When it was announced in Singapore that Britain will be hosting the 2012 Olympic Games, not many British supported the idea then. But currently, public opinion is changing due to several reasons. After only one year’s lapse, research has shown that public support is rapidly increasing. 53% of those interviewed agreed that the 2012 Olympic Games will positively change sports in Britain.
The research by Sports marketing Survey further revealed that a hooping 33% of the interviewees felt the event will encourage young people to venture into sporting activities in the following 12 months, (CanadianContent, 2006). In addition, the financial support that continues to flow given that public funding alone is estimated at £5.906 billion, continue to further boost public morale about the success of the 2012 Games, (Great Britain: National Audit Office, 2007). The reason for these supports is because many British see a window of opportunity for firms and brands to sponsor the Games.
The greatest impact of the 2012 Games in the sporting field is that it has already encouraged the youths in taking sports seriously. Children are already being inspired to enter the sporting arena; yet, the real event has not started. This is a clear indication that the event will immensely give rise to new sportsmen and bring back the enthusiasm in sports. The organizing committee for the event should however take into consideration any possible risks; for instance, under budgeting, (Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Committee of Public Accountants, 2007)
The sporting fraternity will benefit from the completion of the best stadium in the world that is bound to be completed in 2011 ahead of the 2012 Games. Several new venues have been built, for example, the Olympic Stadium in East London that will hold the opening and closing ceremonies. “An 80,000-seat Olympic stadium at Marshgate Lane at the hub of Stratford’s planned Olympic precinct is proposed,” (The Guardian, 2006).
The second most amazing venue is being constructed to host aquatic events. It is designed to include two swimming pools that are 50 meters long. In addition to the two pools, there will also be the diving pool and the new venue is built with 20,000 seat capacity. These two facilities are some of the facilities that our sport is bound to benefit from before and after the world Olympic Games. Besides the two facilities, other new and historic venues are being prepared in Britain to host the forthcoming event. The public has already been jovial about this swimming facility. “Swimming is already Britain’s number one participation sport. Swimming is the 2012 Games-it’s the launch of the competition, it’s the first week, and it’s the hottest ticket in town, (Whittingdale, 2008).
Positive and Negative Impacts of the 2012 Games on Professional and Amateurs
The history of the Olympic Games since the setting up of the International Olympic Committee in 1894 affirms that the event was mainly for athletes to showcase their prowess in sporting activities. As a result, amateur athletes whose main achievements were to demonstrate national pride did not only dominated the events but we’re also the only legally binding participants. The participants n Olympic Games were determined using IOC rules as they applied before being changed in 1986.
The amateur athletes were not driven by monetary rewards as the case is in the modern time. The 1896 Olympic Games in Greece witnessed the greatest crowd in the stadium cheering up for national pride amid a dismal performance by participating Greek nationals, (Young, 2004). The events were only meant for amateur athletes until 1986 when professional athletes were incorporated into the Olympic Games following the amendment of the rules.
The restriction to include only amateur athletes was meant to encourage the philosophy of love of the game. Another reason for excluding professionals in the Games was because of adequate time they had for training as compared to amateurs. As a result, professional athletes developed skills that were superior as compared to amateur athletes.
The change of rule by IOC in 1986 is seen as a reactive measure that was inevitable due to the changing world perception in the sporting arena. Currently, sports is seen as a business and if professional athletes are excluded from the Games, that means that best talents are being neglected. Inclusion of professionals in the Games once more maintains the Olympic motto: “Faster, higher, stronger.” Professionalism in Olympic Games has changed the scope of the game.
It is no longer a competition of honoring states with top finishes as amateurs used to do, but, benefit from the packages that come with winning. Another negative impact is that amateur athletes continue to be disadvantaged as they have to pay personal money to access training facilities. The amateurs also have a tight training schedule because they do need to work to fend for their families basic needs. In addition to this problem, amateur athletes also lack potential sponsors and this creates an unfair ground of competition with their professional counterparts. Generally, “It was considered the professional athletes had an unfair advantage over those with higher ideals, the amateurs,” (Hurley, 2010).
However, professionalism in Olympic Games has positive impacts in that it has brought credibility to the Olympic Games. Some sports personalities are ‘products’ with a serious impact on viewership on television. The inclusion of professional athletes has led to increased demand for television rights; a feat that has led to increased financial gain for the Games, (Toohey and Veal, 2007). The initial rule of including only amateur athletes in the Games did not give room for sourcing of best talents.
Professionalism brings the search for the best athletes to represent participating countries in the final events. “Each country would love to send their finest athletes to compete in every event, in hopes of garnering some medals and instilling in their people a sense of national pride,” (Coles Bobby, 2006).
Conclusion
In this discussion, the numbers of negative impacts of the 2012 Olympic Games in Britain seem to outweigh positive impacts. This is because of the impacts of modern sport on the participation of amateur athletes. However, the positive impacts hold more power given that the modern world trends demand the changes. The move to amend Olympic Games rule by the IOC to include professional athletes was a justified action due to success in the Game in recent times. The inclusion of professional athletes is something that even amateur athletes have embraced and because the Olympic motto still holds, I will advocate for the continued support of professional athletes in the Olympic Games in Britain come 2012. My view does not only stop after the 2012 event but also for the coming Olympic Games in the seeable future.
Reference List
CanadianContent, 2006. UK support for Olympic continue to grow. Web.
Cole, B., 2010. The impacts of professional athletes on the Olympic Games. Web.
Great Britain: National Audit Office, 2007. The budget for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. House of Commons papers. London: The Stationery Office.
Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Committee of Public Accountants, 2007. Preparations for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games: risk assessment and management, thirty-ninth report of session 2006-07, report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence.” Volume 377 of HC series. London: The Stationery Office.
Hurley, L., 2010. The impacts of professional athletes on the Olympic Games. Web.
The Gurdian, 2006. Where the sports will be staged. New stadiums and historic sites. Web.
Toohey, K. & Veal, A.J., 2007. The Olympic Games: a social science perspective. CABI publishing series. 2nd Ed. Boston: CABI.
Whittingdale, J., 2008. London 2012 Games: Oral and written evidence, Volume 2. HC (series) (Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons); 2007-08 104. London: The Stationery Office, 2008.
Young, D.C., 2004. A brief history of the Olympic Games. Brief histories of the ancient world. Manchester: Wiley-Blackwell.