### Introduction

From its inception, the Modern Olympic Movement has fused education with sport and culture to improve both the body and mind. Pierre de Coubertin, the father of the Modern Olympic Games, crafted a vision of universal education through Olympism, spreading such ideals as discipline, focus, vision, commitment, and persistence.

The Olympic Charter (OC) is the codification of the Fundamental Principles of Olympism, Rules and Bye-Laws adopted by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). It governs the organisation, action, and operation of the Olympic Movement and sets forth the conditions for the celebration of the Olympic Games. In essence, the Olympic Charter serves three main purposes (IOC, 2007).

* The Olympic Charter, as a basic instrument of a constitutional nature, sets forth and recalls the fundamental principles and essential values of Olympism.
* The Olympic Charter also serves as statutes for the International Olympic Committee.
* In addition, the Olympic Charter defines the main reciprocal rights and obligations of the three main constituents of the Olympic Movement, namely the International Olympic Committee, the International Federations, and the National Olympic Committees, as well as the Organising Committees for the Olympic Games, all of which are required to comply with the Olympic Charter (IOC, 2007).

Fundamental to the understanding of Olympism is its emphasis on an educational mandate. In fact, the “Olympic idea cannot be understood without an understanding of its educational mission” (Gessman, 1992:33). This educational mandate is outlined in several of the Fundamental Principles of the Olympic Charter (Binder, 2005).

The Olympic Charter (2007) states simply the relationship among Olympic philosophy, ethics, and education:

Fundamental Principle 1 and 2 (p11):

1. 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 of effort, the educational value of good example, and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.
2. The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.

This is a values education mandate. Some of the specific, positive values referred to in these principles include a respect for balance in the human character between aspects of mind, body, and spirit, an understanding of the joy found in effort, an emphasis on peaceful behaviour, and respect for others (here described as preservation of human dignity). The principles, while somewhat awkward in their English wording, also include direction for an Olympic pedagogy. That is, the fundamental principles seem to suggest components of a possible teaching and learning strategy. Note the references to such strategies as, “blending sport with culture and education,” setting “good examples,” and encouraging participation in sport as an educational situation in which these values can be developed (Binder, 2005).

### National Olympic Committees

Chapter 4 of the Olympic Charter deals with National Olympic Committees, stating very clearly important duties of NOCs with regard to Olympic education (IOC, 2007, p. 61).

Mission and Role of the NOCs:

1. The mission of the NOCs is to develop, promote, and protect the Olympic Movement in their respective countries, in accordance with the Olympic Charter (IOC, 2007).
2. The NOCs’ role is:

1. to promote the fundamental principles and values of Olympism in their countries, in particular, in the fields of sport and education, by promoting Olympic educational programmes in all levels of schools, sports and physical education institutions and Universities, as well as by encouraging the creation of institutions dedicated to Olympic education, such as National Olympic Academies, Olympic Museums, and other programmes, including cultural, related to the Olympic Movement (IOC, 2007);
2. to ensure the observance of the Olympic Charter in their countries (IOC, 2007).

### National Olympic Academies

National Olympic Academies are an integral part of the International Olympic Academy and the Olympic Movement (Georgiadis, 2008). Georgiadis further elaborates that, once the IOA had begun its activities, a number of important and substantial issues related to its operation and linked to the attainment of its goals came to light. It became obvious that IOA needed support of other organizations in order to respond to the educational requirements of the Olympic Movement.

> Attending lectures during the IOA’s sessions was not considered sufficient to make participants aware of the academy’s mission and their own contribution to it.
>
> The selection of the participants, their preliminary training, their stay at the International Olympic Academy, and the need to draw upon their knowledge and experience, led to the creation of national centres for Olympic studies in other countries.

Georgiadis goes on to explain that participants in the IOA sessions and seminars now had a point of reference in their own respective countries around which they could rally in order to develop their Olympic education activities in cooperation with IOA.

Georgiadis notes that, in the discussion groups at the IOA’s sessions, the idea of a “National Olympic Academy” is considered as a popular topic. In the same observation, Georgiadis further recounts that, as many Olympic Committees do not comply with their educational obligations in a consistent manner, participants at the sessions have demanded the creation of National Olympic Academies (NOAs) to allow those who attend the sessions of the IOA once they return to their country to become involved in their core activities and operate as the ambassadors of Olympism in their homelands.

Today, 32 years after the establishment of the first National Olympic Academies, the aim of each Olympic Academy is, through Olympic Education programs, to cultivate and disseminate the Olympic Ideal, study and apply the universal education and social principles of the Olympic Movement, in conformity with the Olympic Charter, within the national and cultural boundaries of each National Olympic Committee, in cooperation with the IOA and the IOC.

