Olympic Games vs. country image

Have you ever thought why the world’s nations spend so much money and effort on training their Olympic sportsmen? And why Olympic champions are greeted by their country’s leaders and given sufficient monetary rewards by their governments? Does winning Olympic gold help boost the country’s international image? Or should we ask ourselves whether the inverse relation of cause and effect takes place?

By Maryna Khorunzha

Have you ever thought why the world’s nations spend so much money and effort on training their Olympic sportsmen? And why Olympic champions are greeted by their country’s leaders and given sufficient monetary rewards by their governments? Does winning Olympic gold help boost the country’s international image? Or should we ask ourselves whether the inverse relation of cause and effect takes place?

Various sources agree that the one true winner of the Olympics is the host country. In the 2012 Olympic Games, Great Britain, and undoubtedly the capital city London and its Mayor Boris Johnson, were the victors of the major sporting event. “I always thought London 2012 would be a success, but never imagined it would be quite the triumph it has turned out to be,” wrote Alastair Campbell, writer and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman. The celebration of sports and fun changed the way the British thought of themselves and boosted the country’s economy. The games, for instance, gave a head start to London’s retailers: Olympic Games followed by Paralympics attracted a colorful international crowd of happy tourists who emptied their wallets in the city.

In addition to showing off its hotels, restaurants and infrastructure, the team Britain surprised even its national supporters. British athletes managed to take the third largest amount of golden medals at the game ― 29, and 65 medals in total (outrun by Russia).

Since the modern Olympics were first held in 1896, host countries never missed the opportunity to put themselves in the spotlight.

The 1936 Berlin Olympiad was perhaps the first and the brightest case in which the international sporting event was used as a national image promotion tool. Adolf Hitler hosted the games to demonstrate the superiority of the German nation.

Years later, the 1964 Tokyo Olympics became a landmark of marketing of local products by promoting the country-of-origin effect (“made in Japan” label). Japan managed to prove to the post-war world that the country was in fact industrially progressive and peaceful.

Another example, the 1988 Seoul Olympics came in time with the South Korea’s autocratic government’s near-collapse. The games gave Korea a chance to showcase its economic miracle and justify the regime and it turned out to be a success story for the time being. The history of the modern Olympics overflows with similar examples.

What about all the other nations who worked hard on training their sportsmen ― securing training premises and equipment, coaching staff, giving out monetary and other awards to medal-winning athletes?

As for 2012, this year’s champion U.S. by acquiring the greatest number of medals in London proved its status as the world’s super power. China, which became the first runner-up to the U.S., saw a different international reaction to its outstanding performance. For instance, the British press started reporting on the “Spartan conditions” in which Chinese children are being trained and raised suspicions of doping among Chinese athletes.

The most controversial coverage was sparked by the 16-year-old Chinese swimmer Ye Shiwen’s performance, who surprised the world by winning gold in the 400m individual medley in a world-record time (with a split time of 58.68seconds at her final 100m of freestyle). British and U.S. top experts found her performance “disturbing.” Western media went on describing how the Chinese regime uses sports to demonstrate its strength to the outside world as well as to its own people.

Before China had posed itself as a world power, there was a different ``Olympic standoff’’: before 1991, the U.S. had a different rival ― the USSR. With the history of rivalry in everything starting with weapons, USA vs. USSR tandem boasts numerous major Olympic encounters: 1962 (“The Greatest Track Meet of All Time”), 1972 (famous basketball finals), 1980 (“Miracle on Ice” hockey match), etc. And always the U.S. was positioned as a sports nation, while the USSR was believed to use its athletic achievements to prove the same point China is believed to prove nowadays.

While the USSR no longer exists, its successors go on performing in the Olympics, however, posing a much lesser danger to the U.S. or Great Britain. Though Russia became the fourth in the 2012 Olympic gold medal count (24) by taking the third greatest overall amount of medals, there wasn’t much talk about the country’s performance in the international media.

On the other hand, another post-Soviet country Ukraine, which earned the fourth best results at the Paralympic Games in London, was once again described as ``Olympic evil.’’ According to The Telegraph, “Ukraine’s decision to flex their financial muscles (monetary awarding medal-winning paralympians) has resulted in them becoming one of disabled sport’s true powerhouses.” This statement is somewhat absurd since Ukraine is known for its sportsmen, not having “financial muscles” to flex. All in all, one could easily substitute “Ukraine” in the British source’s Paralympic piece to “China” in its Olympics coverage articles.

So is it really worth it investing all the time, money and effort into training Olympic champions? Apparently, a country’s performance at the major sporting event is hardly going to boost its image. And there is still a possibility that having a bad international image for whichever reason to begin with, a country risks making it even worse by winning medals at world athletic competitions. And yet again in this world of commercials and advertising, PR beats sports.

The writer is project manager of Worldwide News Ukraine.