"The Olympic movement is divided into two very distinct eras"
About this Quote
Coming from Bill Toomey, the 1968 Olympic decathlon champion, the line draws a sharp line between the era of strict amateurism and the era of professionalized, commercial sport. The first half of the modern movement followed Pierre de Coubertin’s ideal: sport as education and character-building, with athletes expected to remain amateurs. That ideal was riddled with contradictions. State-supported systems in the Cold War quietly funded athletes while Western competitors juggled jobs, and the rules punished anyone who accepted even modest payments. Yet there was a powerful romance to it: national pride expressed through lean budgets, homemade training, and the belief that the Games stood above commerce.
The second era emerged when those contradictions became untenable. Television money, global audiences, and ballooning costs pushed the Games toward a market logic. Los Angeles in 1984 proved the model: corporate sponsorship, broadcast deals, and a privately organized Olympics that ran a surplus. Soon the IOC loosened eligibility rules, opening the door to professionals, with the 1992 Dream Team as the emblem of a new age. Athlete branding, year-round training science, and advanced sports medicine transformed preparation. The stakes rose, as did the temptations and scrutiny around doping, leading to the creation of WADA and a more formalized anti-doping regime. Host cities became stages for soft power and urban redevelopment, with budgets and controversies to match.
Toomey straddled the hinge. As a decathlete, he embodied the older creed that equated the all-around athlete with virtue, yet he watched a world where performance, visibility, and revenue became inseparable. The divide he names is not simply decline or progress. The latter era brought broader inclusion, better support for athletes, and unprecedented global reach; it also invited commercial pressures that test the idea of sport as a universal good. The Olympic movement survives by negotiating that fault line, carrying forward a language of ideals while operating in the realities of a global entertainment economy.
The second era emerged when those contradictions became untenable. Television money, global audiences, and ballooning costs pushed the Games toward a market logic. Los Angeles in 1984 proved the model: corporate sponsorship, broadcast deals, and a privately organized Olympics that ran a surplus. Soon the IOC loosened eligibility rules, opening the door to professionals, with the 1992 Dream Team as the emblem of a new age. Athlete branding, year-round training science, and advanced sports medicine transformed preparation. The stakes rose, as did the temptations and scrutiny around doping, leading to the creation of WADA and a more formalized anti-doping regime. Host cities became stages for soft power and urban redevelopment, with budgets and controversies to match.
Toomey straddled the hinge. As a decathlete, he embodied the older creed that equated the all-around athlete with virtue, yet he watched a world where performance, visibility, and revenue became inseparable. The divide he names is not simply decline or progress. The latter era brought broader inclusion, better support for athletes, and unprecedented global reach; it also invited commercial pressures that test the idea of sport as a universal good. The Olympic movement survives by negotiating that fault line, carrying forward a language of ideals while operating in the realities of a global entertainment economy.
Quote Details
| Topic | Sports |
|---|
More Quotes by Bill
Add to List
