Latest Articles

How to Spread and Develop Joint International Programs about Olympic Education: Cultural and Communication Problems

U.S. Sports Academy2013-11-25T17:21:05-06:00August 5th, 2010|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Management|

### 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.

The Place and Role of Olympism in Higher Education

U.S. Sports Academy2016-04-01T09:39:40-05:00August 5th, 2010|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Coaching, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Management|

### Introduction

Interpreting the place and role of Olympism in higher education is a necessary and pertinent issue. The close relationship between the Olympic Movement and universities dates back as far as 1894. The fact that the IOC was established at Sorbonne University – the “temple of science,” as Pierre de Coubertin called it – contributed to this, as did Coubertin himself. The development of sport, as well as the importance and social impact of the Olympic Games, later prompted interest among individual researchers and teams of scholars at universities. The general interest among universities in Olympism and the Olympic Games in the 1980s intensified their direct and indirect cooperation with the Olympic Movement, both in terms of education and research (c.f. Morgas, 2006). Another mediator in this process comprised the activities of the IOC and the IOA, as well as the establishment of a new Olympic Museum, which has been illustrating the connection between Olympism, sport, and culture since 1993, whilst also developing and supporting the concept of education and research projects at universities. Nonetheless, the educational and research leanings of universities, as well as the forms in which they cooperate with national Olympic Movements and the themes that have been dealt with, often differ. National specificity is important in this regard. Consequently, the starting point for our report is the Czech Republic, which makes no claims to represent the general situation.

### Why is Olympism taught and researched at universities in the Czech Republic?

* It is the Olympic Movement’s mission to cooperate with the academic community.
* The development of the Olympic Movement and the Olympic Games cannot do without academic reflections on their social impact.
* Apart from other things, the implementation of Olympic values in university curricula programmes has also been caused by a crisis in general concepts of education, which students find too theoretical, formal, and verbose.
* The autonomy of the Olympic Movement and universities, as well as their economic security and the coordination and harmonisation of research and education, are basic preconditions for their effective cooperation.
* Physical education and sports at primary and secondary schools, as well as at universities, should not only comprise sports training but should also have an Olympic and humanist dimension.
* The Olympic Movement needs experts and specialists. Universities can offer and arrange training for them, along with academic research and a specialist service.
* For the time being, we cannot be entirely satisfied with the role of primary and secondary schools as well as universities in disseminating the Olympic idea and Olympic culture.

### Implementing Olympism in the education programmes of Czech universities and faculties

Olympism, is a set of principles, ideas, visions, and challenges. Coubertin described it in not completely systematic terms as a philosophy of life with the principles of a cult of effort, eurhythmics, and a love of exercise, but also as a state of mind (c.f. Naul, 2009). Consequently, as far back as the end of the 19th century, in his philosophical, psychological, and educational musings, Coubertin already understood that sport and exercise were becoming important actors in culture as well as a means of educating and communicating across different civilisations.

Besides by the original ideas of Pierre de Coubertin, Olympism is enriched by other ideas and objectives in the Olympic Charter. These comprise reflections on the development of the Olympic Movement, sport, and culture as well as their mutual relationships (c.f. Georgiadis, 2003). Nonetheless, they also include reflections on applying the results of academic research.

As we shall illustrate below, two different approaches have been pursued in incorporating Olympism into curricula at Czech universities for training experts in physical education and sports. At other universities and faculties, the implementation of Olympism is not yet systematic and is influenced by specialists operating in the fields of philosophy, sociology, ethics, aesthetics, etc.

#### A) Implementing Olympic themes in social science curriculum subjects for training physical education specialists

Wherever Olympism cannot be applied as a separate study subject, Olympic themes are chosen and taught according to the graduates’ future work. They are primarily taught in social and sports subjects, but are also developed in courses for sports disciplines in both bachelor’s and master’s studies. As future teachers, trainers, instructors, etc., physical education students learn basic Olympic knowledge, skills and competences for their future activity in several study subjects.

Tables 1.
Implementing Olympic themes in curriculum subjects at physical education faculties in the Czech Republic

#### B) Olympism as a separate instructional and educational subject in the curriculum

Universities together with Czech Olympic Academy are jointly taking part in formulating the content of the curriculum for Olympic education at primary and secondary schools (c.f. Rychtecký & Dovalil, 2009). Apart from this, private and public universities and sports faculties are also creating their own implied “Olympic” subjects, which they offer their students in a obligatory or elective form in bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral studies. The most frequent names given to mostly elective subjects taught at the sports and educational faculties of universities in the Czech Republic are, “Olympism” and “Olympic Education.” Their content is based on the themes in the table, but it is taught in a condensed form.

A common and unifying basis for an Olympism curriculum at universities is the textbook, _Olympism_ compiled by a team of authors from universities as well as specialists and experts from the Olympic Movement. It was published in 2004 with the support of the Czech Olympic Committee and contains the following chapter topics: Sport; Pierre de Coubertin, Philosophy of Olympism; Relations of Sport, Olympism and Culture; Antique Inspirations; Olympic Symbols and Ceremonies; Olympic Movement; Brief History of the Olympic Movement; Olympic Games; Czech Olympic Movement; Financing of the Olympic Movement; Sport for All in the Olympic Movement; Women and Sport in the Olympic Movement; the Ecological Dimension in Olympism; Olympism and Arts; Sport and Olympism in the Examination of Time; Future of Olympism; Olympic Education; Education in Sport. The textbook is used by university students, as well as by experts and interested persons of the Olympic Movement in the Czech Republic.

### Olympism as a subject of research at Czech universities

An analysis of contemporary Olympism indicates that its declaratory and concise expression in the Olympic Charter does not provide a sufficiently vivid picture or answers to questions such as, “What exactly is Olympism?” This brevity, due to the nature of the Charter, currently also poses a challenge for this unique social phenomenon to be more comprehensively analysed and interpreted in the broader context of social, sports, and natural sciences at universities. Moreover, the mission of the IOC and IOA, NOCs and NOAs (also cited at the 13th Olympic Congress in Copenhagen last year) is to develop, protect, and spread the principles of Olympism and Olympic values in physical education and sports programmes at schools and universities.

### Olympism in the context of academic research

Figure. 1: Olympism and the Olympic Movement in the system of academic disciplines

Olympism transcends sport, both as a set of preferred values and within a cultural framework. In many cases, it advocates sport (c.f. Parry, 1998; Jegorov, 2001). Consequently, incorporating Olympic themes into university research projects in social and sports sciences is of crucial significance, both for the academic and subsequent education activities of universities. In the next section, we shall recall selected methodological problems and stereotypes, which sometimes appear in basic and applied research on Olympism and the Olympic Games, and are transferred to education activities.

