Isaac
Years ago
Redhage, Holden, Hammon, Kaman et al
A number of athletes are competing at these Olympic Games (and those in the past) for countries to which they have a tenuous association. In some cases, the athletes have never even visited the country they are there to represent.
On one hand, it gives them a chance to get to the Games that they might not have otherwise had. And with frequently blurred lines between countries in a very connected world, is it really that big a deal?
On the other, it's interesting to consider whether these players have the natural passion and pride that might exist with the athletes playing for their own country (though Shawn Redhage was eager enough out there for his adopted Boomers). And while it's hard to wipe away an opportunity for players like Redhage, Hammon, Kaman and Holden, their participation does deny a chance to someone who probably not only grew up aiming for the Olympics, but aiming to feature for their specific country.
So, what are your thoughts?
A few points that might kickstart things:
- If you draw a line, where do you draw it? Redhage has been playing in Australia for a few years and Nick Horvath married a Kiwi, but others could barely identify their new country on a map.
- Will the competition for personal brands, sponsorship and more lead to further shifts in strengthening weaker teams and countries? Will it go so far as to effectively make the Games a corporate competition featuring whoever a country can buy to represent them?
- Can it be a positive thing in creating a more even competition? (Holden for Russia is a good example.)
- Does it start and finish with athletes, or should coaches come up for the same scrutiny and discussion? I'm assuming Coach K gets a medal too, so why shouldn't they be subject to the same discussion?
Your thoughts?