$300 for a gold medal and no monetary compensation

  • Thread starter Thread starter GCT
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gold
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights the lack of participation of top soccer players in the Olympics, primarily due to age restrictions that limit teams to U-23 players with only three overage slots. Many believe that the financial risks and commitments to club teams outweigh the benefits of competing for a gold medal, which is valued at around $300. The Olympics are often viewed as less prestigious compared to events like the World Cup, leading to diminished interest from professional athletes. Additionally, there are concerns about the lack of monetary compensation from the IOC and national federations for Olympic participation. Overall, the conversation reflects a broader skepticism about the relevance of the Olympics in professional sports today.
GCT
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
1,745
Reaction score
0
$ 300 for a gold medal and no monetary compensation

Something that I find interesting about the olympics is vast amount of stars that are absent ; in particular those that involve European players . Take one example - soccer - I watched the Euro 2008 with gusto , I was never quite the soccer fan , however the tournament was on a unique and a new level of spectacle for me relative to American sports . Spain won however most of their roster are not present on their olympic soccer team . My guess is its because of the money and perhaps they view the olympics as a political charade by the United States in their " scheme to delude " other nations ...




As for the money my impression is that there is no compensation by the IOC nor the individual countries . Even if one places the only thing of monetary value is the medal itself ; around $ 300 dollars for the gold medal .
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Doesn't Russia pay its athletes quite well for getting medals in the Olympics?
 


GCT said:
Take one example - soccer - I watched the Euro 2008 with gusto , I was never quite the soccer fan , however the tournament was on a unique and a new level of spectacle for me relative to American sports . Spain won however most of their roster are not present on their olympic soccer team .
What's with the spaces before commas and periods?

Anyhow, you should do a little research before you write. All countries with teams in the Olympic soccer venue are lacking their stars because the stars are, for the most part, too old to play in this venue. Each Olympic soccer team comprises U-23 players (born on or after August 1, 1984) plus at most three old farts.
 


GCT said:
Something that I find interesting about the olympics is vast amount of stars that are absent ; in particular those that involve European players . Take one example - soccer - I watched the Euro 2008 with gusto , I was never quite the soccer fan , however the tournament was on a unique and a new level of spectacle for me relative to American sports . Spain won however most of their roster are not present on their olympic soccer team . My guess is its because of the money and perhaps they view the olympics as a political charade by the United States in their " scheme to delude " other nations ...

Soccer is not a good example. The rules are set up to limit over 23 year old participation - I think only 3 members of a national team may be over 23 - which means that some countries with more stars are already selected against.

And that is if the stars wanted to play and risk injury anyway.

With $20M - $50M per year salaries on the line and the opportunity for injury it takes a lot of national pride and love of the game to risk it.

Apparently the NBA is on-board putting their players at risk, because they want to expand the global markets.
 


Or their contracts with their clubs don't allow it.
It's the start of the soccer season, how would you feel if your new $50M striker went away for 2weeks to play in a competition for his own personal glory?

But on a personal level why should they? The olympics doesn't represent your country, it's a money making operation that doesn't pay profesional performers to appear.
Listing atheletes by their country makes no more sense than a F1 victory by Kimi Räikkönen in a British car with a German engine being a victory for Finland.
Why not list athletes as part of the Nike or addidas team like in the tour de france?
 


It used to be that professional athletes weren't allowed to compete. Olympics were only for amateur athletes (and then the recognition they could gain certainly would help kick-start a professional career if they chose to do so). Do all sports now allow professional athletes in them, or is it just a few like basketball? Personally, I liked it better as an amateur competition. It just seemed more "wholesome."
 


Soccer at the Olympics probably shouldn't be included because of the World Cup which is out of phase with the 4 year Olympic cycle. The Olympics only qualified 16 teams I think as it is and not all countries put in the effort that they do for World Cup.

Olympic Medals are nice, but World Cup ... that's over the top.
 