### Philosophy, sports philosophy, and Olympism

In historical and contemporary reflections, philosophy devotes itself to the anthropological and aretological characteristics of sports competitions, as well as to the socio-political, religious, aesthetic, and symbolic attributes of Olympism and the Olympic Games. The general goal is to create a consistent philosophy for the Olympic ideal. The aretological and anthropological dimensions of the Olympic Games are linked to the values of the body and mind, as well as the limits of educational values in sport. Stereotypes in the philosophical interpretation of the Olympic Games and the Olympic Movement include the fact that their transcendent wholes are underestimated. The Olympic Games contain virtues and a further disctintion of the attributes of perfection, glory, goodness, heroism, grace, etc. Some of these are particularly important because they involve crucial issues concerning human consciousness and existence. Olympism and the Olympic Games are no exception in this respect (c.f. Eyler, 1981). Besides by philosophy and sports philosophy, Olympism is also examined by other philosophical disciplines and sub-disciplines, i.e. the philosophy of art, comparative philosophy, ontology, phenomenology, the philosophy of gender, axiology, etc. (First World Olympic Congress of Philosophy, Athens, 2004).

### Sociology, sports sociology, and Olympism

In sociology and the sociology of sport, the following questions are posed in an analytical (sometimes not sufficiently defined) context and relationship to sport and Olympism:

* What is so specific in the Olympic Movement, which has been systematically extending its influence for more than a century despite counterarguments that Olympism is “running out of steam?”
* How has sport and Olympism changed over time and in the wider social context?
* What is the public image of sport, the Olympic Games, and the Olympic Movement, etc.?

Without answers to these and other questions, any examinations of sport, and Olympism will be reductive and restrictive in terms of their insights in sociological descriptions of modern societies (c.f. Pawłucki, 2009).

### Psychology, sports psychology, and Olympism

Research in sports psychology interprets the Olympic ideals, which facilitate an overlap of personal excellence and the development of performance (c.f. Cross & Jones, 2007; Gould, Collins, Lauer& Chung, 2006). Coubertin’s concept of Olympism as a “state of mind” is nothing other than an emotional, personality, and intra-individual overlap and means of overcoming oneself, as expressed in the motto, “Citius, Altius, Fortius.” It comprises the most important component of an individual’s motivation structure for sport and performance. Consequently, Coubertin’s cult of effort is always more important than external motivations – the stimulation of performance through external incentives. Therefore, competition in the spirit of Olympism primarily has a self-reconciling and self-improving significance while achieving maximum individual performance (c.f. Shields & Bredemeier, 1995; Müller, 2000). Sports psychology seeks adequate answers to the following frequently asked questions:

* How can one bridge the gap between Olympic ideals and the application of contemporary methods of operation used in sports training for youths (incentives, inappropriate awards)?
* Does sport always have a positive impact on personal development?

It is apparent, however, that motivation which emphasises victory at all costs may have a negative influence on the behaviour of sports people, and can lead to bribery or cheating (c.f. Miller & Kerr, 2002).

### Education, sports education, and Olympism

Coubertin understood sport as an educational instrument – a school of moral chivalry, purity, and physical force. The content, aim, and outcome of this education comprise attitudes and interiorised Olympic values. Current concepts of Olympic education have been updated through systematic research, just as the Olympism and Olympic education textbook have been. Research in education and sports education has also raised other questions:

* How, and by which means and methods, is it possible for an individual as a subject of education to identify with Olympic values through sport?
* Has contemporary sport lost its former values for young people?

Doubt is sometimes cast on sport as an edifying instrument with the assertions that the development of qualities and skills is not always linked to participation in sport. This is true because merely participating in sport does not automatically impact upon the personal development of a subject. Nevertheless, sport without ideals can increase one’s tolerance of cheating, both in terms of one’s competitors and the person themselves (c.f. Gould, Collins, Lauer & Chung, 2006).

### Ethics, Olympismus, and the Olympic Games

Fair play and respect for one’s competitors develop through active participation in sport and are preconditions for free competition without discrimination (Olympic Charter, 2004). The Olympic Movement aspires also to spread these values beyond the realm of sport (c.f. Dziubiński, 2008). “Sport is and should remain a forum where everyone has a chance to actively participate and develop in it. Consequently, sport is a human right, but it is not possible to separate it from the rest of the world” (c.f. Rogge, 2004).

### Culture, art, and Olympism

The original Greek ideal of _Kalokgathia_ became the model and moderator for the personal development of sports people. The stereotype in looking at the reality of the Olympic Movement is that, in our traditional education, we are strongly influenced by rational thinking adapted to the one truth. The Cartesian ideal of the one truth was the foundation stone of modern science and has been particularly successful in natural sciences. Sometimes, however, this ideal fails in the demanding and critical situations and problems of the Olympic Movement. Art, however, offers a grasp of reality which cannot be provided by modern rationalism. In the critical and difficult reality of its context, which is not focused on the one truth only, art can describe a given situation more precisely than science. Culture in Olympism and sport, however, does not mean abandoning rationalism and Europe’s cultural heritage.

### Conclusions

* The IOC and NOCs should systematically support research in universities focused on Olympism, the Olympic Movement, and the Olympic Games. The 13th Olympic Congress in Copenhagen last year confirmed the importance and prospects of cooperation among the Olympic family and educational institutions.
* In cooperation with NOAs and OSCs, universities should focus part of their research and educational capacities on current issues concerning the Olympic Movement.
* Olympism, the principles, values, and relationship of Olympism to sport and culture should be an integral part of professional training for future teachers, coaches, managers, etc.
* The results of research activities in Olympism should be subsequently a predicate of education programmes and systematically developed in university concepts of Olympic education programmes. They may be applied as a separate educational subject or as a set of selected Olympic themes included in the content of education for social sciences and sports subjects.
* Cooperation between Olympic institutions and universities is beneficial, not only for the development of a deeper and more comprehensive interpretation of Olympism in historical and contemporary reflections, but also for the development of sports and social sciences, as well as for sport itself and its relationship with culture. Today, without the ideas and principles of Olympism, it is not possible to assess sport in its complex and rapid development, or to assess the evolution of society in the 20th and 21st centuries.
* The master’s programme on Olympic Studies entitled “Olympic Studies, Olympic Education, Organisation and Management of Olympic Events,” which opened in 2009 at the University of Peloponnése (c.f. Dimopoulos, 2009), has been inspirational and beneficial whilst also increasing the professionalism of specialists in the Olympic Movement.

### References:

Cross, J. A. & Jones, M. I. (2007). Sport Psychology and Olympism: How research on learning transferable life skills through sport can help the Olympic ideal become a reality. Sport & Exercise Psychology Review Vol 3 (1) 11 – 18.

