JOPERD 5

Viewpoint

The Modern Olympic Games — 1896, 2016 and Beyond: Can Elite Sport Spectacles Incite Movement among the Masses, or Do They Merely Foster Spectatoritis?

Bradley J. Cardinal

Karuntharat Boonchauythanasit

Siu Yin Cheung

Hyo Lee

Qi Si

Bradley J. Cardinal

In the autumn of 1896 readers of the first volume year of the American Physical Education Review — now

known as the Journal of Physical Educa-tion, Recreation and Dance (JOPERD) — learned about the first Olympic games of the modern era, which were reborn on Orthodox Easter Sunday, April 5, 1896 (Clark, 1896). Among other things, those games produced the first Olympic champion to be crowned in 1,527 years (Olympic.org, 2015). The American James Brendan Connolly won the “gold medal” for his performance in the hop, skip and jump — known today as the tri-ple jump — on April 6, 1896, in the grand marble Panathenaic Stadium in Athens, Greece (Clark; Olympic.org, 2015). (The original first-place medal was not made of gold, but of silver. For those living in or traveling to the Boston area, a statue of Connolly is located in South Boston at Joe Moakley Field [Russo, 2012]. He also finished second in the high jump and third in the long jump at the 1896 games.)

But this Viewpoint is not about James Connolly or any other individual Olympian. Nor is it a historical account, social critique, or tribute per se. It does not seek to set the record straight on any controversial matters, nor does it enter into the debate about challenges facing the games (e.g., commercialization, dop-ing, ethics, facilities, gender verification).

Rather, it is about realizing the to-date unmet potential of the Olympic Games to inspire and support a global physical activity revolution. This is something that the Olympic Games sought to do even before their official (re)introduction to the modern world at the close of the 19th century (Cardinal, 2005; Freeman, 2015; Georgiadis, 2001; International Olympic Committee, 2015). It is also part of the unifying power of this global phenomenon that began to blossom 120 years ago, the seed of which was planted centuries before.

Realizing de Coubertin’s “Double Dream”: Precursors to the Modern Olympic Games

Most people recognize Baron Pierre de Coubertin as the father of the modern

Olympic Games (Lucas, 2001), though the Greek author, journalist, newspaper editor and poet Panagiotis Soutsos artic-ulated the vision for the games and wrote convincingly about them several decades earlier in an effort to incite Greek culture (Young, 1996). Additionally, country-specific and/or local communities in Canada, England, Greece, Sweden and

Karuntharat Boonchauythanasit

Siu Yin Cheung Hyo Lee

Qi Si

6 VOlumE 87 NumbER 7 SEPtEmbER 2016

View

poin

t the United States had staged their own version of Olympic games before they were formally reborn as an international event in 1896 under the auspices of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which was established in 1894. Baron de Coubertin created the IOC and was a tireless promoter of the movement and the games (Freeman, 2015; Lucas, 2001).

The baron’s interests in revitalizing the games were, at least in part, moti-vated by his belief that France, his native country, was weak and sorely in need of quality physical education, which he believed would help strengthen the na-tion (Freeman, 2015). Quoting Baroness Maria Rothan de Coubertin, widow of Baron Pierre de Coubertin, Lucas (2001) captured the baron’s vision for the games and what they might someday accom-plish. According to Lucas, the baroness said in a 1960 interview, which occurred shortly after her 100th birthday:

My husband was crazy…crazy about his wildly idealistic “Double Dream.” He spent all of his own monies and all of my even larger fortune in pursuit of this “dream.” It was his hope that his re-created modern Olympic Games would, some day, bring together in a single city the greatest athletes in the world. From every nation on Earth. And that thrilling, remarkable athletic performances would come about. Secondly, and more importantly, that cheating of any kind would be unthink-able among these athletes and when they all returned to their respective homes,

they all would share the “good news” about the glory and universality of man-kind [sic] with children of their nation…a kind of humanistic cosmopolitanism accelerated by honest, honorable sport — the Olympic Games. (Lucas, 2001, p. 13)

