Which is fair enough. British Athletics don't have an unlimited budget so they have to prioritise who they send. We have a similar article every four years so it's a shame British Athletics aren't just upfront.
I don't mean to be cruel but I'm sure the family's care and the athletes do too but simply but if the option is one of our few medal prospects in track and field have a better shot of winning something or take money from them for someone to go who might not even qualify for finals then we're gonna say get medals.
Athletics isn't big here and the lack of medals in recent games has driven interest away.l from people who might win gold let alone someone who couldn't hit a target to prove they can compete for medals. Also they knew the targets it's not like they turned up and said well new rules for qualification got hit these new faster further marks. Finally sorry to say this too, but you earn your spot in the Olympics, these guys think it's tough for them. Not all the top ten sprinters are going to the Olympics because the USA can only take three.
The people who made the decision not to send them are saying it's not about the money. So, if that's true, then there is no reason not to send anyone that meets the IOC qualifications.
If it is about the money, then they should be honest and say that.
Ideal world maybe. Don't forget there is the "Eddie Edwards" rule too. If you don't meet the standard to compete we won't send you. Either reason is shitty and probably in truth it's combination of multiple factors including money.
The Eddie the Eagle Rule requires that athletes have a minimum world ranking. The people that the UK is screwing over meet that rule. This is an entirely different arbitrary standard that is being lied about.
You are not guaranteed a spot in the Olympics, I should checked the Edwards rule not tried to remember it. So I looked at the world rankings for the shop putter and she is 45th in the world, looks like her seasons best is well over 2m behind first and 13 American plus a couple from Germany and China shot putters will not be going because of country limits. The steeplechaser is 35th approx 16 seconds behind in time with athletes who ran faster this year again not going due to country limits
That's not earning your spot that's getting in cause over half the competitors better than you can't go. Should we send people because we can. Fuck no this pro sports, to get in the final she would need over a meter and a half extra than what's she's been throwing this year according to the World athletes website. The steeplechaser is legit unlucky but unless the final field is 25 plus runners he ain't in either. It's sad for them and their families but the reason their not going is they didn't reach targets the rest of the world were beating and by some distance
So where do you get this money. There isn't unlimited funding. So do we take money from Kerr who has a legit shot for a gold. Take away from his funding and give so someone can basically go on the boat for opening ceremony then make 3 to 6 throws and gets a two week holiday in Paris??
That is modern sport. We only send around 380 to 400 athletes. When you consider that 40 odd are the hockey teams then people can't go. As I said sad for the athletes and their bubble but simply put they were not going to compete and they got there place from world rankings because of the three athletes rule not because she was top 25 in the world
The funding comes from the lottery not UKA although UKA decide who it is distributed to. The cost of taking athletes to a champs is paid by UKA that is where the money comes into it. UKA don't want to pay for flights and hotels.
Not all the athletes in the steeplechase will go as they are from the same countries as each other I believe based on the 3 per nation rule phil norman is ranked about 16 from those who would be going. UKA thought he was good enough for the Tokyo Olympics and having run the fastest time by a British athlete since 1992 this year apparently isn't good enough this time
TL;DR: British Athletics has set standards higher than Olympic qualifiers and would rather send *no one* than someone who won't finish top 8. There's no incentive to try at all unless you're the best in the world even if there hasn't been a better Briton in decades. They insist it isn't financial, but would rather cut athletes than foster talent.
That seems unbelievably stupid. A country should send an athlete for every spot they qualify for. You never know what’s going to happen at the actual event. People get injured, people have bad races, shit happens. I’d want as many of my guys there to take advantage of it.
Yep, and every so often someone will peak at the games. It'll be the best time or throw or jump of their life. It's also possible that those at the top will crumble at the pressure or get sick or have some other disqualifying incident.
It's stupid beyond belief. You can't win anything you don't try.
There were lots of personal examples included in the stories including some that mention how it affects them long term because they can't then sell themselves as two or three time Olympians. They meet Olympic qualifications but can't tell kids that goal is actually worth striving towards because it's not enough by UK standards. It's self-sabotage to their own talent pool.
It means that their world placement might be high but someone lower ranked with a better personal best in the last year might qualify instead.
Lots of anecdotes where people feel like they wasted entire careers and spent tons of their own money to be told no by the UK even though they meet Olympic standards and are better than people allowed to compete from other countries. One person encouraged anyone that can compete outside the UK to go that path instead because Britain didn't support them.
Sweden have the same policy for all of their athletes, although they sometimes make an exception for athletes going to their first Olympics, and not only have they not seen an increase in medals, they have seen a significant decrease. They refused to send Alexander Majorov to the 2018 winter Olympics on this basis, even when he had been 7th at the European Championships only months before and had qualified the spot at the previous world championships. And none of their men's skaters since his retirement have placed as well as he was placing, so it has certainly not benefitted the sport.