Dimopoulos, K. A. (2009). The Master´s Programme on Olympic Studies: “Olympic studies, Olympic Education, Organization and Management of Olympic Events,” the University of Peloponnése, Ancient Olympia, Greece.

Dovalil, J. et al. (2004). Olympismus. Praha: Olympia 220 p.

Dziubiński, Z. (2008). Olympism in the Context of Modernity. Research yearbook, medsportpress, 14, (2), 2008, 115-124.

Eyler, M. H. (1981).”The Right Stuff.” In IOA Proceedings. 1981, pp. 159-168.

First World Olympic Congress of Philosophy on the topic of: Philosophy, Competition and Good Life. (Αthens-spetses, June 27th – July 4th, 2004).

Georgiadis, K. (2003). Olympic Revival. The Revival of the Olympic Games in Modern Times. Athens.

Gould, D., COLLINS, K., LAUER, L. & CHUNG, Y. (2006). Coaching life skills: A working model. Sport & Exercise Psychology Review, 2, 4 –12.

Miller, P. S. & KERR, G. A. (2002). Conceptualizing excellence: Past, present and future. Journal of Applied Psychology, 14, 140–153.

Morgas, M. (2006). Academic institutions and the Olympic Movement [online article]. Barcelona: Centre d’Estudis Olímpics UAB. [http://olympicstudies.uab.es/pdf/wp106_eng.pdf](http://olympicstudies.uab.es/pdf/wp106_eng.pdf)

Müller, N. (Ed.). (2000). Olympism: Selected writings – Pierre de Coubertin. Lausanne: IOC.

Naul, R. (2008) Olympic Education. Oxford: Mayer & Mayer, 189 p.

Pawłucki, A. (2009). Sport as olympic modernism. Studies in physical culture and tourism. 16, No. 2, 2009; 147 – 153.

Parry, J. (1998). Physical Education as Olympic Education. European Physical Education. Review Volume 4 (2), 153-167.

Parry, J. (203). Olympism for the 21st Century. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona: Centre d’Estudis Olímpics: 7p.

Shields, D. L. L. & BREDEMEIER, B, J. L. (1995). Character development and physical activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Rogge, J. (2004). Jacques Rogge IOC and UNAIDS Join Forces to Engage Sport Community in Fight Against Aids. IOC Press Release, 1 June.

Rychtecký, A. & Dovalil, J. (2009). The concept of Olympic education in the Czech school. In: 9th International Session for Directors of National Olympic Academies. Olympia: IOA, 2009, 158-164.

The National Olympic Committee: Its Role and Position at the Dawn of the 21st Century

U.S. Sports Academy2013-11-25T17:35:06-06:00August 5th, 2010|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Management|

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.

The Institutional Framework for the Development of Olympic Education and the Role of the National Olympic Academy

U.S. Sports Academy2013-11-25T17:31:36-06:00August 5th, 2010|Sports Coaching, Sports Facilities, Sports Management|

### Introduction

The title of my contribution is exactly as requested of me by the International Olympic Academy (IOA). However, the methodology adopted and the contents of this paper may disappoint my hosts, as I am not going to focus solely on the role of the National Olympic Academies (NOA).

Let me give the reasons for the approach I have adopted. It is my view that Olympic education is a complex process and that, therefore, given the current text of the Olympic Charter, the institutional framework of an NOA is very dependent on the institutional architecture and intersection between the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the National Olympic Committees (NOC), and the IOA. Hence, I am of the opinion that any analysis must necessarily be holistic or transversal, and less sectorial.

This paper can accordingly be broken down into two separate steps. Once I have demonstrated the fundamental importance of the Olympic Charter (OC), I will identify and give a necessarily brief analysis of its main provisions that are expressly or tacitly related to Olympic education, in either material or, above all, institutional terms. Finally, and given the lacunae identified, I will take the liberty to suggest a new treatment of Olympic education in the OC by proposing some changes in its current text with the intention to facilitate the Olympic education chain.

### The Olympic Charter: Definition and Status

In the Introduction to the OC, its form and purpose are immediately made apparent: the codification of the Fundamental Principles of Olympism, Rules, and Bye-laws adopted by the IOC. The OC governs the organization, action, and operation of the Olympic Movement and sets forth the conditions for the celebration of the Olympic Games.

In the Introduction, the scope of the OC is also set forth, by referring to the three main purposes which, in essence, the OC aims to serve: (a) a basic instrument of a constitutional nature, which governs and recalls the fundamental principles and essential values of Olympism; (b) the statutes for the IOC; (c) the definition of the “main reciprocal rights and obligations of the three main constituents of the Olympic Movement, namely the IOC, IF (International Federations) and the NOC, as well as the Organizing Committees for the Olympic Games (OCOG).”

In legal terms, the Olympic Charter is just a document approved by corporate body under Swiss private law (IOC). However, “in the eyes of” the IOC as well as of the whole Olympic Movement, the OC amounts to a full fledged international treaty, with a universal legal nature, which is not a result of its legal nature, but arises rather by virtue of a moral authority, of an extra-legal element, that is, the social, economic, and sporting magnitude of the Olympic Games. Only this context can express a general acceptance of the legal primacy of the OC by states, international organizations, and different courts.

It follows from all of the above that despite being an atypical legal instrument, the OC has a unique, universal, inspiring, and powerful nature. Hence, all provided or silent in the text of the OC reveals what the CIO considers to be or not to be important for the Olympic Movement. That is the case of the existent and omitted provisions regarding Olympic education.

### “Olympic Education” at the Olympic Charter: an Overview of the Relevant Provisions

Olympic education is enshrined in the OC either explicitly or implicitly. The relevant Principles and Rules are identified and analyzed below.

First Fundamental Principle of Olympism:

> 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.

#### Rule 1 (Composition and General Organisation of the Olympic Movement)

> 1. Under the supreme authority of the International Olympic Committee, the Olympic Movement encompasses organisations, athletes, and other persons who agree to be guided by the Olympic Charter. The goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practised in accordance with Olympism and its values.

It follows from these provisions that the first priority of the Olympic Movement is much more than the periodic holding of the Olympic Games. The objective is clear: to contribute to World Peace. Olympic values are what the Olympic Movement has to offer in order to achieve this objective. Sport is the essential vehicle. The education of young people is the essential means. This is what Olympic education is.

Using the analogy of a major construction project, the IOC is both the architect and the entity that awards the contract for the works, and there are many organisations to which these contracts are awarded. According to the Tender Programme and the Works Specifications stipulated by the IOC, the works are carried out by the said organisations under the supervision of the IOC. The works, which must take place on a daily basis, are sports activity, which must be undertaken by all of the contractors. The cement, without which there can be no construction, is Olympic Education.

