Why the Olympics are worth saving

Sport can ennoble us, demanding that we rebel against our limitations, find joy and fellowship in the mutual pursuit of excellence, and express grace in loss. The Olympics do not always reach this height, but perhaps no other event unites the world in so rigorously demanding that its participants aspire to a higher ideal.

DAVID GRAY/REUTERS/FILE
VANCOUVER 2010 WINTER GAMES: A SNOWBOARDER FLIES THROUGH THE OLYMPIC RINGS DURING THE OPENING CEREMONY

When the United States Olympic Committee chose Boston as its candidate for the 2024 Summer Olympic Games, I think I might have been the only excited person in the city.

This year, as the Pyeongchang Winter Games approach, I sometimes feel alone again.

I can understand why. You don’t spend 12 years as an Olympics reporter without coming face to face with some of the more unsavory aspects of the Olympic movement. After Oslo withdrew its bid for the 2022 Winter Games, the Norwegian website VG published a list of some of the conditions that the International Olympic Committee had set for candidate cities.

•The hotel must have a members lounge to be used exclusively by IOC members. If there is no members lounge, the hotel has to install one at its own cost.

•IOC meeting rooms must be air-conditioned to 20 degrees C (68 degrees F.).

•Private cars must be provided to select IOC members at the expense of the local Olympic organizing committee.

This, for an organization that generated $6 billion in revenue from 2005 to 2008.

The citizens of Boston – like those of Oslo – were not interested in fueling a sense of entitlement, among other things. And these days, it’s cool to be cynical about the Olympics. The fact that Beijing was chosen as host of the 2022 Winter Games was a sign that no one else wanted to indulge the IOC. Cross-country skiing will be held at a venue 124 miles away, and organizers will have to build an alpine skiing facility from scratch in a desert mountain range that conspicuously lacks snow.

But this week’s cover story, which I helped write along with a half-dozen contributors worldwide, offers a different portrait of the Olympics, I hope. And one that, to me, offers the real reason that the Olympic movement needs reform.

The Olympics are the closest sport comes to reaching its ultimate ideal. Eight years ago, I had the opportunity to travel to Miami to cover the Super Bowl, then get on a plane and fly to Vancouver, British Columbia, for the Olympics. The difference was stark.

In Miami, the Super Bowl felt like a weeklong party that ended with a game which, in itself, was kind of just a party, too. In Vancouver, the Olympics felt like a celebration of sport – a spirit of genuine delight exuding from every pore. Given what the Olympics have become, it is easy to mock the ideal set out by founder Pierre de Coubertin, an elitist Frenchman. But it is real. The Olympic spirit has power.

Yes, in fact, sport can ennoble us, demanding that we rebel against our limitations, find joy and fellowship in the mutual pursuit of excellence, and express grace in loss. The Olympics do not always reach this height, but perhaps no other event unites the world in so rigorously demanding that its participants aspire to a higher ideal.

That is why the Olympics matter. And that is why they are worth watching – and saving.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.