is criminalizing homosexuality? Neither do I. Let's write about it, scream about it, make a lot of noise, take to the streets, and put the money where the mouth is. All of those forms of protest are completely compatible with watching the actual the Games and enjoying them as sports. If you think that people shouldn't even watch them because it would constitute hypocrisy, or a betrayal of your commitments, I disagree with you. At most that's a boycott of your living room, not of the Games. (I am looking at you, George Takei). You, as a viewer, are not in a position to boycott anything, save for the advertisers who sponsor the Olympics. Athletes and federations are, instead, so what you can do is make a lot of noise about it to them. Or you can criticize the IOC for choosing to award the Olympics to such a rogue country, but again, no countries are saints, and not having sports is just not an option.

• TOO MUCH MONEY. The event vacuums in funds that could be used elsewhere, such as for social programs. I find this one ludicrous. It is the same argument that some raise against space exploration, high-tech research, etc. Sporting events are public goods that are enjoyed by and valuable to large slices of the population, and which, when adequately planned, greatly stimulate an economy. Very few people's interests are served by gutting them. If anything, the following two criticisms make sense. For one, major sporting events must not be occasions to exploit workers. When exploitation happens, the media coverage is once again useful to highlight and evidence it, because that sort of injustice probably exists in the host country quite apart from the sporting event: if the powers that be are quick to exploit workers to meet IOC deadlines, chances are that they are quick to exploit them every other day too. Second, there needs to be less money in sports, but it has to come out of the salaries of star athletes and a reduction in the bullying preponderance of ad revenues. The problem is not the $51 billion spent on Sochi, but the $51 billion that the world's top ten soccer stars make in a lifetime. The world needs sports, but no player needs the world.

• TOO MUCH ATTENTION. "While a major sporting event is going on, there is little room in the news for anything else." For one, it is not true. Sports coverage is relegated to either special newscasts (sports broadcasters in the US) or to the middle or bottom of a news run schedule. Exceptions are very rare, and they are usually made for one-day events (the Super Bowl in the US or the Champions League final in the EU) or to cover a unique event (Michael Phelps or Wilma Rudolph). Even during the Olympics, which are arguably the most followed two-week sporting event in the world, the coverage of non-sports newscasts and newspaper is negligible. Finally, even assuming that this were true -- is it really such a bad thing? Must we talk about injustice, war, and famine all day every day? I am fully aware that the current world demands that we not be distracted from the fundamental injustice that afflicts us. But those who claim that sports "takes attention away" from "serious things" seem to me to need a major dose of lightening up. You can be 90% obsessed with your cause, as opposed to 100%, and that will be plenty enough! ;-)

• INEQUALITY. There is no denying that sports are male-dominated affairs. Even in the US, which is one of the world's most progressive countries in this sense, Title IX has done little more than institutionalize a female presence in sports, without a corresponding shift in the prevailing social attitudes -- when is the last time you saw women's sports in prime time? And some of the world's most followed sporting events, such as the World Cup and the Champions League final, are male exclusives. I agree with this criticism completely, though of course it is less applicable to the Olympics, which are more equal sex-wise. Until 40-50 years ago, women's Olympic sports were still poorly attended and poorly funded, but that has not been the case for a long time now. Also, and related to the previous points, major sporting events are excellent occasions to promote equality at all levels. The very "men and women" categorical divide in sports has been repeatedly challenged in the last few years (Caster Semenya), as has been the ableism that sport is sometimes seen to promote (Oscar Pistorius). And of course racism is no longer a significant issue in world sports, not as much as it is in local leagues such as the Premier League and the NFL. Recall the joke: "if sport isn't racist, then why does the black guy always win?"

• COMPETITION IS BAD. Every time that there is a major sporting event, someone inevitably pulls the "we should encourage collaboration, not competition" card. I am tired of hearing about it and of rebutting it. Instead, I will link to an old piece that I wrote about the ethics of lopsided victories, which contains observations about the very nature of competition. In short: (1) competition and antagonism aren't the same thing; (2) competition in sport engenders collaboration outside of sports; (3) most people who say that they hate competition in sports hypocritically cherish it elsewhere in life; and (4) those who are truly afraid of all competition anywhere could use with a little perspective. At most, the following argument can be made, by rejecting #2: that sport encourages tribalism and factions and divides more than it unites. I partially agree with this problem, which I address in a forthcoming piece. The short of it is: sport does increase tribalism, but it also lessens it, depending on application and preexisting social circumstances. Sometimes sport acts as a mirror, while others it is a catalyst. I think that it is the former far more often than the latter, but it is definitely the latter as well, and that needs to be addressed (but of course you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, etc etc etc -- again, I am deaf to those who argue for the dissolution of all pro sports).