It just seemed more "wholesome."
But it was very unfair. Originally it grew out of an English idea of amateur sports for gentlemen who didn't have to work - after all you wouldn't want to be beaten in the weightlifting by some village blacksmith.

Then you have a problem of definition, if you get a job as a high school phys-ed teacher are you no longer an amateur, or if you are in the army? Is it possible to even be an amateur if you are from a communist country and the state pays for all your training and expenses?
 


LowlyPion said:
Apparently the NBA is on-board putting their players at risk, because they want to expand the global markets.

Risk of what? Soccer I can somewhat understand, because you get freak accidents where entire legs just explode, but I can't remember the last time something bad happened in basketball*.*I don't watch basketball or soccer, but whenever I do watch soccer, someone is on the ground crying. When I watch basketball, someone gets pushed on their ***, gets up and starts complaining, but it ends there.
 
  • #10


LowlyPion said:
Soccer at the Olympics probably shouldn't be included
Sports where there is already a major world championship shouldn't be. that's why soccor is age limited, to stop it being a world cup competitor. But really it makes no more sense than having F1 or indy car racing in the olympics.

I don't know what happens to tennis now that it is open to professionals, do the US open/Wimbledon winners turn up?
 
  • #11


mgb_phys said:
I don't know what happens to tennis now that it is open to professionals, do the US open/Wimbledon winners turn up?

You bet. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic are there.
 
  • #12


Speaking of paying the athletes, did you hear what China did? They told the gymnastics coaches that they would be fined if any of the gymnasts were injured before the olympics.
 
  • #13


tribdog said:
Speaking of paying the athletes, did you hear what China did? They told the gymnastics coaches that they would be fined if any of the gymnasts were injured before the olympics.

That's called putting the fear of the Central Committee into them.
 
  • #14


I can chime in here with some expertise about soccer, especially in the Olympics.

If you didn't know, only players under 23 can participate in the Olympics. If you didn't, then it explains why the best players are absent.

Other than that, it has been known that the Olympics isn't a big thing among soccer players.
 
  • #15


ubermensch said:
I can chime in here with some expertise about soccer, especially in the Olympics.

If you didn't know, only players under 23 can participate in the Olympics. If you didn't, then it explains why the best players are absent.

Other than that, it has been known that the Olympics isn't a big thing among soccer players.

You think the Olympics is big?

Riiiiigghhhht.

The World Cup is the biggest sporting event in the world.

Soccer is the best sport, without a doubt. People who associate it with socialism are quite delusional.

American Football is as macho as you can get. If you are 6'9, then you got a chance in the NFL.

In soccer, it's all about skills baby.
Do you read the posts before you start ranting?
 
  • #16


tribdog said:
Do you read the posts before you start ranting?

No. :biggrin:

I'll change the post. Pretty immature of me really.
 
  • #17


Doesn't bother me in the slightest. I was just wondering
 
  • #18


ubermensch said:
In soccer, it's all about skills baby.

Acting skills, maybe.

wZavXabGsuA&feature=related[/youtub...do classes, where people fall over on command
 
  • #19


That's pretty funny stuff.

Still, you have to understand at how much energy and will these guys give in order to play 90 minutes of soccer.

Trust me, it is VERY hard.

Still, even the slightest kick in the leg can give way to a guy screaming his head off.
 
  • #20


WarPhalange said:
Risk of what? Soccer I can somewhat understand, because you get freak accidents where entire legs just explode, but I can't remember the last time something bad happened in basketball*.


*I don't watch basketball or soccer, but whenever I do watch soccer, someone is on the ground crying. When I watch basketball, someone gets pushed on their ***, gets up and starts complaining, but it ends there.

Basketball has plenty of ankle and knee injuries due to the constant change off direction and sometimes awkward landings.

