Is the Olympic "playing field" getting more level?

[Phrebert]

As there have been some losses today, It seems to me that everyone else is improving. What do you think?

 

[LisaSt]

No when you look at how athletes are treated in some countries etc. Some countries have huge athletic budgets etc for the athletes and some do not in Canada our athletes have to come up with the majority of the money on their own for training and travel etc Countries like the US cover things like that from what I understand our athletes have to take lower payingjobs for the most part just to allow them the free time to train and go to meets etc. So no unless it is mandated that all countries have a fixed athletic budget for olympic athletes it will never truly be a level playing field. Quite honestly I never see this happening either.

 

[vernon]

So no unless it is mandated that all countries have a fixed athletic budget for olympic athletes it will never truly be a level playing field

How would you differentiate that budget for a country like China, that has a billion people and say Jamaica with just a tiny fraction of the population. If the budget is decided by a countries population it massively advantages those countries with large populations, if it's fixed no matter population size it advantages the smaller countries.

In answer to the original topic, I think there is a lot of "evening out".

Some of this is down to the high number of athletic (not just track and field) programs that US colleges run. The large numbers of non US citizen sports scholarships being given by US universities means a lot of these countries (and their athletes) are benefitting from the massive $$$s in the US college system.

Some is down to a large number of coaches (mostly from Eastern Europe) now being able to travel to other countries to help them develop their programs.

Some is down to countries deciding to spend a lot of money on their sports programs. For example Australia has one of the best (probably THE BEST) developed sports programs and their results, compared to their population size , are quite stunning. The Aussies also benefit from a great climate that encourages outdoor play for kids, and a society that also values fitness and athletic ability highly. As a nation I would think the Aussies are probably the fittest and most athletic in the world.

A final contributory factor , IMHO, is the break up of the former Soviet Union. Previously there was the "big two" USA and USSR . Now we see China and USA as the big two, but if you added up all the medals of the former Soviet Union you would see it would have been a "big three", but the competition between the former Soviet union states (each desperate to out do the others) has meant that individually they are stronger than they would have been as a single unit.

 

[LisaSt]

The budget should be set out in a fashion that each country has x number of swimmers gymnasts and what have you they get a budget to fund that number of athletes and that is it. Your Olympic program is run out of said budget and if you do not use it all great if you do then so be it you are not able to add to it. Then it would help to make things a little more level for all countries. Smaller countries would get better facilities and not have to send their athletes to other countries to train etc and the larger countries would have to make due with the budget outset by the Olympic comittee. This way the larger country does not have a larger budget than others and makes for a more fair playing/training type of atmosphere.

 

[ErikdaRed]

I'm pretty sure an even playing field will kill the olympics. You immediately lose both the large country viewership of sports that wouldn't normally be watched (because they have a very good chance of winning), and the underdog coming out of no where and shocking everyone (like Iraq is doing now).