>1. For a comprehensive analysis of the status and content of the Olympic Charter, cf. Alexandre Miguel MESTRE, The Law of the Olympic Games, The Hague, Cambridge University Press & TMC Asser Press, 2009, pp. 9-20.
>2. The Fundamental Principles were introduced at the 1979 version of the OC. One of the aims of the Olympic movement was already to educate young people through sport.
>3. This is just a subjective interpretation. Unfortunately, the OC does not define the concept of Olympic education. In defence of the specificity of all things Olympic, we consider that the OC could go further, i.e. by defining what Olympic education is and what its distinguishing features are. This is because, for example, there is education via sport in non-Olympic sports. Moreover, even outside of sport, education is commonly linked with culture and youth and it makes sense that the preferred targets of educational processes are young people, because their character and personality are in the process of formation. There would certainly be more ethics in business or politics if those involved received an ethical education. It is therefore necessary to clarify the following: Are we dealing here with something that Olympism disseminates or with something, which is received from outside and is included in the OC?

> (…) The IOC’s role is:
> 1. to encourage and support the promotion of ethics in sport as well as education of youth through sport and to dedicate its efforts to ensuring that, in sport, the spirit of fair play prevails and violence is banned;
> (…)
> 13. to encourage and support a responsible concern for environmental issues, to promote sustainable development in sport, and to require that the Olympic Games are held accordingly;
> (…)
> 15. to encourage and support initiatives blending sport with culture and education;
> 16. to encourage and support the activities of the International Olympic Academy (IOA) and other institutions which dedicate themselves to Olympic education.

#### Rule 2 (Mission and Role of the IOC)

This outlines a rule with legal value, not a merely programmatic one, because it gives the IOC specific duties in the field of education. In fact, it recognizes a right of Olympic education with a legal value, which turns that right into an obligation, in casu, an obligation of the IOC. Rather than directly governing that obligation, the rule governs the role of the CIO in the context of that obligation. In other words, this rule gives some discretionary power to the IOC: there is an IOC obligation as to result – to encourage and support – not an obligation of means.

In our opinion, to encourage and support implies a generic mandate of action that is required from the CIO, which is ensured by necessary positive actions. It is expected that the CIO adopts its own actions and simultaneously encourages, enables, stimulates, and authorizes activities from third parties. In fact, what the OC seems to ask the IOC is to promote (Olympic) education through (Olympic) sport and to promote the activities carried out by academic institutions in the pursuit of their Olympic education goals.

The single academic institution which merits an express reference in the provision under analysis is the IOA, an institution that has emerged as a way to compensate for IOC’s lack of time to devote to Olympic education so that it fulfills “delegated” competences which originally belonged to the IOC. Contrary to the past, the legislator does not mention the IOA’s mission.

> 4. The first time the word education appeared in an Olympic regulation was in 1933. In the document entitled “The IOC and the Modern Olympic Games,” physical education was mentioned.
> 5. At the IOC Session in Athens in 1961, Avery Brundage said he expected the newly founded Academy to make decisive efforts to overcome the difficulties the Olympic movement had to face. The unexpected development of the Olympic Games did not leave enough time for the IOC to work equally for all Olympic principles. The gap was to be closed by the Olympic Academy, cf. Norbert MÜLLER. One Hundred Years of Olympic Congresses 1894-1994, Special Edition for Participants in the Centennial Olympic Congress, Paris/August/September 1994, p. 146.
> 6. The 1966 Olympic Regulations have introduced a reference to the IOA, describing its objectives as follows:(…) to create an international cultural centre at Olympia, site of the ancient Games where the high ideals of amateur

The provision under analysis also mentions the NOA. Inspired by the work of the IOA , there are hundreds of NOAs around the world which undertake Olympic education initiatives within NOAs own educational jurisdictions, complementing the IOA activities.

However, we must reflect on the following reality that neither the IOA nor the NOA are subject to an express reference in documents that govern or describe the Olympic Movement, which immediately casts doubt on their institutional role and recognition, as well as on their level of subjection to the rights and obligations that these documents provide. Here are some examples of those documents: the IOC Code of Ethics, which applies to Olympic parties; one publication of the IOC Olympic Museum , which describes the role of the Olympic Family in the framework of Education and Culture Through Sport; a factsheet about the Olympic Movement elaborated by the IOC; a publication of the International Olympic Truce Centre; the IOC Guide on Sport, Environment, and Sustainable Development.

This reality can be seen either as the motive or the consequence of the main problem faced nowadays in Olympic education. Kostas GEORGIADIS , Honorary Dean of the IOA, and Conrado DURANTÈZ, President of the Spanish Olympic Academy, there are still many more NOCs than NOAs; several of the NOAs are not always very active or independent. In this clear diagnosis, Kostas GEORGIADIS puts forward a solution: [t]oday, more than ever before, the International Olympic Committee is called upon to support the work of the International Olympic Academy and, thereby, of National Olympic Academies.

Competitive sport were first conceived and realized, and to study and to promote the social, educational, aesthetical, ethical, and spiritual values of the Olympic Movement.

> 7.Cf. Nikos FILARETOS, National Olympic Academies”, International Olympic Academy: 9th International Session for Presidents or Directors of National Olympic Academies and Officials of National Olympic Committees, 12-19 May 2008, Ancient Olympia, Greece, 12-19 May 2008.
>
> 8.Cf. Deanna BONDER, “The Legacy of the Olympic Games for Education, 1984-2000: A Paper presented to the 2002 IOC Symposium on the Legacy of the Olympic Games, Lausanne, Switzerland, November 2002, p. 8.
>
> 9.Cf. K. TOOHEY and A.J VEAL, The Olympic Games. A Social Science Perspective, 2nd Edition, London, Cabi, 2007, p. 55.
>
> 10. The Olympic Movement, 2nd edition, 2007.
>
> 11. Factsheet: The Olympic Movement Update- January 2006.
>
> 12. In a report made by DEMOS-Athens (Rachel Briggs, Helen McCARTHY and Alexis ZORBAS) to the International Olympic Truce Centre, a Figure with the “Institutional setting of the world of sport” makes no reference to the IOA or to the NOA – Cf. 16 Days: The role of the Olympic Truce in the toolkit for peace, London, International Olympic Truce Centre, 2004, p. 64.
>
> 13.Cf. National Olympic Academies”, International Olympic Academy: 9th International Session for Presidents or Directors of National Olympic Academies and Officials of National Olympic Committees, 12-19 May 2008, Ancient Olympia, Greece, 12-19 May 2008, pp. 1-3.
>
> 14.(…) we find ourselves in the disproportionate situation of having 205 officially recognized NOCs, nut only 137 NOAs with a large percentage of these being purely nominal and not engaged in any regular or ongoing activity, contrary to what should be the case. (…) we consider that the task of Olympic education lies fundamentally and almost exclusively with the NOCs (…) We cannot but admit that the NOCs, excessively centered on preparing their athletes for participation in the Olympic Games, have delegated their Olympic dissemination and education functions to the NOAs, hence the importance of the NOAs’ work, as the proper functioning of an NOA, with the necessary support of its NOC, implies that it can, as the specific educational driving force, promote and encourage all or part of the rich cultural areas of Olympism, cf. “Olympic Academies: official school of Olympic Education”, 6th World Forum on Sport, Education and Culture: Sport and Education for the new generation, IOC – International Cooperation and Development Department, Busan, 25 to 27 September 2008.

