#3

Should states care about the performance of their national team at a global sporting competition, such as the Olympics or the World Cup? Why or why not?

Cheering for one’s home country in an international sporting event has multiple benefits on both the domestic and international scales. The fervor that transpires when global sporting events take place is of an unbelievable magnitude. For instance, during the World Cup, entire towns and cities all over the planet empty out onto streets to watch their countries’ games on enormous screens set up just for the occasion. The amount of pride and spirit that citizens feel for their country is incredible; global sporting events renew love for one’s nation. The sports are capable of reuniting a country and bringing attention back to every nation’s individual identity and culture. Each country brings attention to aspects that make their culture unique, and fans present at the sporting events cover themselves with their respective national colors and flags. The extreme national spirit and care that people is a reminder of the extraordinary diversity that exists in the world. Maintenance of unique cultures and traditions is important, and global sporting competitions are great outlets for states to proudly demonstrate their individuality.

As an international event, it is only natural that global sporting competitions also play a strong role in politics. To a certain extent, it is possible that these major events may serve as a minor distraction from violent politics, refocusing a bit of attention on healthy competition instead. However, even more importantly, global sporting events are a chance for countries or individuals to voice their opinions on global happenings. For instance, in the 1936 Berlin Games, Hitler only allowed “Aryan” athletes to compete in his attempt to demonstrate racial superiority. However, Jesse Owens, an African American who won four gold medals, crushed Hitler’s objective. That year, several athletes also chose not to compete, showing what they thought of Germany’s actions. Thus, not only should states care about the performance of their athletes, but whether or not they even participate in the first place. Six countries boycotted the Melbourne games in 1956 because of the Suez War, and the U.S. led a boycott of the 1980 games in Moscow because the Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan. With a much greater concentration of public attention focused on the sporting events than is normally focused on world politics, international sporting competitions are an excellent way for states to show the world what they believe in.

On a different note, states should not care for the global sporting competitions solely to demonstrate power and prestige. The Olympics are an international competition, but racking up the most golds and winning the Medals Race should not be a country’s only focus. Doing so would alter the tone of the “sporting games” to that of a fierce, non-violent war, which entirely opposes the games’ purpose of uniting the world. Each country should respect the athletic strengths of others; the games present an opportunity for lesser countries to shine and earn a bit of global acclaim. Usain Bolt and other sprinters all gained some esteem for their home country, Jamaica, and Ghana recently defeated the U.S.A. in the 2010 World Cup. All in all, countries should definitely care for the performance of their national team because of the spirit that is generated, but the care should not evolve into an overly fierce competitiveness.