The other night two athletes were profiled back to back, different sports. The first had already made millions in corporate sponsorship before ever winning his first Olympic medal, the second had to hold his own bake sales just to raise enough money to even get to the venue.
My initial thought is Yes. But after thinking about it for a while, I think pros are OK as long as they are not competing in the same sport. If Kobe Bryant wants get in the triathlon or swimming or something, OK but not B-Ball, for instance. It would probably be very hard for Michael Phelps to have appeared in successive Olympic games without his endorsement money.
If you're the best in the world, you're the best in the world - pro or amateur. The problem with requiring that all the athletes be amateurs is that ALL countries probably would not adhere to the requirement. You would STILL have amateurs competing against pros - - but the pros would be delared amateurs by certain countries, just to win. Sad but true. That's why it was changed in the first place, wasn't it? I could be wrong.
Dave, why would it have been hard for Phelps to have appeared in successive games without endorsement money? How did the thousands of other athletes do it without endorsement money? There are over 70 athletes who have appeared in 6 or more Olympic games, twice a many as Phelps and it is likely we have not heard of many of them (I know when I looked at the list, I had only heard of a few) . They must have done it without million dollar endorsements.
I was thinking that it would be hard to be near-constantly training at his level if you had to also earn a living. But you're right lots of others do it too. Once again, it's all about the money, just think kids, you can now buy LeBron USA Olympic jerseys, hats, shorts, shoes, etc etc etc. Oh well, I enjoy watching as much as I have time for, especially Women's beach volleyball.
Dave maybe we can invent a sport for you to get sponsorship on. Lets say olympic leering. All ya gotta do is demonstrate little knowledge of the sport women are competing in but pay better attention that a dog with a fresh steak. Hey it would work for women too, I hear that they love sports where the guys are shirtless like swimming and such LOL.
Olympics are competition meant to display the best athletes in the world. So, my vote is no. If, an amateur has what it takes to beat a pro then they are no longer an amateur, they are the best.
The other night two athletes
The other night two athletes were profiled back to back, different sports. The first had already made millions in corporate sponsorship before ever winning his first Olympic medal, the second had to hold his own bake sales just to raise enough money to even get to the venue.
My initial thought is Yes.
My initial thought is Yes. But after thinking about it for a while, I think pros are OK as long as they are not competing in the same sport. If Kobe Bryant wants get in the triathlon or swimming or something, OK but not B-Ball, for instance. It would probably be very hard for Michael Phelps to have appeared in successive Olympic games without his endorsement money.
If you're the best in the
If you're the best in the world, you're the best in the world - pro or amateur. The problem with requiring that all the athletes be amateurs is that ALL countries probably would not adhere to the requirement. You would STILL have amateurs competing against pros - - but the pros would be delared amateurs by certain countries, just to win. Sad but true. That's why it was changed in the first place, wasn't it? I could be wrong.
Dave, why would it have been
Dave, why would it have been hard for Phelps to have appeared in successive games without endorsement money? How did the thousands of other athletes do it without endorsement money? There are over 70 athletes who have appeared in 6 or more Olympic games, twice a many as Phelps and it is likely we have not heard of many of them (I know when I looked at the list, I had only heard of a few) . They must have done it without million dollar endorsements.
Why would we exclude the best
Why would we exclude the best athletes in the world from competing? It doesn't make sense to me...
I was thinking that it would
I was thinking that it would be hard to be near-constantly training at his level if you had to also earn a living. But you're right lots of others do it too. Once again, it's all about the money, just think kids, you can now buy LeBron USA Olympic jerseys, hats, shorts, shoes, etc etc etc. Oh well, I enjoy watching as much as I have time for, especially Women's beach volleyball.
Cherish the memory of the
Cherish the memory of the 1980 US Hockey team, you'll never see that again.
Dave maybe we can invent a
Dave maybe we can invent a sport for you to get sponsorship on. Lets say olympic leering. All ya gotta do is demonstrate little knowledge of the sport women are competing in but pay better attention that a dog with a fresh steak. Hey it would work for women too, I hear that they love sports where the guys are shirtless like swimming and such LOL.
Competitive Scratching
Competitive Scratching
I'll always remember Mark
I'll always remember Mark Spitz and his enthralling breast stroke back in the '70s. Such stamina!
Olympics are competition
Olympics are competition meant to display the best athletes in the world. So, my vote is no. If, an amateur has what it takes to beat a pro then they are no longer an amateur, they are the best.