2007-06-05 11:08:59 · 16 answers · asked by Gina V 1 in Sports ➔ Olympics
Be aware that Olympics was made to be explicit for amateurs to keep poor people away. Only the rich ones would be able to pay for themselves.
The Olympics were opened for professionals because they were about to die of lack of interest. You will therefore not be able to turn the clock back, and make the world most important sports event without including the best ones. If it were possible to make a similar sports event for amateurs now, it would have been made.
2007-06-05 11:12:26 · answer #1 · answered by Narvy 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but only because, if they couldn't, we wouldn't really have any more Olympic athletes. Professional pretty much means that you get paid for your sport and the professional distinction removes you from eligibility in college sports. But think of all the pro athletes participating in the Olympics. We'd have a terrible basketball competition, soccer wouldn't be as good and Michael Phelps and many other swimmers would not be allowed to compete.
2007-06-05 18:13:58 · answer #2 · answered by Joy M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The original idea for the olympics was amatures only, in the US at least. For those who think that college athletes wouldn't compete as well watch the movie "Miracle" or learn some basic history. The 1980 US hockey team was entirely college players and they managed to beat the professional Soviet team. The professionals already have ways of exhibiting their skills through their various leages, but the Olympics was basically the only way for amature athletes to get exposure. By changing many sports (basketball, hockey, etc) to all-star teams of professional athletes removes this opportunity from amatures.
2007-06-05 20:39:44 · answer #3 · answered by irishrunner1 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definitely.
1. When De Coubertain restricted the modern olympics to amateurs it was simply an elist measure to keep out the working class. The definition of amateur was completely different then to now.De coubertains amateurs could not accept payment from any source, i.e an athlete who worked as a baker and got payed by his customers as such was ineligble to compete as he was deemed to be a professional! intersting ha?
Amatuerism was implemented solely to restrict entry to individuals who had inherited large amounts of money and did not need to work.
2. Athletes in the acient games were professionals. Even more than that like modern players they were mecenaries competing for whoever rewarded them the most.
3.By removing professionals the olympics is devalued because it is no longer the highest elechon of sport.
2007-06-05 21:14:54 · answer #4 · answered by Kevin K 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely.
Amateurism is a sham. People who support it aren't living in the real world. The concept dates back more than 100 years, when the upper class didn't want to soil itself by competing with the lower class. So, they set up rules that said no one could be paid. Think the lower class could afford to work hard enough to become world-class without money? No way. But the upper class could.
(Think of it this way -- I don't think LeBron James should have been paid as a high school basketball player directly. It opens up a large can of worms. But, his school carted him around the country to play in games in big arenas. The school sold his shirt to fans. LeBron was living with a single mom in Akron, Ohio. Think he wondered at some point, "What's in it for me here?" At least LeBron is doing OK now.)
Later on, everyone realized that some sort of financial package was needed for athletes to survive while training. The Communist model was to set the athletes up in national teams. The Western model was through colleges and clubs. What's the difference? Not much. American athletes were having room, board and tuition paid for by universities. That's not a payment? Of course it is. Once they graduated, some sports had to pay athletes under the table in order to allow them to live (see track and field).
Now, it's wide open, and about time. Athletes shouldn't be paid by the International Olympic Committee for winning gold medals -- the honor is still nice. But, individual countries give out bonuses for medals, and there's no great way of stopping it. Oh well -- nice to be rewarded too.
2007-06-05 18:30:15 · answer #5 · answered by wdx2bb 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, in my opinion, the Olympics should be open to amateur athletes only. That was theoriginal idea when the modern Olympics began. Today, the professionals have taken over the Games and it is called an economic necessity. So, we really do not have a real Olympic Games anymore.
2007-06-05 18:20:18 · answer #6 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think it should be open to the best at that sport wither it is professional or not... They are representing your country to the world and you want to try and be the best... thats like asking when i go in for surgery do i want a just out of college doctor or a doctor with years of experience... when your going to court do you want the best lawyer or one with no experience...
2007-06-05 18:25:37 · answer #7 · answered by J 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no. I think it just destroys the spirit of the Olympics when we have pros competing in it.
2007-06-05 18:14:01 · answer #8 · answered by Michael A 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only in sports that the US exceeds in like basketball.
Mexiville
2007-06-05 20:10:10 · answer #9 · answered by Y A Queen 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I used to think no, but since other countries have their olympians live on campuses where all they do is sports, why shouldn't our pros compete?
2007-06-05 19:55:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