CS
 
  • #21


American Football is as macho as you can get. If you are 6'9, then you got a chance in the NFL.
Is NFL the sport that's like rugby for school girls? :biggrin:
 
  • #22


As some have mentioned here it seems to be mostly about government their payment towards the athletes. How much do players get compensated for winning first in FIFA? Are NBA players compensated for winning championships?

Some have mentioned here the age requirement however this does not explain the absence of some prominent young players in particular countries ; in fact Portugal and Ronaldho are not even enrolled in the soccer olympics.
 
Last edited:
  • #25


GCT said:
in fact Portugal and Ronaldho are not even enrolled in the soccer olympics.
Well, firstly, Cristiano Ronaldo is out with injury at the moment, since he had an operation following the European Championships a couple of months ago. But, even if he were fit, he would not be playing. Why? Because the Olympics are right at the beginning of the coming football season. No manager in their right mind will allow star players out of their pre-season training to go and play in the olympics. Until the Olympics strike up some agreement with FIFA so as managers will have to allow their players out, then it's just not going to happen.
 
  • #26


GCT said:
For four years of training that seems to be minisicule even degrading.

Yeah, but how many people do it for the money? That's something reserved for team sports pretty much.

Also, they need to have an event for Rock Guitar.
 
  • #27


mgb_phys said:
Is NFL the sport that's like rugby for school girls? :biggrin:

350 lb school girls that can run 40 yds in under 5 seconds with full pads and get high fived if they put you out for the season - if you're lucky?

Yeah that would be the sissy Americanized version of the sport.[/Sarcasm]
 
  • #29


Olympic Soccer has always been a joke, this is nothing new. In fact, this is the case with any privatized sport.
 
  • #30


Werg22 said:
Olympic Soccer has always been a joke, this is nothing new. In fact, this is the case with any privatized sport.

Basketball is a bit of an exception because it is usually played indoors in the winter and so it is off time for most of the athletes. For summer sports like baseball what league would abandon their season every 4 years for the Olympics? What do they get out of it? The Olympics are the ones taking in the money - not the clubs or athletes.
 
  • #31


LowlyPion said:
350 lb school girls that can run 40 yds in under 5 seconds with full pads and get high fived if they put you out for the season
You haven't seen schools in Scotland !
 
  • #32


Just to add a little controversy to the thread.
Is any sport that requires judges to decide the points really a sport?

If you are going to have 'running around with a ribbon' in the olympics why not ball room dancing or playing bass guitar?
 
  • #33


LowlyPion said:
350 lb school girls that can run 40 yds in under 5 seconds with full pads and get high fived if they put you out for the season - if you're lucky?

Yeah that would be the sissy Americanized version of the sport.[/Sarcasm]

Yeah, in a full suit of armor. Please.

04ViprVAXFI[/youtube] [url]xvMFHXcd0yQ[/youtube]
 
  • #34


GCT said:
in fact Portugal and Ronaldho are not even enrolled in the soccer olympics.
During the past year various sub-organizations within FIFA held tournaments to see who would go to the Olympics. Portugal failed to qualify in the UEFA U-21 Championship 2007.
 
  • #35


mgb_phys said:
Is NFL the sport that's like rugby for school girls? :biggrin:

I find NFL just awfully boring ...
They stop every 5 second :rolleyes:
 
  • #36


mgb_phys said:
Just to add a little controversy to the thread.
Is any sport that requires judges to decide the points really a sport?

If you are going to have 'running around with a ribbon' in the olympics why not ball room dancing or playing bass guitar?

Yes, they are sports. Judges are needed whenever there is a sport that requires you to do something better, just just heavier or faster. Like Gymnastics. A human can tell a bad jump from a good one.

There are problems with that, such as judges being paid off or just dicks, but on the whole the sport is very legit.

I on the other hand think we should do away with sports that simply have you beat another person indirectly, such as lifting more or whatever. If you can lift 300lbs in the gym, why would you even compete? Just send in a tape of you doing it.

Competitions where you base your winning on the offchance that the other person will screw up is pointless.