These aims are achieved by NOAs by the means of programs which they develop themselves in collaboration with the NOC and other sports and educational entities in their country. National Olympic Academies are the IOA’s extensions and operate as transmitters and receivers for the promotion of the Olympic Charter’s ideals through the national Olympic education programs. Each national Olympic Academy must also encourage the practice of sport among all social and age groups and promote the idea of sport as a fundamental human right.

Georgiadis elaborates that “National Olympic Academies operate within the framework of their respective National Olympic Committees and their aims are in harmony with those of the NOCs.” The NOAs are the educational institutions of the NOCs. Even when there are differences in their structures and modes of operation, they must always be placed under the patronage of the NOC within the framework of a single Olympic Movement. It would be very difficult today to define a single system for the operation of NOAs, as there are huge administrative, cultural, and political differences from country to country.

The goal of education – of Olympism – may is summarized in a quote from 2000 by then IOC President, Juan Antonio Samaranch: “Every act of support for the Olympic Movement promotes peace, friendship, and solidarity throughout the world.”

The field of Olympic education has been studied in-depth by numerous international scholars. They have endeavoured to analyze the core of Olympic education so as to avoid the concept of Olympic education being regarded merely as a pool of all highly social and moral values. It is more or less commonly agreed that the idea of Olympic education first and foremost encompasses the long-ranging striving for individual achievement with due respect for the principles of fair play and an increase in a better transnational mutual understanding by supporting processes of intercultural learning.

In the course of the last decades, some scholars have successfully endeavoured to spread the main ideas of Olympic education. The main target groups have been students and pupils. At the International Olympic Academy in Olympia, as well as at conferences organized by various National Olympic Committees, Olympic Academies, and institutes of learning, students are offered the possibility of examining basic ideas of Olympic education.

Frequently the students bring their experience and knowledge back to their home universities in order to integrate them into classes or tutorials. Without doubt, this is a fruitful way to disseminate the central values of Olympic education.

According to Binder, Olympic education in its broadest sense encompasses the workshops and leadership training of Olympic Solidarity, the research and scholarly study of sport historians and sociologists, the public relations efforts of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), its sponsors and its affiliates, as well as the school curricula, handbooks and projects of Olympic Games organizing committees, National Olympic Committees (NOCs), and National Olympic Academies (NOAs). It also encompasses a large variety of initiatives for children and youth (Binder D., 1995).

### International Olympic Academy

The International Olympic Academy functions as a multicultural interdisciplinary centre that aims at studying, enriching, and promoting Olympism. The foundation of such an institution was inspired by the ancient Gymnasium, which shaped the Olympic Ideal by harmoniously cultivating body, will, and mind. On the eve of the 21st century, the centennial anniversary of the revival of the Olympic Games coincides with the global scale changes that are affecting every aspect of human thought and activity.

We, our cultures, and our civilisations have already entered a greater transitional period in which the images of the world that we were used to taking for granted are being altered. The interrelated scientific, technological, economic, political, and social developments that characterise the course of humanity towards the third millennium are influencing each and every idea, norm, and institution of our international community.

This dynamic wave is also opening up new forms of dialogue for the future of Olympism. Moreover, as can be seen through the study of its age-long history, the Olympic Ideal has always been conceived and formed according to the wider conditions prevailing during different periods in time.

The birth, the prosperity, the decline, and the revival of the Olympic Games have all been the reflection of the wider cultural conditions that shaped each era.

The speculations and potentials still evolving out of the Olympic Movement are naturally arising in the realisation process of such an Ideal.

“Olympism,” in the words of Pierre de Coubertin, “is not a system; it is a state of mind. It can permeate a wide variety of modes of expression, and no single race or era can claim to have the monopoly of it.”

The International Olympic Academy provides a unique opportunity for students, academics, athletes, artists, and officials from all over the world to exchange ideas and share this “state of mind” in Ancient Olympia.

The wide variety of educational sessions, academic programmes, and in depth research studies that are offered all aim towards serving the vision of the International Olympic Academy for the new century: to explore and enhance the contribution of Olympism to humanity.

The mission of the IOA is:

1. to function as an International Academic Centre for Olympic Studies, Education, and Research;
2. to act as an International Forum for free expression and exchange of ideas among the Olympic Family, intellectuals, scientists, athletes, sport administrators, educators, artists, and the youth of the world;
3. to bring together people from all over the world, in a spirit of friendship and cooperation;
4. to motivate people to use the experiences and knowledge gained in the IOA productively, in promoting the Olympic Ideals in their respective countries;
5. to serve and promote the Ideals and principles of the Olympic Movement;
6. to cooperate with and assist the National Olympic Academies and any other institutions devoted to Olympic Education;
7. to further explore and enhance the contribution of Olympism to humanity.

