Why the IOC is the worst, was the worst and will always be the worst

In the lead up to the Winter Olympics in Sochi, much was made of the contradiction between the stated ideals of the International Olympic Committee, and the practices of Russian law, especially in how it relates to homosexuals. 

The question on the minds of many was simple. How could an organization that publicly prides itself on acceptance and inclusion, grant a nation practicing discrimination such an enormous stage as hosts of its Olympic games? 

Gay rights activists and organizations were quick to point out to new IOC president Thomas Back that from 1964 to 1988, South Africa was banned from competing at the Olympics as a response to the segregation of sport in the country. It represented an obvious discrepancy between how the IOC responded to racial intolerance and how it was currently responding to blatantly hostile laws against homosexuals.

Looking back, the Olympic ban of South Africa seems like a rare moment in Olympic history when morality took priority over the supposed separation of sports and politics, when the IOC made a decision based on altruism and not self-preservation.

It’s not so simple. 

Racial segregation in South Africa was introduced long before the IOC deemed the practice worthy of a ban. It was established following the 1948 elections when the National Party took power. The new government quickly introduced legislation that separated its people into four racial classifications: white, native, coloured and Asian.

Separate governing sports bodies were introduced for different racial classifications. However, only the white agencies were affiliated with South Africa’s national Olympic committee. As such, only white athletes would be able to compete in international events like the Olympics.

Almost immediately, black athletes in South Africa and their representative associations lodged formal complaints with the IOC, but President Avery Brundage was uninterested in involving his organization in what he viewed as an internal political matter. It’s important to understand that at this time - and for the majority of its existence - the IOC wasn't representative body. It wasn't the United Nations. It was a separate entity that governed the Olympic Games.

Only in the last decade has the IOC allocated member seats to athletes, international federation representatives and national Olympic committee leaders. Prior to that, the IOC was controlled by members selected by other members. Given its origin of exclusivity, this shouldn't be surprising. Self-preservation was a founding principle of the Olympic movement, and what better way to preserve one’s self than to constantly appoint like-minded individuals of similar well-to-do backgrounds all from developed nations to positions of authority within your organization?

That’s not to say that national Olympic committees were silent. Though their motivations may have been questionable, the Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc comrades were vocal in their disapproval of the IOC’s willful ignorance of South African sport’s impudent racism. These initial protests were buoyed by a political change in Africa that had been emerging for years since the end of World War II.

The decolonization of Africa led to an increased number of national Olympic committees from the newly independent countries, many of which began questioning the IOC’s hesitancy to take a stand. 

Unfortunately, it wasn’t enough to elicit change. More than a decade went by before the IOC questioned if South Africa’s divisive policies - as they pertained to sports in the country - weren't contrary to the Olympic Charter’s ban on discrimination.

In perhaps the most disappointing justification of false neutrality ever to come from the IOC, President Brundage accepted South Africa’s claims that their policies didn't prohibit non-white athletes from competing in the Olympics. According to a South African delegate who defended his country against accusations of racism, non-white athletes weren't selected to compete because none were of an Olympic standard.

In Brundage’s maddeningly myopic view, the Olympic Charter only applied to the Olympics as an event. Individual countries were free to run their athletic organizations any way they saw fit, as long as it didn't affect Olympic trials or subsequent entries. The South African rationalization was enough for him, and so, the nation was allowed to compete at the 1960 Olympics, despite having a system in place that blatantly discriminated against non-white athletes.

Only after South Africa declared itself a Republic, discontinued its association with the Commonwealth, and banned its athletes from participating in mixed-race competitions, did the IOC finally acquiesce to the increasingly resolute pressure from other nations. Brundage eventually gave the South African National Olympic Committee the chance to declare its opposition to the National Party government. When they declined, the IOC revoked South Africa’s invitation to the 1964 Olympics.

Three years later, South Africa promised to send a mixed-race team to the 1968 Olympics, allowing all athletes - no matter their skin color - to compete against one another at the Games, just not on South African soil. This, in the mind of the IOC represented significant enough progress to allow South Africa to return to competition.

The reversal didn't sit too well with the newly formed alliance of African countries - the Supreme Council For Sport In Africa - who immediately threatened a boycott. Their stance was strengthened by the backing of African American athletes in the United States and several Eastern Bloc nations who promised to do likewise should South Africa be readmitted. 

It was all too much for the organizing committee in Mexico who could foresee the Summer Olympics becoming a sparsely attended disaster, and so they asked the IOC to reconsider. Presented with the possibility of a mass boycott, the IOC did just that, announcing a mere matter of months before the Olympics were set to begin that “it would be most unwise for South Africa to participate.”

Still, the IOC was hesitant to expel South Africa outright, only doing so after hearing from a committee in 1970 that not only detailed the country’s discriminatory practices in sport, but also reported - god forbid - the unauthorized use of the Olympic rings logo for its ill conceived and hastily created South African Open Games. Shocking and appalling stuff. Even after this report, IOC members only voted to expel South Africa by a narrow margin of 35 to 28 with three abstentions.

It isn't exactly a shining moment for social progress, nor does it make the most compelling precedent for the IOC taking a stand against discrimination. If the IOC has set any precedent in its history, it's with its original focus on self-preservation.

Under the guise of promoting amateurism as an ideal, the leaders of the modern Olympic revival created the Olympics as a means of reinforcing the merits of their own status. The aristocratic athlete was the only athlete who could logistically afford to not only be versatile in multiple disciplines, but also compete at a high level without becoming professional, thus the celebration of amateurism.

The latest incarnation of this precedent that was set more than 100 years ago is obvious in the IOC's decision to hold these Winter Games in Russia. They want to make money, and the best way to do that is by hosting the Olympics in a nation with an authoritative government, unhindered by a necessity to please the public.

While you're unlikely to ever hear an IOC member say the same thing, the Olympic ideal in practice is more likely to match what FIFA Secretary General Jerome Valcke told reporters last Spring.

Less democracy is sometimes better for organizing a World Cup. When you have a very strong head of state who can decide, as maybe Putin can do in 2018 … that is easier for us organizers than a country such as Germany … where you have to negotiate at different levels.

It's not a coincidence that both Brazil and Russia will play host to the next two Olympic Games and World Cups. The nations most in need of establishing their reputation internationally - and quite frequently the nations most lacking in concern for their people - are willing to concede the most to the revenue hungry IOC.

This is what the Olympics are to become. A puppet for the very worst international villains to find recourse on a global stage. The Olympic ideal, indeed.