By Will Carlin
Unless you are a serious golf fan, you probably don’t know the name Rory McIlroy. Touted by many as being the (latest) next contender to Tiger Woods, he is a 20-year-old from Ireland who hits the ball a ton and is loaded with personality.
When he first arrived in the US in March, McIlroy was outspoken about a number of things, including the possibility of Olympic golf: “I sort of thought it’s not fair for the other athletes who train four years for the Olympics at the heights of their careers,” he was quoted in Sports Illustrated as saying.
The other athletes McIlroy was talking about would be those from six other sports (baseball, softball, rugby, squash, karate and roller sports) who were hoping (and in some cases praying) that their sport would be one of two chosen in mid-August for inclusion in the Games of 2016. And, as you surely know by now, the two that made it are rugby and golf. Squash was once again left on the sidelines.
What should have been the criteria for inclusion? It depends on whom you ask, but one that many people suggest is that the Olympics should focus on sports who reach their crescendo and their ultimate championship at the Games every four years.
Golf has four grand slam tournaments that are watched worldwide and two international team competitions: the President’s Cup and the Ryder Cup. Golf doesn’t need the Olympics.
What about rugby? Americans don’t really follow rugby, but it has a World Cup; in fact, it has two—one for the 15-per-side game (called Rugby Union) and one for the seven-per-side version (Rugby Sevens). The latter is the version approved for the Games. While it is true that the Rugby World Cup Sevens is not huge, the Rugby World Cup is enormous, rivaling soccer’s World Cup in many countries, and it is followed by most of the world. Rugby does not need the Olympics, either.
Baseball? It has held two successful World Baseball Classics, and whether fair or not, it has a steroid scandal that surely tainted its Olympic chances. Having reportedly spent well over a million dollars on its bid, it is safe to say that baseball doesn’t need the Games, and probably never will.
That leaves softball, karate, roller sports and squash. Each needs the Olympics, but softball has been dominated by one country (the US) and only has five or six countries that could truly be called competitive, while roller sports is hampered by the fact that it includes nine different disciplines (including roller hockey, roller figure skating, and in-line skating).
That leaves two: karate and squash. Both include men and women, both have over 150 member countries, both have tens of millions of participants, both are based in honor and sportsmanship, and both would benefit immeasurably by being part of the Games.
In 2005, the non-inclusion of baseball and softball allowed International Olympic Committee members to vote on two new sports for the London 2012 Olympic Games. And guess what? The IOC members actually selected karate and squash. It was a moment when deserving actually won out over politics.
But there was a loophole.
For such a selection to be endorsed, a two-thirds majority vote also was needed. That vote was a few hours later. As news got out that karate and squash had won out over the likes of rugby and golf, and as baseball’s leadership realized that any new sport’s inclusion would make it harder for baseball to regain its place, those three political powerhouses sprung into action and wielded their power. Ultimately, a few hours later, neither squash nor karate obtained the two-thirds majority.
That moment was, for many who follow the IOC, a harbinger of last month’s vote. The IOC leadership is not immune to money and politics, they like the red-carpet treatment, and they love being associated with celebrity.
For years, it has appeared that the IOC has had a Tiger Woods infatuation (the number one athlete and number two overall on Forbes Magazine’s 2008 Celebrity 100). Four years ago, when golf was passed by squash and karate, Tiger seemed indifferent to the idea of Olympic golf, and it was eliminated early on.
In June, when golf went to Lausanne to present their bid to the IOC, they showed a five-minute video (it is available on YouTube; search “golf Olympics”). In it, various top golfers talk about the honor and tradition of golf. After seeing the video for the first time, Golf Plus Editor Jim Herre said, “A bunch of players gave testimonials, and I found myself thinking, ‘This isn’t going to work without Tiger.’”
Undoubtedly, the IOC committee members wearing translation headphones and sitting in the dark at long tables were thinking the same thing. And then, there he was. “They saved Tiger for last — perfect ending,” said Herre. No Nike logos anywhere, no baseball cap, just Woods saying the video’s last sentence, “I couldn’t think of a better sport to be part of the Olympic Games.”
Michael Bamberger of Sports Illustrated wrote that, in Lausanne, when Tiger finally appeared in the video, “… the room went still. And then the tape ended and the flat screens went black and applause filled the air.”
Jacques Rogge, the President of the IOC, said of squash and the other four discarded sports, “They should think quietly and analyze why they were not selected.”
Um, okay. We don’t have Tiger Woods. We don’t have two World Cups. We don’t have millions of dollars. Thanks for the lesson.
And Rory McIlroy? The golfer whose selfless thoughts in March about other athletes had shown a true Olympic spirit? He had a changed tune the week before the momentous vote: “I can see [the Olympics] being great for golf.”
True, true. As if golf needed it.