### Educational Programmes of the International Olympic Academy

* International Session for Young Participants
* International Post Graduate Seminar on Olympic Studies
* Joint International Session for Directors of NOAs, Members, and Staff of NOCs and IFs
* Joint International Session for Educationists and Staff of Higher Institutes of Physical Education
* International Session for Sports Journalists
* Special Sessions for institutions related with Olympism: National Olympic Committees, National Olympic Academies, International Sport Federations, Sport Medical Societies, Unions of Coaches, Referees, Sports Administrators, etc.
* Special Sessions for Institutions indirectly related with Olympism (C.I.S.M., Teachers, etc.) aiming to promote the Olympic Ideal
* Educational visits of groups from various institutions (universities, graduate schools, schools, sports clubs)
* Visits of Researchers of Olympic subjects
* Conferences on Sports

All the IOA Sessions are held in Ancient Olympia, and participants are accommodated in the guestrooms located on the Academy grounds.

The IOA has three official languages, English, French and Greek, and participants must be fluent in at least one in order to participate in the educational programmes. The Joint Session for Presidents or Directors of NOAs and Officials of NOCs, is perhaps the most important of all the sessions for the success of almost all the other sessions. This biannual Session aims to bring together Senior Administrators from organizations engaged in creating Olympic Education programmes and involved in educational and social activities aiming to promote the Olympic Movement.

The IOA’s role is to coordinate and assist the NOAs in their work, and this Session provides a forum for the exchange of ideas and educational programmes and the presentation of the activities of the NOAs and NOCs in different countries. Communication and the working culture of the NOCs and NOAs is of paramount importance in the success of these sessions. The choice of participants, preparation, and commitment of the participants is key to the realization of the intended objective.

This year’s session is the tenth in the series. As such, there is need to reflect on the organization and management of these joint sessions so as to improve the quality of the sessions and to realise the intended goal, that of developing and spreading Olympic Education. Communication is an important factor in the success of any humankind undertaking. Several factors contribute either positively or negatively on communication, such as timeliness, language, clarity, accuracy, medium, feedback or response, and ability to follow instruction, the working culture or policy of an organization in relation to communication issues.

This paper sets out to present the problems encountered in the quest of organizing such sessions, specifically focusing on cultural and communication problems.

### Methodology

The literature review method was the primary method used in developing this paper. Published and unpublished sources have been used. Correspondence between IOA, and NOAs, and NOCs, past session presentations and Conclusions were also reviewed. Personal experience from attending a number of sessions of IOA and discussions with IOA Masters students (2009 / 2010), have all been taken into consideration.

### Findings and discussion

* Often times there has been confusion between delegates of NOAs and NOCs to the extent that the IOA has had to request NOAs and NOCs to clearly state whether or not a delegate is a member of NOA or NOC. Sometimes delegates have been sent who are not involved in the Education functions of the NOAs or NOCs.
* Quite a number of delegates are sent to Olympia without prior preparation as to what to expect and what is expected of them. With some countries, there is a turn-over every year, where the policy is to award the trip to members of the NOC in turns. As such, there is no continuity; this has forced the IOA to insist that the President / Director of NOAs must attend the Directors and the joint sessions.
* Non adherence to Final Enrolment date: “We have noticed in the past that many NOAs or NOCs do not submit their application forms in due time. We hereby would like to bring to your attention that no application submitted after the expiry date will be considered.”
* Language: Participants must have an excellent knowledge of either English or French, since they are expected to take active part in the discussion groups which follow the lectures. This is the quintessence of the IOA’s activities, i.e., to get people from all over the world to know and contact one another. It has been repeatedly noticed in the past that quite a few participants cannot understand or speak either English or French and consequently, they are unable to participate fully in the discussion groups. Therefore, all NOCs and NOAs are kindly requested to avoid sending over delegates who do not speak fluently at least one of the above two languages.
* Working relationship between NOAs and NOCs is another challenge that features prominently in the conclusions of the group discussions of the sessions, especially as relates to accessibility to information and financial support. This problem is more pronounced in countries which rely solely on Olympic Solidarity funding. Rarely are any Olympic Education activities undertaken for want of funding. In most other NOCs, NOAs exist only on paper, and no activities take place apart from attending the sessions here in Olympia.
* In the conclusions of English Speaking Group 5, during the 9th International Session For Directors of National Olympic Academies (1- 8 June 2007), Ibrahim Abazid, et, al., considered the challenges, difficulties, and solutions to implementing Olympic Education Program and concluded that there are three key challenges that needed to be addressed. They named these as: relationship between NOA and NOC, communication, and financial difficulties.