The Olympic Games of Yesterday: Athens, Greece, 1896

In many ways the broad, noble vi-sions articulated above are what Clark (1896) recounted in his article about the first modern Olympic Games, though he also made observations about the sorry state of some athletes’ physi-cal constitution and apparent lack of knowledge, as well as the idea that there were hundreds of people doing physical activity at the games, whereas tens of thousands of people were watching the games. But through watching others, might something positive happen? Or is watching, but not doing, the folly of those with too much leisure time? Would passive amusement in an effort to escape boredom, something Nash (1932) called spectatoritis, contribute to the growing propensity of people to observe rather than to do and promote passivity rather than activity?

More than a half-century ago, Bandura and colleagues convincingly showed that people can and do learn through observation, imitation and rep-etition (Bandura, 1977; Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961, 1963). Clark (1896) reported

observing children imitating some of the Olympic athletes in Athens, but he also questioned whether the excitement was sustainable. Regardless, he fully acknowledged that the games were much more than a “mere athletic contest” (p. 22). Knowing this, might the Olympic Games, and perhaps other widely viewed sporting events (e.g., Asian Games, Federation Internationale de Football Association [FIFA] World Cup, Interna-tional Cricket Council World Cup, Super Bowl [National Football League], Tour de France, Wimbledon Tennis), not only serve to entertain mass audiences but also inspire in those audiences a sense of ambition, creativity, multiculturalism, mutuality, peace, understanding and wonderment? Additionally, might they help the viewing audience recognize the importance of physical activity infra-structure, policies and programs for all people, as well as encourage, motivate and support the viewing audiences’ own physical activity participation?

As Clark (1896) observed, “there can-not be good athletes without a knowl-edge of how to care for the body, and…a nation which takes no interest in physi-cal education cannot produce a team of really first-class athletes” (p. 19).

The Olympic Games of Today: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2016

Over the past 120 years the Olympic Games have grown immensely (Table 1).

Table 1.Olympic Games of 1896 versus Olympic Games of 2016

Olympic Games Location and Year Athens, Greece, 1896 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2016

Countries participating 12 (i.e., Australia, Austria, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Greece, Holland, Hungary, Sweden, Switzerland, United States of America)

206

Athletes 241 (men only) ~10,500a (men and women)

Sports 9 42

Events 43 306

Venues 7 37

Sources: Clark (1896); Olympic.org (2015).

aEstimate derived from the London Olympic Games of 2012.

JOPERD 7

Viewpoint

With 206 countries expected to partici-pate at the 2016 Olympic Games, their potential reach is even greater than that of the United Nations (n.d.), which has 193 participating members. (This View-point was written several months before the 2016 Olympic Games. The games were projected to cost $5.6 billion in 2009, and by 2014 the projections were at more than $15 billion [Woods, 2016]. This is not uncommon, with cost over-runs averaging 179 percent for the last 17 Olympic Games.) This is compelling evidence that the Baron de Coubertin’s first dream has been realized. Today, the Olympic games are regarded as:

…one of humanity’s greatest heritages. The games transcend the boundary of sports as an ensemble of cultural codes — simultaneously embracing politics, economy, history, philosophy, and art, which are the essence of humanity. Through global sporting competitions that transcend boundaries and barriers, the Olympics communicate with and touch the world. The games act as a catalyst to amalgamate various races, ethnic groups, and cultures. Furthermore, they create unique and sustainable legacies for subsequent generations through global proliferation of the sublime value of the Olympics, the materialization of ideology, and the Olympic culture. (Park & Tae, 2016, p. 170)

Their growth and enduring operational success is due in large part to their con-ceptual basis in and commitment to the Olympism philosophy (Table 2).