We can not agree more. Indeed, if one looks at the above mentioned Rule 2 of the Olympic Charter, we find that the leading role that is given to the IOC is not the organization of the Olympic Games, and, of course, this hierarchy of priorities is also shed in the NOC, namely the case of the British Olympic Association, which is explained by Jim PARRY .

Note the word used by Kostas GEORGIADIS- support – which is precisely the one provided by the OC. The question seems not to be limited to financial support, moreover, because it has been in existence through Olympic Solidarity, as the author points out in his other article, and as is demonstrated by the Director of the IOC International Cooperation and Development Department GANDA SITHOLE . In fact, mainly in Africa, besides the lack of financial and substantial resources, support is also needed to fight ordinary problems, such as lack of facilities, lack of teachers, lack of materials for education and teaching. Therefore other kinds of support are urgently needed. As far as we are concerned, that support could be the reinforcement of the IOA status within the OC, which would probably overcome its current lack of recognition by other relevant stakeholders in the framework of Olympic education.

The expression, educational institutions which dedicate themselves to Olympic education, is broad enough to include public and private institutions, governmental organizations dedicated to education, national or international. Fit here, therefore, institutions ranging from schools to the IOC Olympic Studies Centre; the Institutes of Higher Education and Olympic Study Centres across the world; the IPCC (International Pierre de Coubertin Committee); the International Olympic Truce Foundation, and the International Truce Centre, or the UNESCO .

We believe that what is essentially the scope of the CIO is to encourage and support not only through financial resources, but also by means of infrastructures – creation or lending of infrastructures, namely for research centres – or by the provision of services. The support can be also given through granting of honorific recognition for the objectives of general interest pursued by the IOA and the remaining institutions devoted to Olympic education. A broader interpretation of the word ‘support’ will lead to defend a stronger role of the IOC, that is, a support that goes through direct actions of intervention, including the dictation of organizational, structural, and regulatory aspects of the academic institutions at stake, i.e. mechanisms of ordinance and interventionism, something that does not seem to be the real intention of the legislator and of the bodies concerned.

> 15.Cf. “Olympic education in practice,” A paper prepared for the Centre d’Estudis Olímpics (CEO), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), November 2003, p.3.
> 16.Cf. “The endeavors for the IOC for the promotion of Olympic Education Programmes in developing countries,” Proceedings of the 8th Joint International Session for Presidents or Directors of National Olympic Academies and officials of National Olympic Committees, 23-30 May 2006, Ancient Olympia, International Olympic Academy, pp. 43-44.
> 17.Cf. Roland NAUL, Olympic Education, Oxford, Meyer & Meyer Sport, 2008, p. 83.
> 18. In the section dedicated to Pseudo Amateurs of the 1956 Olympic Regulations, one can find a reference to educational institutions.
> 19.Cf. paragraph 6 of the Le Havre Congress Final Declaration (1997).
> 20.Cf. the Preamble and Rules 2.3; 3.3; 10.1; 10.2; and 10.3 of the International Charter of Physical Education and Sport.

So far as the environment is concerned, it is noteworthy that contrary to the current version, the original version of paragraph 13 referred to the essential role of education in the promotion of the defence of the environment in the context of sport in general and the Olympic Games in particular. Only via education is it possible to create an overall awareness of the need to preserve the environment, i.e. in the context of major sport events, particularly the Olympic Games. The values shared between the areas of the environment and sport could be the starting points for this educational project which is a duty of all of us. The IOC has not only included the environment in the Olympic Charter, but has also produced information and held regional conferences and seminars.

We believe, however, that the legislator that is, the IOC members in the framework of the IOC Session – should have even opted for a more comprehensive formulation to give the greatest possible effect to a residual expression. One should bear in mind that there are some other and relevant institutions that are not, by nature, educational, but perform a significant educational role in the context of sport. We refer, for example, to organizations like the European Union , the Council of Europe , the IPC (International Paralympic Committee), WADA (World Anti-doping Agency), CIJM (The International Mediterranean Games Committee), Panathlon International and FISU (The International University Sports Federation).

Moreover, there are increasing public and private institutions not devoted to education and sport, but with which cooperation can be developed, namely at the level of sponsorship, patronage, concessions facilities, etc, as recent NOA experiences have demonstrated, particularly in France and in the USA.

Also noteworthy is the rules view, with which I agree, that education is not and cannot be a wholly isolated phenomena. Education always involves synergies, namely with young people, culture, and Olympism. That approach explains why the IOC is endowed with the Commission for Culture and Olympic Education, which resulted from the merger between the Commission for the Olympic Education and the Commission for the Olympic Culture, in 2000, under the then great reform undertaken in the IOC.

> 21. The text of the former Rule 2 (13) stated as follows: (…) the IOC sees that the Olympic Games are held in conditions which demonstrate a responsible concern for environmental issues and encourages the Olympic Movement to demonstrate a responsible concern in its activities and educates all those connected with the Olympic Movement as to the importance of sustainable development.
> 22.Cf., inter alia, the Manual on Sport and the Environment (1997) and Le Mouvement Olympique et l’Environment (1997) and Guide on Sport, Environment and Sustainable Development (2006).
> 23.Cf. Article 165 TFEU.
> 24.Cf. Articles 1(ii); 3 (2); 5; and 11 of the European Sports Charter; cf. the definition of fair-play provided in the Code of Sport Ethics; cf. Article 6 of the Council of Europe No. 135 Anti-Doping Convention.
> 25.Cf. Chapters 1.1 and 2.4 of the IPC Bye-laws.
> 26.Cf. World Anti-doping Code, namely its Fundamental Rationale and the Articles 10.10.1; 18.1; 18.2; 18.4; 19.1; 20.1.9; 20.2.8; 20.3.11; 20.4.9; 20.6.7 and 20.7.6.
> 27.Cf. Charte du CIJM: Principes Fondamentaux – 2; 3; and 9.
> 28.Cf. Article 2 (c); (e); and (h) of the Panathlon International’s Bye-laws.
> 29.Cf. Article 2 of the Statutes of FISU. Pursuant to Article 138 of the same statutes, the Committee for the Study of University Sport (CESU) – is one of the FISU Permanent Committees.
> 30.Cf. André LECLERCQ, “Postface: Culture sportive et education olympique”, in Les valeurs de l’Olympisme. Un modèle éducatif en débat, Edited by Michaël ATTALi, Jean SAINT-MARTIN, Simon LEVEQUE, Lucien BRUNETTI and Jean BIZET, L’Harmattan, 2009, p. 268.
> 31.Cf. Jeff HOWARD, “La creation d’une Académie Olympique aux États-Unis”, in Marketing des organizations sportives: construire les réseaux et les relations, Edited by Alain FERRAND, Scott McCARTHY and Thierry ZINTZ, Brussels, Éditions De Boeck Université, 2009, p. 181. The NOA is one of the main constituents of USOC; it is at the center and interacts with USOC, IOC, regular participants, athletes, and the general public – cf. p. 187.