### Conclusion

We observe from the above that there are communication problems within the key players involved in the development and dissemination of International Joint Sessions on Olympic Education, namely, the IOC (through OS), the IOA, the NOCs, and NOAs. The gap is more pronounced between NOCs and NOAs. This communication problem is both in terms of availability and timeliness, as well as response or feedback.

This is a result of poor working relationship between NOCs and NOAs; the main cause has been attributed to non-information sharing by the NOCs, even in instances where NOAs are directly under the NOC. NOAs are hardly ever made aware of the funding opportunities from Olympic Solidarity. Even the funds provided to NOCs under “Other Activities” are hardly ever communicated to NOAs; and the quadrennial plans which offer a number of opportunities are unknown to most NOA officials.

It is also noted that in some cases, the NOAs are only on paper, or spring up when it is time for a trip to Olympia; no initiatives are done to organize and spread Olympic education in the respective countries. The young participants who are sent to Olympia are not chosen on merit since there are no Olympic Education activities, in some countries.

Officials not involved in Olympic Education have been sent to these sessions, while being fully aware that they will not involve themselves in the dissemination of Olympic Education when they go back to their countries. NOCs should work together with NOAs to select the best candidates based on merit to attend such sessions. A system should be developed to ensure that those who attend these sessions have the knowledge, motivation, and commitment to embark on creation and spreading of Olympic Education.

A working guideline should be developed to ensure a smooth working relationships among the key players in the development and spread of Olympic Education, namely: the IOC (through Olympic Solidarity), the IOA, the NOCs, and the NOAs. This document should be made available to all and be posted on the IOC and IOA websites.

### References

Binder, D.L. (2005). Challenges and Models for successful Olympic Education Initiatives at Grassroots Level. Paper presented during Forum organized by the Centre for Olympic Studies – Olympic Perspectives.

Binder, D. L. (2007).Teaching Values: An Olympic Education Toolkit. International Olympic Committee, 2007.

Binder, D. L. (2005). Teaching Olympism in Schools: Olympic Education as a focus on Values Education. University of Barcelona – Olympic Studies Centre.

Georgiadis, K. (2008). National Olympic Academies. International Olympic Academy. 9th Joint International Session for Presidents or Directors of National Olympic Academies and Officials of National Olympic Committees 12 – 19 May 2008; Conclusions.

International Olympic Academy – circular Ref. No.: 1376 / KG /st Athens, 8th December 2009.

International Olympic Academy. 8th International Session for Directors of National Olympic Academies 18th – 25th April 2005; Conclusions.

International Olympic Academy. 8th Joint International Session for Presidents or Directors of National Olympic Academies and Officials of National Olympic Committees 23 – 30 May 2006; Conclusions.

International Olympic Academy. 9th International Session for Directors of National Olympic Academies 1 – 8 June 2007; Conclusions.

International Olympic Academy. 9th Joint International Session for Presidents or Directors of National Olympic Academies and Officials of National Olympic Committees 12 – 19 May 2008; Conclusions.

IOA Website. www.ioa.org.gr

IOC. (2007). Olympic Charter. Lausanne, Switzerland.

First of all, I wish to thank the President of the IOA, Mr. Isidoros Kouvelos, and the Director, Mr. Dionyssis Gangas, for their honoring invitation to speak as a lecturer at this Session. I share with both of them a sincere, enduring friendship and sports cooperation.

The subject was a challenge for me and should maybe be the topic of a one-day meeting, for I believe that the problems and challenges facing the Olympic Movement are many, just as there are many opposite views on where Olympism and its principles are heading today, in the 21st century.

Looking briefly back to the last century, we see that since the 70s, and especially during the 80s, the World Sports Movement has gone through a major crisis. The first problem is related to the escalation of violence inside and outside competition venues. Hooliganism has become the plague of football matches both inside and outside the stadiums, placing world sports authorities in a difficult position. The second problem is doping that was quite often encouraged by the governments of the former Eastern bloc. Alongside these two problems, we have witnessed terrorist attacks during the Olympic Games (Munich Olympic Village in 1972, Atlanta Olympic Park in 1996) and, during the Cold War, the boycotting of the Olympics by the USA and the former Soviet Union and their allies (Moscow 1976, Los Angeles 1980).