Operational success does not happen by accident or through blind allegiance to idealism. Rather, it is the result of careful and deliberate planning, derived from authentic reflection and a com-mitment to constant and never-ending improvement (Robbins, 1991). Toward that end, and in an effort to help achieve the baron’s second dream, the IOC has identified six current global activities to focus on. They are development through sport, education through sport, peace through sport, sport and environment, sport for all, and women and sport (Olympic.org, 2015). These all connect to something much larger than the Olympic Games’ ceremonies, events, festivals, individual and team

performances, medal counts, national-ism/national pride and “sport” per se.

For example, “sport for all” refers to encouraging “physical performance opportunities for all members of the community, the emphasis being placed more on participation than performance standards” (Kent, 1994, p. 418). In other words, getting and helping all people — not just competitive athletes, aspiring competitive athletes, or the athletically inclined — to live a more physically active lifestyle. With physical inactivity being the fourth leading cause of death in the world (Kohl et al., 2012), there is obviously much room for improvement in this area.

The Olympic Games of Tomorrow: Pyeongchang, South Korea (2018), Tokyo, Japan (2020), Beijing, China (2022), and Beyond

The subtitle of this Viewpoint is, “Can Elite Sport Spectacles Incite Movement among the Masses or Do They Merely Foster Spectatoritis?” The evidence to date suggests that they do more to encourage spectatoritis than they do to incite movement among the masses (Bauman, Murphy, & Matsudo, 2013). Given their widespread reach and the values and benefits associated with living a healthy, physically active lifestyle, this is an unfulfilled promise of the Olympic movement, and one that requires imme-diate attention and rectification.

Bauman et al. (2013) proposed a public health framework for guiding such efforts (at least for the host coun-tries) including, among other things, the conversion of developed and renovated physical activity facilities and infrastruc-tures for use by the general population after the games. But how about non-host countries and/or cities?

The Olympic Games can be used to promote and encourage active, healthy lifestyles for all by showcasing lifelong physical activities, not just “elite sport” and the training programs and regimes associated with achieving elite status. Doing more to encourage all people to participate would be a positive step forward (Wilson, Pate, Lamb, & Daniels, 1979). It is also consistent with the ultimate goal of the physical activity edu-cation fields, which seek to help people establish and maintain active, healthy lifestyles (Cardinal, 2015). This includes helping people develop the requisite attitudes, knowledge and skills associ-ated with maintaining lifelong physi-cal activity and health habits, as well as supporting public policy initiatives aimed at building healthy and supportive environments in which safe, effective and inclusive physical activity and health-enhancement opportunities are made available to all people (Cardinal, 2015).

ConclusionThe story of how the 2016 Olym-

pic Games — and future Olympic

Table 2.What Is Olympism?

What Is the Goal of the Olympic Movement?What Is Olympism? “Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and

combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.”

What Is the Goal of the Olympic Movement? “The goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practiced without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.”

Source: http://www.olympic.org/olympism-in-action

8 VOlumE 87 NumbER 7 SEPtEmbER 2016

View

poin

t Games — will be remembered has yet to be written, but each Olympic event presents a remarkable opportunity to make advances. Will this year’s Olympic Games incite an international physi-cal activity revolution among the mass viewing audience? Will future Olympic Games serve to perpetually reinforce such efforts, as well as address new and emerging issues that will help to make the world a better, healthier place for all people? Clark’s (1896) conclusion from his paper published 120 years ago is worth repeating here:

…the Olympic games will prove a source of lasting benefit to the world, by scatter-ing broadcast the doctrine that the body must be educated as well as the mind, and that, to do best works as individuals and as a nation, we must have mens sana in corpore sano. (p. 22)

While the Olympic Games have yet to incite physical activity among the masses, they do hold great promise and potential for doing so. Health, physical education, recreation and dance profes-sionals are challenged to do their part, by finding ways to advance Olympism, the Olympic movement (see Table 2), and the current global activities of the IOC for the betterment of all humanity and the success and sustainability of future generations.

ReferencesBandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Engle-

wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961).

Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575–582. doi: 10.1037/h0045925

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 3–11. doi:10.1037/h0048687

Bauman, A. E., Murphy, N., & Matsudo, V. (2013). Is a population-level physical activity

legacy of the London 2012 Olympics likely? Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 10(2), 1–4.

Cardinal, B. J. (2005, August). Olympic education in the United States. Paper presented at the “Homecoming Day for International Olympic Academy Participants,” Thailand Olympic Committee, Bangkok, Thailand.

Cardinal, B. J. (2015). The 2015 C. H. McCloy Lecture: Road trip toward more inclusive physical activity: Maps, mechanics, detours, and traveling companions. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 86, 319–328. doi:10.1080/02701367.2015.1088766

Clark, E. H. (1896). The Olympic Games, and their influence upon physical education. American Physical Education Review, 1(1–2), 14–22. doi: 10.1080/23267224.1896.10649614

Freeman, W. H. (2015). Physical education, exercise, and sport science in a changing society (8th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Georgiadis, K. (2001). International Olympic Academy: International understanding through Olympic education. Journal of the International Council for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport and Dance, 37(2), 23–27.

International Olympic Committee. (2015). Olym-pic charter. Retrieved from http://www. olympic.org/Documents/olympic_charter_ en.pdf

Kent, M. (1994). The Oxford dictionary of sports science and medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kohl, H. W., Craig, C. L., Lambert, E. V., Inoue, S., Alkandari, J. R., Leetongin, G., . . . Lancet Physical Activity Series Working Group. (2012). The pandemic of physical inactivity: global action for public health. Lancet, 380, 294–305. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60898-8

Lucas, J. A. (2001). Reconfiguration or demise? The International Olympic Committee’s mil-lennial modernization. Journal of the Interna-tional Council for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport and Dance, 37(2), 12–15.

Nash, J. B. (1932). Spectatoritis. New York, NY: Holston House, Sears.

Olympic.org. (2015). James Connolly. Retrieved from: http://www.olympic.org/james-connolly

Park, M.-S., & Tae, H.-S. (2016). Arts style and national identity reflected in the Olym-pics opening ceremonies: A comparison of the 2008 Beijing Olympics and the 2012 London Olympics. Quest, 68, 170–192. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2016.1151798

Robbins, A. (1991). Awaken the giant within: How to take immediate control of your mental, emotional, physical & financial destiny. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Russo, P. (2012, July 25). James Brendan Con-nolly, of South Boston, recalled as Olympic champion. Boston.com. Retrieved from http://archive.boston.com/yourtown/news/south_boston/2012/07/james_brendan_ connolly_south_b.html

United Nations. (n.d.). Growth in United Nations membership, 1945–present. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/sections/member-states/growth-united-nations-membership-1945-present/index.html

Wilson, D., Pate, R., Lamb, D., & Daniels, J. (1979). Olympic success and adult fitness. Journal of Physical Education and Recreation, 50(2), 46, 81. doi: 10.1080/00971170.1979. 10617946

Woods, R. B. (2016). Social issues in sport (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Young, D. C. (1996). The modern Olympics: A struggle for revival. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bradley J. Cardinal (Brad.Cardinal@ oregonstate.edu) is a professor in the Kine-siology Program at Oregon State Univer-sity in Corvallis, OR, and co-chair of the JOPERD Editorial Board. Karuntharat Boonchauythanasit is an assistant profes-sor in the Department of Physical Educa-tion at Kasetsart University in Bangkok, Thailand. Siu Yin Cheung is a professor in the Department of Physical Education at Hong Kong Baptist University in Kow-loon, Hong Kong. Hyo Lee is an assistant professor in the Department of Sport and Health Sciences at Sangmyung Univer-sity in Seoul, Korea. Qi Si is an associate professor in the Department of Sport and Exercise Science at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China.