Missy Frankln's Example of an Amateur Athlete at the Olympics
Missy Franklin won gold in the 200 meter backstroke. She's the American teen phenom (17 years old) who's captures a lot of attention at the London Olympics. She provides a good example of the "amateur" athlete. But the example tells us something about the strange way we define "amateur" athletes.
Missy decided to keep attending high school, swim for her school and train under her high school coach. She decided this in the face of those who said she should move to a place like California - a state known for producing top swimmers, as opposed to her home state of Colorado. A place like California attracts the top coaches in swimming, so Missy would be able to train under one of these coaches.
But Missy refused. She wanted to be with her family and friends and live a (relatively) "normal" life and now she's become an Olympic star. Good for her.
So now that she's a media darling, do you think she might change her mind when she's offered the big bucks? The media's jumped on this aspect of her story. Click HERE for an article describing what will happen to her now that she's won gold.
The thing is, what's the big issue here? She's turned down money in the past, but it was small potatoes compared to what she may be offered now. If she's offered a lot of money now, and accepts the money, so what? Why the controversy?
I think it's controversial because there's a silly idea of "amateur" floating around in the athletic world. Somehow you're not an amateur if you accept money from private sources. But it's okay if you take money from your government. Why is that?
The U.S. government doesn't offer the same level of financial support that other governments do - take China for an example. No one goes on about how Chinese athletes accept all this support. But they do make an issue any time an athlete accepts endorsements from companies - you know, where the athlete agrees to become a spokesman for products like swim gear, cereal, etc. Somehow this "taints" the athlete, compared to the "pure" amateurs.
How is government giving money to athletes any different than companies giving them money?
Actually, there is a difference. Look at where the money comes from when a company gives money to an athlete. The company is assuming that the athlete's endorsement of their products will result in increased sales. So the money comes from those anticipated sales, which are voluntary exchanges between people who decide to purchase a product in the open market.
Where does the money come from when governments give it to their athletes? Typically, not from commercial transactions. The government decides to spend the money they've "collected" in taxes from their citizens. And these transactions are not voluntary, of course.
Now that I think about it, endorsements really do seem to be better way to go. I admire great athletes, but why should money be taken from me or you to pay for their training and their trip to the Olympics?
Anyway, whatever Missy Franklin decides to do as far as accepting money goes, it's up to her.
Missy decided to keep attending high school, swim for her school and train under her high school coach. She decided this in the face of those who said she should move to a place like California - a state known for producing top swimmers, as opposed to her home state of Colorado. A place like California attracts the top coaches in swimming, so Missy would be able to train under one of these coaches.
But Missy refused. She wanted to be with her family and friends and live a (relatively) "normal" life and now she's become an Olympic star. Good for her.
So now that she's a media darling, do you think she might change her mind when she's offered the big bucks? The media's jumped on this aspect of her story. Click HERE for an article describing what will happen to her now that she's won gold.
The thing is, what's the big issue here? She's turned down money in the past, but it was small potatoes compared to what she may be offered now. If she's offered a lot of money now, and accepts the money, so what? Why the controversy?
I think it's controversial because there's a silly idea of "amateur" floating around in the athletic world. Somehow you're not an amateur if you accept money from private sources. But it's okay if you take money from your government. Why is that?
The U.S. government doesn't offer the same level of financial support that other governments do - take China for an example. No one goes on about how Chinese athletes accept all this support. But they do make an issue any time an athlete accepts endorsements from companies - you know, where the athlete agrees to become a spokesman for products like swim gear, cereal, etc. Somehow this "taints" the athlete, compared to the "pure" amateurs.
How is government giving money to athletes any different than companies giving them money?
Actually, there is a difference. Look at where the money comes from when a company gives money to an athlete. The company is assuming that the athlete's endorsement of their products will result in increased sales. So the money comes from those anticipated sales, which are voluntary exchanges between people who decide to purchase a product in the open market.
Where does the money come from when governments give it to their athletes? Typically, not from commercial transactions. The government decides to spend the money they've "collected" in taxes from their citizens. And these transactions are not voluntary, of course.
Now that I think about it, endorsements really do seem to be better way to go. I admire great athletes, but why should money be taken from me or you to pay for their training and their trip to the Olympics?
Anyway, whatever Missy Franklin decides to do as far as accepting money goes, it's up to her.
Comments