To answer the question, “What is the NOC’s role in the 21st century?“ one should take into account not only the conditions that prevail today worldwide, but also those that will follow. On the one hand, there are major scientific and technological breakthroughs that contribute to the propagation and development of sport, but on the other you have a financial crisis, an institutional crisis, a value crisis, and scandals that come to light even within the IOC in connection to briberies accepted by its members during the voting for the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. The crisis continues to exist within the Olympic Movement, as the problems of the past century persist with an additional factor, commercialization, which has invaded all levels of sport and the Olympic Movement and makes the situation even worse.

As crises occur, their handling depends on the administration and leadership of each NOC, which determines the levels of its authenticity. Dealing with a crisis requires leadership skills. When times are difficult, we all feel the temptation to compromise or forget our principles. However, the Olympic principles that have been handed down are not negotiable and should not disappear as the result of excessive commercialization. NOCs and, above all, the IOC, have the duty to be something more than the managers of the Olympic Idea. They have the duty to be its trustees.

The NOC’s mission is set out in the Olympic Charter (Rule 31, art. 2.1), according to which their mission is to develop and protect the Olympic Movement in their respective countries. The following paragraphs of this article detail the areas on which they should focus their activities.

Their first obligation is to propagate the fundamental principles of Olympism and contribute to their diffusion through educational programs. The precise definition of Olympism cannot be found in the best known international dictionaries, nor is it contained in the Olympic Charter. Moreover, Coubertin himself refrained from giving a definition, and it seems that the term was coined and appeared from 1909 onward as a set of values. These values are not clearly defined, but they are the basic values of ancient Greek philosophers who believed that young people should exercise in order to have a healthy body and should also cultivate their ethical and spiritual values in order to attain perfection. This standpoint is based on five elements: (a) unity of mind and body, (b) development of abilities, (c) impartiality, (d) fair play; and (e) peace. It is, therefore, obvious that today the philosophy of Olympism pursues pedagogical and educational objectives and does not influence only those who participate in the Olympic Games, but also millions of people who watch them on their television sets.

### The NOC And Olympic Education

In this century, the era of innocence for sport has irrevocably ended, and this is why we should understand that Olympic education is the primary element of the Olympic Movement and its quintessence.

Having established that, I believe that the NOCs should intensify their efforts of promoting Olympic education, which should be developed in two directions. The first involves theoretical consideration of the philosophy, sociology, and psychology of Olympism, with the view to enhancing its values. The second refers to the educational process as such that will initiate young people to the values of the Olympic Movement. This can be achieved in the following ways:

a. Through the athletes who have competed or won at the Olympic Games. Great athletes fascinate people with their fame and glory, and they may become role models for youth. The popularity and prestige which athletes enjoy at national and international level should be built on as they represent Olympism’s best ambassadors.
b. Through sports organizations and, in particular, through their country’s national federations and associations that can promote the spirit of sport and the principles of _fair play_, as well as combat violence and drug use propensity.
c. Through the media propagating Olympic education, by highlighting the great moments of the Olympic Games and interviews with their stars that focus on the human interest angle of their personal stories.
d. Finally, NOCs can propagate Olympism and its principles, especially in countries that have organized Olympic Games, through the volunteers. The Olympic Movement has the largest participation of volunteers, more than any other organization, and with proper training by NOCs, they can become the best heralds of Olympism.

The hovering question in the sports-loving world today is the following: Does sport build ethical persons, or should we build ethical persons who will become involved in sport? The answer is that by spreading Olympic education, we can build ethical persons.

### The Autonomy Of NOCs And Political Interventions

It is very important to protect and ensure the autonomy of NOCs. Each NOC is an independent legal entity and should not fall prey to political exploitation or be dependent on political authority. Unquestionably, NOCs should work to maintain harmonious cooperation with their governments and appropriate government bodies (Rule 31, §5). Quite often governments intervene in the operation of sports institutions to an extent that violates the autonomy of sports associations or federations, and even of the NOC, either through financial support by means of regular or special grants, or through legislative provisions. Such intervention becomes easier when government support leads to financial dependence. NOCs should, therefore, organize their relationship with the government in a way that ensures that the support they receive does not turn into subordination and dependence.

The fact that the European Parliament has been dealing with this problem since 2009 shows how serious it is. The “White Paper on Sport,” sets out the guidelines that will create the future framework of the European Policy for Sport, taking into account the specific nature of sport and respectful of its autonomy and self-governing status (Μ. Μavromatis, 9th Congress of Sports Administration – The Olympic Movement in society, 2008).