Notwithstanding the fact that this amalgamation or consolidation into a single Commission merger aimed to add efforts to achieve greater accomplishments, and, at least theoretically, of trying to solve the contradictions behind the traditional Olympic sport, culture and education, the truth is that some consider that its action Commission still has a relatively low impact, hold doubts as to its functionality and have reservations about joining the educational and cultural agendas.

Contrary to the option in the past, this Commission is not explicitly mentioned in the OC, which leads us to conclude that this commission is not included among the groups of the most important ones.

#### Rule 5 (Olympic Solidarity)

The aim of Olympic Solidarity is.

> (…)
> 6. to collaborate with organisations and entities pursuing such objectives, particularly through Olympic education and the propagation of sport. (Emphasis added)

Once again, the contours of Olympic education take priority, as a cement for works out of the CIO, in casu, the operation of the mechanism of Olympic Solidarity. Contrary to past versions of the OC (from 1991 to 1996 ), no mention is made in this rule to the interplay between the Olympic Solidarity and the IOC Commissions, namely the one which deals with Olympic education.

> 32. The symbiosis between education and culture within the Olympic domain was evidenced in Rule 25 of the 1954 Olympic Regulations by the inclusion of the expression, ‘cultural education,’ in the context of the NOC missions.
> 33.Cf. Juan Antonio SAMARANCH, Memorias Olímpicas, Barcelona, Planeta Singular, 2002, p. 131.
> 34.Cf. Beatriz GARCIA, “One hundred years of cultural programming within the Olympic Games (1912-2012): origins, evolution and projections,” in International Journal of Cultural Policy, Vol. 14, No. 4, November 2008, pp. 374-375.
> 35.Cf. Paulo DAVID, Human rights in youth sport: a critical review of children’s rights in competitive sports, London, Routledge, 2005, p. 254.
> 36.Cf. Beatriz GARCÍA, Towards a Cultural Policy for Great Events – Local and Global Issues in the Definition of the Olympic Games Cultural Programme: Lessons from the Sydney Olympic Arts Festivals 1997-2000, PhD Thesis, November 2002, pp. 46-51.
> 37. The Commission for the International Olympic Academy was expressly recognized in the IOC Regulation of 1975, as well as the 1979 and 1980 (Provisional edition) versions of the Olympic Charter, by being in the first place on the IOC Commission’s list, which demonstrated its “leadership.” Additionally, its aims were expressly indicated: to assist the Ephoria set up by the Hellenic Olympic Committee in the choice of its programme and speakers, and to promote the Olympic ideal. It also ensures that reports from the Academy which receive the patronage of the IOC are presented to the IOC.
> 38. Aunque, como acaba de decirse, no hay un numerus clausus de comisiones del COI, la Carta Olímpica contiene algunas previsiones respecto de las más importantes, cf. Carmen CHINCHILLA MARÍN:, Los Juegos Olímpicos: La elección de la sede y otras cuestiones jurídicas, Madrid, Civitas, 2009, p. 130.
> 39. In 1991, the Bye-law to Rule 8 stated as follows: The objectives of the programmes established by Olympic Solidarity are to contribute to: (…) 5. Collaborating with the various IOC Commissions, particularly with the Commission for the International Olympic Academy, the Medical Commission, the Sport for All Commission and the Commission for the Olympic Programme, as well as with the organizations and entities pursuing such objectives, particularly through Olympic education and propagation of sport.

#### Rule 27 (Mission and Role of the IFs within the Olympic Movement)

> (…)
> 1.3 to contribute to the achievement of the goals set out in the Olympic Charter, in particular by way of the spread of Olympism and Olympic education.

Since the 1996 edition of the Olympic Charter (the then Rule 30, paragraph 1.3), the third mission allocated to the IF is Olympic education.

#### Rule 28 (Mission and Role of the NOCs)

> (…)
> 2. The NOC’s role is:
> 2.1 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.

As with the IOC, the primary mission of the NOC goes beyond competitive sport per se. This approach started in 1954, when the Rule 25 of the IOC Regulations clearly underlined that the NOCs are patriotic organisations not for pecuniary profit, devoted to the promotion and encouragement of the physical, moral, and cultural education of the youth of the nation for the development of character, good health, and good citizenship (Olympic education). Several subsequent regulations in the decades of 50 and 60 added that National Olympic Committees should encourage the development of Olympic spirit among the youth of their countries. They should promote a program of education for the public and the press on the philosophy of amateurism. There is a tendency to concentrate too much on performance and new records and not enough on the social, educational, aesthetic, ethical, and spiritual values of amateur sports.

Once again the legislator opts for demanding encouragement and not for mandatory or compulsory actions. This time the word ‘support’ is even absent. Therefore, an NOC seems not to be formally obliged to create an NOA. Moreover, no sanction is provided for NOC’s lack of initiative in this context. The same applies to Olympic Museums and/or cultural programmes.

#### Rule 10 (The Olympic motto)

The Olympic motto, “Citius – Altius – Fortius,” expresses the aspiration of the Olympic Movement.

Since 1966, the OC devotes a specific rule for the Olympic motto which means, “faster, higher, stronger.” The source of the motto was the famous Dominican priest, Henri Didon, a friend of Pierre de Coubertin, prominent educator, and an enthusiastic promoter of school sports in France at the end of the nineteenth century, who believed that the values which must be complied with in life are frequently learnt from sport.

> 40. This motto, introduced in 1981, was adopted by Pierre de Coubertin in 1894.

#### Bye-law to Rules 7-14

> 1. Legal Protection:
> 1.1 The IOC may take all appropriate steps to obtain the legal protection for itself, on both a national and international basis, of the rights over the Olympic Games and over any Olympic property.
> 1.2 Each NOC is responsible to the IOC for the observance, in its country, of Rules 7-14 and BLR 7-14. It shall take steps to prohibit any use of any Olympic properties which would be contrary to such Rules or their Bye-laws. It shall also endeavour to obtain, for the benefit of the IOC, protection of the Olympic properties of the IOC.