Plus you reach an asymptote of human capability. Whereas with sports where you compete directly, ever match is different, since there are a lot of variables.
 
  • #37


mgb_phys said:
You haven't seen schools in Scotland !

A herd of tartan garbed beefachoos thundering across the recess yard?

And I hope never to even have to visual that image either.
 
  • #38


WarPhalange said:
There are problems with that, such as judges being paid off or just dicks, ...

Imagine that countries who invest their national identity in fielding their teams, that buy into such totally bogus metrics as medal races, would even think to tip the balances of fairness to support some national agenda.

Surely they must have the highest aims of competition in mind and would never grind the true spirit of fraternal competition in the grist mill of gain.
 
  • #39


rootX said:
I find NFL just awfully boring ...
They stop every 5 second :rolleyes:

Then a 10 minute commercial plays. :smile:
 
  • #40


WarPhalange said:
Competitions where you base your winning on the offchance that the other person will screw up is pointless.
Olympic-level athletes do not base their chance of winning on the off-chance that the other person will screw up. They base their chance of failing to win on the off-chance that they themselves will screw up -- and then do their best to ensure that that will not happen.
 
  • #41


If Olympic athletes didn't get paid a penny for winning a medal you would still see the exact same people fighting to make it on to the team. They don't do it for the money, they do it to try to become the best in the world at their event. If these athletes had to pay for their own plane ticket to China they'd still be there.
 
  • #42


If they could afford it.
 
  • #43


D H said:
Olympic-level athletes do not base their chance of winning on the off-chance that the other person will screw up. They base their chance of failing to win on the off-chance that they themselves will screw up -- and then do their best to ensure that that will not happen.

If everybody plays their A-game, the person who can lift 305 in the gym will beat the person who can lift 300 in the gym. The person who can lift 300 is counting on Mr. 305 on screwing up.
 
  • #44


WarPhalange said:
If they could afford it.

that's what I'm saying, nobody is doing it for the money and they would spend every penny they could afford to be there.
 
  • #45


mgb_phys said:
Or their contracts with their clubs don't allow it.
It's the start of the soccer season, how would you feel if your new $50M striker went away for 2weeks to play in a competition for his own personal glory?

But on a personal level why should they? The olympics doesn't represent your country, it's a money making operation that doesn't pay profesional performers to appear.
Listing atheletes by their country makes no more sense than a F1 victory by Kimi Räikkönen in a British car with a German engine being a victory for Finland.
Why not list athletes as part of the Nike or addidas team like in the tour de france?

Sometimes, it goes further than that. I watched some of the Olympics this morning while drinking coffee and getting ready for work. The women's beach volleyball competition matched Russia against Georgia. Talk about an emotional matchup!

Except the Georgian volleyball players were Brazilian. They were born in Brazil, lived their whole life in Brazil, and looked Brazilian. They were an average team in a professional Brazilian beach volleyball league. They also happened to have some Georgian ancestry, so Georgia hired them to represent Georgia.

Somehow, I'm not sure the Georgian players really understood the significance of the match, although it was a very good match between two 0-2 teams trying to avoid elimination.

Likewise, a US-Russia matchup in womens basketball could be an emotionally significant game for the fans. Russia had better hope their starting point guard, Becky Hammon from South Dakota, has a good game or they'll be blown out as badly as they were in a pre-Olympic tournament.

And, several years ago, Mexico's Womens World Cup team was composed predominantly of US college players with at least some Mexican ancestry, even if most of them couldn't even speak Spanish. They were players not invited to try out for the US team, but they were still good enough to qualify Mexico for the World Cup.

National teams just don't always mean what they used to.
 
  • #46


National teams just don't always mean what they used to.
Back in the days of apartheid most 'british' medal winners were South African.

In soccer the Irish world cup team is basically the England b-squad, you just needed an Irish grandparent to qualify. There was a joke that they had relaxed the qualification - you now just needed a grandparent that liked a guiness.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top