Moreover, history teaches us that politics have always been present in the development of the Olympic Movement, since its inception, and participate in all the facets of social life, including sport politics and sport that must live together and establish a general framework of mutual respect (J. A. Samaranch, p.88).

If NOCs realize that there are political interventions that abolish the autonomy of the Olympic Movement in their country, or that the principles of the Olympic Charter are not respected, they should immediately notify the IOC and ask for its help.

### The Obligations Of NOCs And Financial Resources

The NOCs have the exclusive powers for the representation of their country at the Olympic Games and world competitions and must participate in the Games of the Olympiad by sending athletes (Rule 31, § 3). This means that they also have the obligation to develop Olympic preparation programs to enable their athletes, if they cannot win a medal, to participate in a fitting manner. The problem of the athletes’ preparation in those difficult economic conditions is extremely complex. Already since the beginning of the last decade, it has become clear that there will be cut-downs in government grants in the future, and several governments have communicated their views and encouraged their National Federations and NOCs to seek new sources of financing for sport. In return, they propose concluding agreements with private sponsors. The Greek government, in the context of its austerity program, has already reduced by 20% the Federation’s budget for 2010. In my opinion, the end of government grants, for NOCs in particular, will be a serious blow to sports promotion and development. What’s more, under difficult economic conditions, even the most traditional national sponsors (banks, foundations, enterprises, etc.) are reluctant. For the National Sponsorships ‘experiment’ to succeed, NOCs will have to ask their governments to introduce by law significant tax reliefs, equal to the amounts offered, to provide some kind of incentive to sports sponsors.

I also believe that NOCs should re-assess their sports need In order to reduce expenses by developing a National Sports Plan with priorities and new objectives. This can be achieved by ranking the sports that each NOC will support for Olympic preparation. Specialized studies by sports experts will be needed to establish which sports people like best combined with the country’s sports tradition and citizens’ physical and psychological conditions. Let me give you the example of Greece, a country with a population of 11 million, that finances from the state budget 32 Federations of Olympic Sports (28 summer and 4 winter sports) and approximately 20 Federations of non-Olympic Sports. This cannot go on under the present conditions. It is an enormous waste! Each NOC should, therefore, select, based on strict criteria, the sports to be financed for Olympic preparation among those that have a strong chance of doing well at the Olympics. This choice should be reasoned and based on documented research. Sports that will not be selected could be developed by means of private sponsors’ funds. If their athletes achieve good performances, these sports could then be funded by the State Budget or join the NOC Olympic Preparation Program. In this way, promising sports will obtain larger amounts, while the development of the other sports will continue to be encouraged.

### Olympic Preparation Programs

As already mentioned, NOCs have exclusive powers for the representation of their respective countries at the Olympic Games. This means an additional responsibility for the good appearances of their athletes. Until the Seoul Games (1988), there was no limit to the number of entries. However, faced with the problem of gigantism as new sports were added to the Olympic program, the IOC decided that from the Barcelona Games (1992) onward the number of competitors should not exceed 10,000. This is still the case today, apart from a few exceptions. To ensure that this maximum number will not be exceeded, the IOC, in cooperation with the IFs concerned, every four years establishes, qualification criteria and limits that are different for each (individual-team) sport wishing to ensure participation of athletes from all continents, as well as top level performances. Moreover, in order to help developing countries that are represented by less than six athletes, the IOC may decide to offer a small number of one or two places in each sport. This could also be the case for countries whose athletes failed to meet the IOC’s criteria. The aim of this decision is to allow all countries to participate symbolically and propagate the world spirit of Olympism. Under these new conditions, the NOC of a country that does not have top performance sports and wishes to be represented at the Olympic Games, even by one athlete, should present the relevant request to the IOC that will decide following consultation with the International Federation concerned and the Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games. The above clearly show that NOCs must develop programs for the Olympic Preparation of their athletes. The working-out of this program should start right after the closing of the Olympic Games, setting as time horizon the opening of the next celebration of the Games.