There can be no doubt that the IOC and NOC obligation to fight against ambush marketing can be based on a preventive approach, since it creates awareness among the public and potential offenders of the penalties for contravening the laws which protect the brand. Such awareness necessarily involves education, namely Olympic education, by which can be taught what the Olympic symbols, terminology, and images are, and how they may be used.

#### Bye-law to Rule 49

> 1. It is an objective of the Olympic Movement that, through its contents, the media coverage of the Olympic Games should spread and promote the principles and values of Olympism.

The content of this provision claims two different steps of Olympic education: firstly, media officials should have courses of Olympic education before covering the Olympic Games; secondly, they must promote Olympic education for the spectators and readers.

### Suggestions for Improving Olympic Education through Changes in the Text of the Olympic Charter

Bearing in mind the Olympic education framework supra described, in particular, the current problems faced by the IOA and the NOA, we shall now make some modest suggestions of changes that could be included in the OC in order to recognise the role of Olympic education in an integrated and coherent manner.

It would be definitely incorrect and unfair to state that the OC does not give priority and importance to Olympic education. In this context, the suggestions I am going to make do not fill in any supposed lacuna in the OC, or amount to any break with the current version. However, since it can, in fact, be concluded, as we did earlier, that Olympic Education is the cement of Olympism, we think that it is imperative to search for some alterations to the OC in order to give greater recognition to Olympic education, particularly with regard to its institutional framework.

> 41.Cf. IOC Regulations of 1966.
> 42.Cf. Michaela LOCHMANN, “Les fondaments pédagogiques de la devise olympique “citius, altius, fortius,” in Coubertin et l’Olympisme. Questions pour l’avenir, p. 95 and Fékrou Kidané, “The structure of Olympic Movement,” in World Olympians Association: What an Olympian should know – An Olympian is an Olympian forever…, WOA, 2003, p. 24.
> 43. Last updated on the 11th of February 2010.

I am not unaware that some of these suggestions are no more than a suggestion for the IOC Session to reduce to writing some ideas that have already been implemented in practice. In any event, the legal and extra-legal importance of the Olympic Charter demonstrated in the first part of this text lead us to the inevitable conclusion that in the Olympic field, one symbolic rule can be as important as one substantive legal provision. This is why it can make all the difference whether something is, or is not, included in the Olympic Charter. It makes, indeed, a difference whether the appearance of something in a rule is merely inferred or is clearly stipulated.

In the light of the above, I make the following suggestions:

1. To seek, as far as possible, to increase the specificity of the definition of the concepts that are intrinsic to the Olympic phenomenon, such as Olympism, Olympic Spirit, Olympic Ideal and Olympic Education – otherwise these concepts may be understood as a mere transposition to the context of the Olympic Games of concepts that are extrinsic to sport, such as tolerance, respect, ethics, non-discrimination, or as an adaptation to the context of the Olympic Games of concepts that are common to all sports phenomena and are not exclusive to Olympism, such as sporting spirit, fair play, or education through sport. Furthermore, this clarification could even strengthen the specificity of sport in general and of Olympism in particular, in the context of judicial decisions, in the knowledge that the Olympic spirit influenced a recent decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, and that sports ethics influenced a recent judgment of the EU Court of Justice, which was based on an anti-doping rule adopted by the IOC;

> 44.Cf. A paradigmatic case occurred in 1981, in the framework of the famous 11th Olympic Congress of Baden-Baden. M. V. RAÑA, in his capacity as President of both the ACNO and the Mexican Olympic Committee (… ) proposed that the IOC institutionalise the association of the NOCs (ACNO) in the IOC Charter and transfer financial and technical responsibility for Olympic Solidarity to the organization over which he presided. This proposal was obviously not a mere whim. The aim was to include an express reference in the Olympic Charter to an existing organisation, not only with a view to the recognition or configuration of its institutional importance, but, above all, with a view to the inclusion of a provision, which would enable the said organisation to receive (more) funds from Olympic Solidarity. Cf. Norbert MÜLLER, One Hundred Years of Olympic Congresses 1894-1994, Special Edition for Participants in the Centennial Olympic Congress, Paris/August/September 1994, p. 179.
> 45.Cf. also the recommendations issued for the XIII Olympic Congress by Sergio CAMARGO, from the Guatemalan Olympic Committee. Among several other recommendations put forward to help promote the development of Olympic Values, we underline the following: (i) A specific rule concerning the International Olympic Academy, its aims and objectives, as well as it fields of action, should be included in Chapter 1 of the Charter and would constitute the legal support for its functioning; (ii) A rule should be included in Chapter 4 of the Olympic Charter, making it obligatory for all National Olympic Committees to have a National Olympic Academy as a permanent body and ensuring that all its objectives and aims for which it is established are fulfilled; (iii) The establishment of the Olympic Academy should also be made an obligatory requisite for an NOC to participate in the Olympic Games, Continental, and Regional Games.
> 46.Cf. Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Year of Education through Sport 2004, SOC/092, Brussels, 24 April 2002, CES 516/2002 FR/MEV/nm.
> 47.Cf. CAS 2008/A11622 FC Schalke 04 v. FIFA; CAS 2008/A/1623 SV Werder Bremen v./FIFA; CAS 20081A/1624 FC Barcelona v. FIFA; Decision reached 6 August 2008, Causa Sport 4/2008, p. 388).
> 48.Cf. Judgment of the Court of 18 July 2006, Meca-Medina, Case C-519/04 P, ECR 2006, p. I-6991.

2. To expressly identify the IOA and the NOA as parts of the Olympic Movement. I consider that, as Olympic education is the cement of Olympism, it would make sense for the IOA and the NOA to be considered one of the main parts of the Olympic Movement, as is already the case of the IOC, the NOC, and the IF. If this is not acceptable, a new solution should at least be adopted, which differs from the current position in which the IOA and the NOA are only part of the Olympic Movement when they are recognised by the IOC. Such recognition has already been granted to dozens of organisations, many of which have only a tenuous connection with Olympism;
3. To include the IOC Educational and Cultural Commission within the Permanent IOC Commissions that are expressly identified in the OC , thus giving it the status it deserves – and that was recognised in past OC’s editions – and sending a message both within the IOC and externally as to the substantive and inherently institutional importance of Olympic education. This solution could, as it were, put the Olympic academies “on the map.” Symbolism matters, and if the OC does not make the point, it will be more difficult to change the status quo that is marked by an absence of references to the Olympic Academies in the Bylaws and Regulations of many organisations involved in education through sport and even in Olympic education. This omission has evident practical consequences, e.g. the level of the involvement of the Olympic Academies in inter-institutional co-operation mechanisms is either non-existent or insufficient;
4. To reintroduce at the OC an explicit reference to the educational aspects related to environment protection;
5. To make the consideration of Olympic Education Programmes to be developed by the OGOC as obligatory a criterion for the selection of a city as are the organisers of the Olympic Summer Games, the Olympic Winter Games and the Olympic Youth Games;
6. To take into consideration the pedagogical features of the candidates in the rationale for being an IOC member and for including a sport, discipline, or event in the Programme of the Olympic Games.

