51 Sprints51 Sprints

Above all else, Olympic content is consumed in frames of the viewers' nationality (Jarvie, 1993). From the viewer's point of view, the athlete first and foremost represents the nation: the "flag trumps all" (Billings, 2010: 1). For Pierre de Coubertin the Games were not to be a political event but should serve as a platform for the meeting of nations. Like most people of his time, he made a distinction between the nation and the state. The state was a political institution, and the nation was the historically developed character of a people.

The Games were about representation of peoples and their nations, and not about political representation or about the affairs of national governments. The Games were to be a universal event that would bring together the geographically divided peoples of the world. De Coubertin took equality of nations as starting point and was wary of the Games being used as a stage for the political struggle among states.

In 1912 De Coubertin published an article in which he advised colonial regimes about the organisation of regional games in the spirit of the Olympics. In the early 20th century, the IOC granted patronage to several other regional Games, events on the different continents with similar aims to the Olympiad. The IOC was not yet capable of uniting all nations in the world, and in this way the name and authority of the Olympic movement were established.

With the growth of international attention for the Games, the existence of alternative Olympic events became a blemish on the universal and un-political character of the Olympic movement. Most regional events did not survive WW2, however, to the advantage of De Courbertin and the IOC. During the development of the Games, the number of participating countries grew steadily, making the current Games truly a world-spanning event. 2008 was the first year in which for the first time every country in the world participated.

The internationalism of the Olympic movement does not aim to do away with national borders, but to leave them unscathed. Athletes perform as national representatives in the global Olympic gymnasia, and are not to be seen as political actors. The Olympic movement is required to ensure that the stadium is accessible for all peoples in the world, and should therefore remain politically neutral.

As the event grew into a worldwide media spectacle, the articulation of national symbolism became more profound, particularly during the Cold War. The different countries and political blocs framed the Games and their performance in it within their own ideological agendas. At the same time, the Games united the audiences and athletes within one international narrative. In this way, the Games are probably the main institution that allow for the articulation of national identity within a world collective. (Whannel, 2008).

Broadcasting agencies frame content in national terms, through use of commentary, captions and broadcasting choices. As audiences grew, national broadcasting agencies became interested in transmitting the games for their ability to promote emotional resonance with a (inter-) national 'communitas' (Dayan and Katz, 1994; Whannel, 2009: 210).

Although national framing has remained dominant, this does not contradict with the Olympic Games as an experience shared on a world stage. The Olympic Games has realised some of its unique potential of 'social integration of the highest order.'

Historically, the IOC has advocated the idea that the Olympic movement itself should not engage with political matters; instead it should confine itself to the business of sport (Miah, 2012: 87). During the 20th Century the IOC stubbornly tries to maintain its neutrality, but despite this, from the Berlin Games in 1936 till the end of the Cold War, the Games are caught up in a process of politicisation.

An important factor in this is the decision of the Soviet Union to join the Games from 1952 onwards. This turned the Games in a stage for the competition between the Eastern and Western power blocs.

The IOC responded to this politicisation by focussing on protection of the Olympic brand and the related traditions and rituals, with which it tried to give shape to and consolidate its neutral position. The Olympic symbols and traditions have only very general meanings, which allows for various and very different parties to associate with the Olympic movement and to identify with the figure of the Olympic athlete.

However, from the 1960s to the 1980s national governments and grassroots movements try to occupy the Olympic stage as a platform for political statements, activism and boycotts of specific other countries. Thus, ironically, the carefulness by which the IOC tries to maintain its neutrality led to the Games becoming a platform for global politics. The neutrality of the Olympic symbolism and the delegation of responsibilities of the IOC to the NOCs gave countries the freedom to give a particular political meaning to their own participation.

Increased international rivalry paved the way for the construction of professional and high performance sport. During the Cold War athletes acted as disciplined and patriotic representatives of their respective countries, who defended their countries in the medal counts. Especially after the amateur restriction was lifted, countries started with substantial investments in Olympic athleticism. Particularly for the USSR, Eastern Germany and the US, doping became a means to maximize the national medal counts. (Kremernik, 2006: 21-22).

From the 1988 Seoul Games onwards, the Olympic movement is more actively engaged in de-ideologisation. Refraining from political utterances ensures the universal appeal. Also, most commercial interest fare well with the IOC's apolitical approach. Today, the Games are presented within a frame of 'Citizen-of-the-world', supra-nationalism. Less attention is given to a cohesive ideological framework, and the focus is put on singular media events (the opening ceremonies) and protection of intellectual property of the Olympic brand.

Despite its perceived neutrality, the IOC's decisions in response to candidate cities' bids are often politically informed, and contradict the IOC's pursuit of apolitical stature. Europe has been host to 50 per cent of all summer games to date, and the IOC has historically favoured European city bids above those from other continents. Rio de Janeiro will be the second time the Games are hosted in South America. Africa is yet to host its first Olympic Games. With the IOC's decision to host the event in a politically controversial location it cannot avoid becoming mixed up in political conflicts, as was the case in Seoul and Sochi. However, the IOC interprets its apolitical role as an organization involved with the promotion of peace through sports participation. Today, the IOC has not only become the guardian of its most profitable global brand, but also is a global powerhouse of non-governmental influence (Miah, 2009: 80).

Jarvie, Grant en Joseph Maguire (1996), Sport and Leisure in Social Thought, Londen: Routledge.

Billings, Andrew C. (2010): Through the minds of Billions: Identity construction in the Ultimate Megasporting Event: University lectures on the Olympics, Barcelona: Centre d'Estudis Olimpics.

Whannel, Gary (2009), 'Television and the Transformation of Sport', in The Annals of the American Academy of Political Science 625:1, pp. 205-18.

Dayan D. en Katz, E. eds. (1994), Media Events: Live Broadcasting of History, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Kremernik, Michael e.a. (2009), "A Historical Timeline of Doping in the Olymipcs (Part 1 1896-1968)" in Kawasaki Journal of Medical Welfare, 12:1, pp. 19-28.