The program should also establish, from the very beginning, the selection criteria and limits for the athletes and teams whose Olympic preparation will be supported, depending on the NOC’s objectives each time. This is an objective system that ensures transparency and prevents any political or other interference. During a first stage, based on the criteria, the athletes of the pre-Olympic team will be selected by means of this system. It would, however, be useful for each NOC to set up a special Olympic Preparation Commission whose members would remain, for the whole four-year period, in close contact with the Federations and the athletes to help them solve any problems and guide them. I think it would be a good idea to mention the five main areas on which the Olympic Preparation Program should focus, in my view:

1. The legal framework that governs sports, which should also include incentives for athletes of all levels.
2. The planning of the sports programs of the country’s federations. This planning should include: (a) the training schedule (in the country and abroad), (b) the competition schedule (for qualifications, goals), (c) scientific support (ergometrics, sports medicine, physiotherapy, psychology, etc.)
3. Planning control and monitoring by the NOC.
4. Assistance and support by state bodies, mainly the Ministries of Education, Defence, Health, Labour, etc.
5. Financing of programs from the state budget. It should be noted here that the IOC does not give NOCs any finances for their Olympic preparation. However, as we will see further on, direct financial assistance can be provided to elite athletes through Olympic Solidarity.

At this point, it is worth noting that the Hellenic Olympic Committee developed in 1986 for the first time an Olympic Preparation Program for the Olympic Games with limits and criteria for the athletes who would be taking part in the Seoul 1988 Olympics. These criteria were accepted by all Federations when they were submitted to them; however, during the plenary meeting (30.08.1988) that would finalize the list of athletes to be entered for the Games, a number of Federation representatives expressed reservations when it became apparent that wellknown athletes would be excluded from the Games because they failed to meet the criteria and limits. In the end, by an overwhelming majority (23–2), the Plenary of the Hellenic Olympic Committee decided to respect the criteria. As could be expected, after the announcement of the Olympic Team from which some famous names were missing, there was a general outcry against the decision on the part of the athletes who had been excluded and by their Federations. Moreover, there were also some unexpected political reactions. The aunt of an excluded sailing athlete, who was Deputy Minister of Education, resigned after denouncing the Hellenic Olympic Committee and demanded the athlete’s Inclusion in the Olympic Team.

Despite strong reactions and unbearable pressure, the Committee did not change its decision, and so the criteria and Olympic Preparation Programs were established in this way and are regularly readjusted. These programs proved to be extremely useful. Greece, from a single medal in the 1988 Olympic Games, reaped 16 medals in 2004 and has achieved excellent results in all sports at the international level. For history, let me mention that the excluded athlete who was 18 at the time won three Olympic medals at the next Olympiads, is still competing today, and represents a shining example for our youth, a model of sports ethics and fair play, and offers huge services to sports education.

### The IOC’s Financial Support To NOCs

NOCs can, under certain conditions, obtain financial support from the IOC through the Olympic Solidarity Commission. This Commission, in accordance with Rule 8 of the Olympic Charter, is responsible for the management and redistribution of the share of the television rights from the broadcasting of the Olympic Summer and Winter Games, which belongs to the NOCs and represents 6%. The Commission is chaired by the President of the IOC, and it develops programs for technical, educational, and financial assistance. These programs are numerous and varied, and their aim is to promote the development of sport, from grass root to top performance level throughout the world, by helping athletes in each country.

NOCs have the right to use all these programs that enable them to implement their activities and draw upon the financial benefits resulting from the celebration of the Olympic Games in order to develop and support sport in their countries.

Today, there are 21 programs that cover four main areas of action: athletes, coaches, NOC management, and special issues. These programs help developing countries, in particular, and those facing financial difficulties, in the last stage of their athletes’ preparation for the Olympic Games.

1. Athletes: (a) preparation in training centers and participation in qualifying competitions, (b) individual scholarships for participation in the Olympic Games, (c) identification of new talents at national level. The athlete is the central figure of the Olympic Games.
2. Coaches: The coach’s role for the athletes’ preparation is pivotal. The object of these programs is to offer coaches the possibility to acquire the necessary technical knowledge with the help of specialized programs, such as,

* technical courses at national and regional level for all sports;
* Scholarships on sports science subjects in academic establishments and training in specific sports; and
* development of the national coaching structure with the support of a foreign coach who will train national coaches, training programs, etc.

3. NOCs can use and benefit from programs of

* administration assistance, technological and IT support and electronic communication, marketing;
* sports administration for NOC officials; and
* further education of their country’s sports administrators.

4.Finally, NOCs are given the opportunity to draw upon Olympic Solidarity’s programs concerning the Environment, Women for Culture and Education, Sports Medicine, Sports for All, etc.

### NOCs – The Problem Of Doping And Violence

As mentioned already, the problem of doping and violence originated in the previous century. Unfortunately, despite the efforts that were made in this first decade, far from diminishing, they are steadily increasing.