> 49. Currently, the IOC has 26 Commissions. The Bye-law to Rule 21 of the Olympic Charter makes express reference just to the following: the IOC Athletes’ Commission; the IOC Ethics Commission; the IOC Nominations Commission; the Olympic Solidarity Commission; the Evaluation Commissions for Candidate Cities; the Olympic Games Coordination Commissions; the IOC Medical Commission.
> 50. One must remember the following text included in the “Information for cities which desire to stage the Olympic Games” (1957): The following requirements have to be met by the Organising Committee: The Olympic Games are a great festival of the youth of the world and the social, educational, esthetic, ethical and spiritual values as well as the athletic features must be emphasized. Cf. also Chistina TING KWAK, “An Olympic Education. From Athletic Colonization to International Harmony,” in Pathways: Critiques and Discourse in Olympic Research. Ninth International Symposium for Olympic Research, Edited by Robert K. BARNEY, Michael K. HEINE, Kevin B. WAMSLEY and Gordon H. MACDONALD, Bejing, International Centre for Olympic Studies, August 5-7, 2008, p. 527 as well as a recent position of the IOC President, Jacques ROGGE: Universities have often partnered the Organising Committees for the Olympic Games (OCOGs) by offering numerous volunteers from among their students, helping to train the OCOG staff and offering the use of their sports facilities. They have thus played an important role in the success enjoyed by the Games, “Preface by the President of the International Olympic Committee, Jacques Rogge”, Olympic Studies Reader Vol. 1, Edited by Hai REN, Lamartine DACOSTA, Ana MIRAGAYA and Niu JING.

National Olympic Academies – National Olympic Committees, Parallel Paths, Intertwined Paths

U.S. Sports Academy2015-10-30T13:27:28-05:00August 5th, 2010|Sports Coaching, Sports Facilities, Sports Management|

Dear friends and participants of this 10th Joint Session of National Olympic Academies and National Olympic Committees, it’s a pleasure to welcome you to Ancient Olympia and the International Olympic Academy, at an extremely difficult period for Greece and the international community.

We are all aware of the important role played by National Olympic Committees and National Olympic Academies. In particular, the National Olympic Academies should play a very important role in their respective countries, not only for the education of the youth, but also for the education of sports officials. Our annual meeting, here at the Academy, aims at strengthening an international network of exchange of information and views on the pedagogical orientation we should all follow in order to tackle the problems that the international sports movement faces today. We all know what these problems are, especially those that are predominant: the political and economic exploitation of the sports product, doping, the distortion of the meaning of competition, as well as the inadequate education of young people in the values of Olympism.

If we add to these problems, the world economic crisis and, more generally, the crisis of humanistic values, we have one additional reason to review and redefine the roles that we all have, through the administration of sports and what we offer to society but, above all, through education, since it is education that lays the foundations that will allow us to bring about major changes in our daily life. We have to admit, though, that the seeds of education take a lot of time before they bear fruit. This is why, quite often, societies prefer to choose the easier solution. They prefer to opt for more direct means of propagating behavior models and rules among youth and, in general, among athletes and young people.

But this is the mistake for which we all have to pay, in all areas. The world Olympic and sports family has the duty to persist and to further and support Olympic education. Education takes time before it bears fruit. However, the changes that will take place, eventually, in societies underpinned by a sound education system will be so important that they will lead to the creation of a healthy structure governed by stable rules and humanistic values.

The International Olympic Committee, through its Charter, entrusts to National Olympic Committees the mission of propagating the principles of Olympism in each country. This is a very distinct and extremely important mission.

Each National Olympic Committee, in order to comply with its obligations, cooperates directly or, to be more realistic, I should say, must cooperate with the National Olympic Academy of each country that forms, or to be more realistic once again, I should say, must form an integral part of the NOC’s structure. Even when a National Academy operates outside the IOC’s legal and organizational framework, close cooperation and mutual recognition of the two institutions are a prerequisite for the attainment of their common goal which is the propagation of Olympism in the whole world.

From this rostrum, we have often heard that National Olympic Academies should be independent and self-governing because of the very important cultural value of their mission.

Allow me here to take a stand since my role of President of the International Olympic Academy, the umbrella institution for the individual activities of the NOAs, is extremely sensitive and delicate. The two words we often hear in this hall, “independence” and “autonomy,” might lead to erroneous interpretations.

It is obvious that National Olympic Academies must diligently preserve their independence in order to contribute, in the most efficient way, to the free movement of ideas and opinions and thus facilitate the propagation of the Olympic principles, a task that a technocratic organization like the NOC cannot easily perform nowadays.

Such independence, however, should not be confused with the concept of autonomy in the case of a National Olympic Academy, a concept that can easily be misconstrued, thus leading to the total separation of the Olympic Academy from the NOC. And, in order to be more realistic, for a third time, I would say that this would not be compatible with the objectives and principles of the Olympic Movement.

Admittedly, without the independent forum provided by each National Olympic Academy, the ideas of Olympism would shrink and often lose their meaning, sacrificed on the altar of opportunism. It is, however, also certain that without the NOC’s and the IOC’s organizational and financial support to the National Academy, the role of this educational institution would be reduced and run the risk of losing its real purpose.

For all the above reasons, we should all seek to create an appropriate climate that will enable all National Olympic Academies to find a “modus vivendi” where it does not already exist, a way of coexisting with the NOCs, that will make them stronger and help them protect their independent voices, as well as survive in the vast structure of the Olympic Movement.

Dear friends, the Olympic ideals represent today, more than ever before probably, a pedagogical orientation for world youth that shapes the thinking, the intellectual process, and behavior of the young people on this planet. To achieve this objective, the International Olympic Committee, the International Olympic Academy, National Olympic Academies and National Olympic Committees must coordinate their actions and work together with the view to promoting and preserving these pedagogical values.

These ideas, however, are not enough on their own. As the author Nikos Kazantzakis once said, “There are no ideas – there are only men who carry ideas – and these ideas rise to the level of the man who carries them.”

I want to close this opening address with this phrase and encourage you to reflect once again on what we want our lives to be and our roles and duties towards young people and young athletes. If we can really do something for them, let us do it with generosity since, anyway, our lives too are God’s gift to all of us.