The London Olympics will mark the 20th Anniversary of basketball's "Dream Team," the greatest assembly of talent on one team in the history of basketball, or arguably any sport. Unfortunately, the same event symbolizes the end of a much more important dream, the Olympic Dream.
The modern Olympic Games were introduced in 1896, founded as an amateur competition to celebrate the ideals of sports and encourage peace among the nations of the world. While not perfect, for many decades the Olympics strove to adhere to those ideals.
It was a dream of course, because all nations and all individuals do not have the same resources and opportunities to compete. In addition, while some events focus on universal skills (track and field, for example), others are more subject to cultural and environmental biases. Who can forget the Jamaican Bobsled Team? While no doubt fine athletes and fun to watch, they didn't present a serious threat to the domination of the sport by the Germans and the Swiss.
Some of the greatest moments in Olympic history have been born of these inequalities. In 1960, the original "Miracle on Ice" (reprised in 1980) represented the coming of age of U.S. hockey, a sport previously dominated by Canada and the USSR.
Prior to 1968, the United States completely dominated Olympic Basketball, winning the first seven gold medals. In fact, until 1968 the US team hadn't lost even a single game, an impressive accomplishment even allowing for the fact that basketball was a home-grown sport developed in the U.S. Most impressively, this streak was achieved entirely by amateur collegiate players.
Then in 1972 the U.S. team was defeated by the USSR. Notwithstanding the controversial ending of the final game, it was one of the greatest upsets in Olympic history. Instead of celebrating (or at least respecting) the accomplishment of the Russian team our national psyche was pierced. Cries that Eastern Block countries sent 'professional' athletes to the Olympics intensified, and the die was cast for the end of the dream of the modern Olympic Games.
The transformation of the Olympics from an amateur to professional competition was accelerated, and in the 1980's the reference to amateur athletes was deleted from the Olympic rules. Commercialization followed, with the first corporate sponsorships introduced in the 1984 Los Angeles games.
NBA players joined the games in 1992, and the Dream Team was born. Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Patrick Ewing, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, John Stockton et al demolished their opponents by an average of 44 points. Order was restored to the universe, and our collective national insecurity was salved. The U.S. was No. 1 after all!
Recently, Ray Allen and Dwyane Wade completed the Olympic transition by stating their view that NBA players should be paid to play on the U.S. national team.
Next week, NBA TV will air a documentary celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Dream Team. But was the Dream Team and all it symbolized a triumph or a tragedy? Perhaps we should be asking what has been forever lost in this transformation of the Olympic ideal? Can we ever have a 'Miracle on Ice' again? Shouldn't professional competitions be left to the likes of the World Cup?
I'd much rather see the Olympics return to its vision of an amateur competition celebrating the ideals of sport and encouraging peace and understanding among the nations of the world. Isn't that what made it unique in the first place? I'd much prefer to see the U.S. win an occasional gold meal with true amateurs rather than dominate with the best athletes money can buy.
Now that would be a dream worth celebrating.
Lori Gard: Dispatches From Down East: Outliers in the Classroom
| 1 | United States | 46 | 29 | 29 |
| 2 | China | 38 | 27 | 23 |
| 3 | Russia | 24 | 26 | 32 |
| 4 | Great Britain | 29 | 17 | 19 |
| 5 | Germany | 11 | 19 | 14 |
| 6 | Japan | 7 | 14 | 17 |
Sports competitions are designed to determine winners and losers. Even though cricket matches take breaks during which the opposing sides share a cuppa, in the end they play until a winner is determined. And to be a winner at the Olympics is to be the best in the world. Since just about every Olympic sport has been professionalized to some extent, the only way to determine the best in the world is to allow open competition. Otherwise, we're picking nits about the definition of amateur versus pro. Not necessary.
To be recognized as the best in the world, you must compete against the best in the world. Period.
There are a multitude of professional competitions. The FIFA World Cup is the biggest sporting event in the world. Do the Olympics need to mimic that competition by allowing professional participants in soccer? There are similar professional championships in almost all sports, even if none have reached the stature of the World Cup.
What made the Olympics unique was that they were for amateurs - a competition staged for the "love of sport" and in the spirit of international co-operation and understanding. That ideal has now been overwhelmed by a spirit of commercialism and mercenary professionalism.
Sometimes the "Good Old Days" are romanticized unnecessarily and unrealistically. Agreed. On the other hand, occasionally they offered something worth preserving!
Just like Rooney and Ronaldo played for the same team but were rivals in the World Cup, similarly you have Pau Gasol and Kobe Bryant play against each other for glory and pride of their nations. This kind of transcendent nature you don't get in a domestic league like NBA.