Doping, in particular, is the scourge of modern sport. Doping cases have not dropped. Random, out-of-competition controls, as well as those performed during the Olympic Games, show, in fact, that their number is rising. Some theoreticians report that the IOC and the NOCs, despite the Olympic Charter’s strict provision (Rule 31, §2.6), did not realize from the start, the magnitude of the problem; they reacted with laxity and leniency and failed to arrive at a precise definition of doping. This view is partly correct, for it is true that the IOC for the first time in 1987 (94th Session) encouraged governments to apply the general legislative measures on combating drugs and to adopt specific laws for doping. Until then, the use of banned substances and methods was only punishable by disciplinary sanctions, as it was considered to be just a sports offence. Very few countries, including Greece (1975), considered this to be a criminal offence as well, entailing harsh sanctions against user athletes, and even harsher for traffickers and pushers. I was among the first who affirmed that doping was also a criminal offence, as it harms: (a) the athlete’s health, (b) sport’s social and cultural role, and (c) the authenticity of the sports result (cf. IOC 1986). Closing this subject, I believe that doping is the outcome of sport’s commercialization, which has permeated the Olympic Movement. The gold bars and the astronomical bonuses handed out at the different Grand Prix, drive athletes to the use of banned substances. Furthermore, the commercial contracts that top athletes are allowed to sign with different sponsor companies of the Olympic Games for their products’ promotion, in addition to acting as an incentive for greater efforts, are also an incentive for higher profits, which will also lead to the use of banned substances. In this way, one of the fundamental principles of the Olympic Movement, the principle of _fair play,_ is abolished.

I am not a pessimist, but I am worried about these very close contacts with huge financial Interests.

Violence is a phenomenon, which has existed since man was born, and has remained, through time, a major component of human life in all its manifestations that has grown periodically.

Sport, which is closely linked to social life, could not prevent the arrival of violence in its domain, all the more so since competition is one of the elements of sport. We are talking about the violence that breaks out inside and outside sports venues, often with tragic results, as people lose their lives or are seriously wounded, and facilities extensively damaged. Violent incidents were originally limited to football matches, but, as time went on and the phenomenon became stronger, these incidents also occurred during the meetings of other team events.

As the number of these incidents was growing after the Heysel tragedy (1985), European governments were compelled to sign the European Convention on Violence at Sports Events (1986). Furthermore, in 1997, the European Union included in its program for combating criminality the amount of 600 million euros for the period 2007-2013. At the same time, the Council of Europe adopted a Code of Sports Ethics.

All the above measures, combined with Rule 31, paragraph 2.5, of the Olympic Charter, do not appear able to control this social phenomenon that is steadily expanding.

In this area, NOCs are invited to take action in order to support the ideological framework of Olympism. This should be an educational action, for this lasting phenomenon has shown that repressive measures alone are not enough. Sports education and Olympic philosophy must become part of school educational programs. This will lead to prevention that is far better than repression.

### NOC Marketing And The Commercialization Of Olympism

There is no doubt that in the days of Juan Antonio Samaranch’s presidency (1980-200), the Olympic Movement achieved financial independence, mainly through the exploitation of TV rights and marketing activities under the TOP program. At the same time, however, the number of athletes was growing, as new sports that had interest for only a limited number of sports fans were added. This led to the gigantism of the Olympic Games and to the considerable expansion of their program. The IOC became aware of the problem and decided to remove a number of sports but added others. The risk of commercialization was very much present, and it was important to achieve a delicate balance, in the marketing sector, in particular, to prevent the selling off of the Olympic Idea and Symbols (Olympic emblem, Olympic flame, etc.) in return for financial profits.

NOCs can improve their finances by offering, with caution, their emblems to National Sponsors, in accordance with the Olympic Charter.

Sport today becomes identified with business activity. Each sector sustains the other. Owners of big teams, athletes’ and coaches’ managers, fan clubs, etc., are involved in these transactions. The commercialization of sport is linked to the globalization of the economy and the domination of multinationals to the detriment of the real values of Olympism. I believe that the NOCs, through their representatives who are IOC members, should sound the alarm, because if this situation persists, sport will become the image of capital and capital the image of sport. However, one of the IOC’s powerful figures, R. Pound, affirms that without commercialization and because of the enormous cost of staging the Olympic Games, no government would be able to meet the expenses of such a huge and costly event.

### Epilogue

It is quite possible that, to quote Michael Paine, the IOC’s Marketing Director:

> The Olympic Games have avoided disaster and become the best known franchise brand. The answer though comes from the past, from Pierre de Coubertin himself, ‘My friends and I have not worked to give you the Olympic Games so that they will be turned into a museum object or a subject for the movies (there was no TV at the time), nor so that commercial or political interest should take them over.’

I leave it to you to draw the conclusions.