Not only does this eclipse the U.S. record of 34, achieved at Salt Lake in 2002, it will mark the first time the U.S. will lead the medal count in a Winter Games since 1932 and break the single-country record of 36 set by Germany in 2002.
The U.S.’s record medal haul comes 22 years after the U.S. Olympic Team earned just six medals at the last Olympics staged in Canada, the 1988 Winter Games in Calgary.
A remarkable achievement, especially considering it took place on foreign soil (albeit in a city a mere 40 minutes from the U.S. border).
The question I’ve been pondering is this: Given the U.S. team's remarkable achievements in this and other recent Olympic Games, does the U.S. really need to host future Olympic Games?
Can the Olympic movement thrive in the U.S., and the U.S. Olympic Team continue to achieve greatness, in Games hosted on foreign soil?
The U.S. has led the overall medal count in the last three Summer Games (all contested on foreign soil), and finished first and second in the last two Winter Games in Vancouver and Torino, respectively.
As the voting for the 2016 Olympics demonstrated, the U.S. needs to mend a tremendous number of fences and probably give up their right to a significant amount of revenue in order to have a chance at hosting future Games. Many feel the U.S. will not be given a fair shake in future bids from I.O.C. members until they agree to reduce the percentage of IOC television and sponsorship revenue the USOC receives.
The USOC has already announced it will not make a bid for the 2020 Summer Games. Even if in coming years the USOC decides to acquiesce to the IOC’s wishes for a more equitable split of revenue, it will still be at least 20 years, and perhaps much longer, between Olympic Games being hosted on U.S. soil.
Might it be better for the USOC to continue to fight to maximize the amount of revenue it receives from the IOC, plow it back into support for aspiring athletes and new training centers, and leave the hosting of future Games to other countries?
Critics will argue that the hosting of the Salt Lake games was a necessary precursor to the U.S.’s performance in Vancouver, and that the new training facilities there made it possible for the U.S. to achieve the success it has eight years later.
After all, the Salt Lake games created just the second sliding center in the U.S. (after Lake Placid, which hosted the 1932 and 1980 Games). The facility provided Olympians like bobsled driver Steve Holcomb, who lives and trains in Park City, a place to train for the Games.
What happened in Vancouver? The U.S. four-man bobsled team, led by Holcomb, took the gold for the first time since 1948.
The U.S. Ski and Snowboard team also thrived in Vancouver, with many attributing at least a small portion of their success to the $22.5 million Center for Excellence in Park City. The Center was funded with private donations from the USSA's Legacy Campaign.
However, U.S. speedskater Shani Davis and a number of teammates train at Milwaukee’s Pettit National Ice Center, which among many other things features a 400-meter Olympic oval.
When did Milwaukee host the Olympics?
The point is if these facilities really do put U.S. Olympians on medal stands, then should it be necessary for the U.S. to host the Olympics to build them?
Others will also cite the fact that it is much easier for the USOC to keep and attract sponsors when they know future Games will occur in U.S. cities.
This fact is undeniable. Sponsoring the U.S. Olympic Team is less attractive when the Games are not hosted here, for a multitude of reasons.
However, the singular goal of the USOC is to help American athletes achieve their dreams and reach the medal stand, and revenue received from sponsorships of the USOC sponsorships should be utilized to provide direct support to U.S. Olympians.
Despite my occupation, I would contend that the USOC leadership should be judged not on the amount of revenue they derive from sponsorship, but whether the revenue they do produce translates into achievement for U.S. Olympians.
Furthermore, everyone wants to be associated with a winner, and U.S.-based corporations are no different. The lure of partnerships with the USOC and U.S. National Governing Bodies is based largely on the ability to leverage the inspiring ideals of the Olympic movement to make a meaningful connection between consumers and your brand.
I contend that regardless of where the Games are staged, if the U.S. Olympic team continues to excel, sponsors will want to be associated with the team and its inspiring athletes.
The Chicago Tribune’s Philip Hersh, an Olympic authority in his own right, reported in today’s Tribune that many feel this year’s achievements are less a result of hosting the 2002 Games and more attributable to a commission chaired by then USOC board member George Steinbrenner that “changed the USOC’s previously vague mission into one that made medals the bottom line.”
The commission produced a plan that provided more support to aspiring athletes in the form of more money, health insurance, part-time jobs and tuition grants.
Given the success of the program, the evolution of the USOC’s mission and the U.S. Olympic Team’s success in competition in the past several Olympic Games, we may find ourselves in the middle of a renaissance for the USOC and U.S. Olympic Team.
The 20-year period between 2003 and 2022 may end up going down as the most successful in the history of the U.S. Olympic team, both commercially and athletically.
All without hosting a single Olympic Games on United States soil.
Sources:
“The U.S. ‘A’ Game,” Chicago Tribune, Philip Hersh, February 28, 2010
“USSA Center for Excellence opens in Park City for U.S. Ski Team,” Skiing Examiner, Eric Wagnon, May 28, 2009
Photo credit: USA Bobsled and Skeleton Federation
No comments:
Post a Comment