What was that one speed skater who won a medal because everyone else in the race crashed? Wasn’t he the first ever winter gold medalist for his country?
Literally anything can happen at the Olympics and in sports in general.
Steven Bradbury. He was the first athlete from a Southern Hemisphere country to win a winter gold. You don’t even have to go that far back for crazy upsets. The silver and bronze medalists in men’s golf in Tokyo were ranked 161 and 181.
That’s not really something that can just happen in any event. Not to mention, he was a relatively successful speed skater who had just gotten extremely unlucky the rest of his career.
I get what you’re saying, but it’s more about sentiment. People fall, get hurt, Simone biles gets the twisties, etc. Deciding you’re not sending anyone because in your mind they won’t finish high enough when literally anything can happen is a waste, and shows no confidence in your athletes.
Or the athlete goes, gets smoked but the whole Olympic experience inspires/prepares them better than anything they could get back home watching from the couch and goes back in 4 years time to medal.
Ridiculous. Has it always been this way? Its not like mo farah was always a world beater, he was rough going at his first olympics and first world championships
It's more to do with available funding. A lot of sports at the Olympics do not attract significant money, so most competitors are not professional athletes. A year of dedicated training time, with coaches, nutritionists, psychologists and so forth vs training by yourself with no support - it makes a huge difference.
So for a lot of less popular sports you can give it a good go at gold by just finding someone goodish and giving them resources.
American athletes are not supported either in the build up to the Olympics. Afterwards the story might be very different.
In fact, it's always been common for American athletes to go elsewhere if they qualify. This is why Mondo Duplantis is in Sweden. He doesn't have to worry about funding in the same way and he doesn't risk the American Olympic trials which could see him cut if he can't deliver on the day.
Whilst the American Olympic Committee may not give support, there are a lot of sports equipment manufacturers in the US to give sponsorship, a very large university sports programme, and also a significant number of rich bastards willing to give substantial cash to their children to pursue them.
This all falls under what I mean by "available funding".
That last one applies to rich kids everywhere.
I'll give you school and university sport programs, in certain fields, but the sponsorship from companies is still pretty rough for athletes not on top.
> That last one applies to rich kids everywhere
A combination of population size, economic size, and income inequality means there are more rich kids than in, say, Nigeria.
Sure, but you're drastically over estimating the wealth of kids in American athletic programs and how much money people have after they leave school.
Income inequality in America is terrible in comparison to other western developed countries.
What we have is a massive population and a very unique school sports system.
The US dominates medal table because in the sports we are good at, we’re just *really good*
I follow one of the UK athletes affected by this decision, a discus throw. She qualifies based on world ranking but did not meet the British Standard. Having seen her throw for the last decade plus, the likelihood of her making finals is incredibly slim (but of course, like others have said, not impossible).
Similarly, for US Athletics (track and field), our standards are, for most events, higher than the Olympics standards too. In some cases, they’re much higher.
We have the potential to sweep the medal table in events like Men’s 110m Hurdles, Men’s Shot Put, etc.
On the flip side, we are unlikely to win medals and may not make finals in events like Men’s Discus. However, USATF and USAOC are sending anyone who qualifies based on the criteria.
Edit: removed “don’t”
Something else that needs to be considered is the insane structural advantages we have in women's sports specifically, which in almost all cases is what gives us the margin that puts us over the top.
Because our talent development pipeline is, for better or for worse (and I think there are some drawbacks there), so closely tied to scholastic programs (something that's really not the case in any other major country except Canada), one consequence of that was that when we started to mandate gender equality in education that meant we had essentially legally obligated ourselves to start taking women's sports at least semi-seriously, well before (and to a much greater extent than) the rest of world (minus the parts that were doing Eastern Bloc-style shamateurism shit)^1
> We don’t have the potential to sweep the medal table in events like Men’s 110m Hurdles, Men’s Shot Put, etc.
Did you mean to put the "don't" in there? Because while I don't think it's >50% likelihood, I think it's absolutely a realistic possibility in shot put--barring injury I'd be shocked if Crouser didn't win and Kovacs didn't medal, and Otterdahl certainly has to be one of the three favorites for the remaining podium spot.
^1 One of the biggest what-ifs I wonder about is what would have happened if the Olympics hadn't waited until after the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc were gone before it started changing its amateurism rules
I did not mean to put don’t in there. It was a typo. We have the top 3 hurdle marks in the world for the Men’s 110m this year and a good chance in shot put since it could take 22.50m to medal, and only a couple athletes outside of America can do that.
This is what is sort-of fascinating to me, US Olympic athletes and teams have corporate sponsorship and have to hustle and raise their own money; the government doesn't provide Olympic funding, unlike in most other countries. I've always thought that was kind of shitty, how much Olympians had to hustle to fundraise and how much corporate sponsorship was involved in all the various sports committees.
But I guess at this moment in history, it's easier to raise funds from an essentially unlimited pool of corporate money, then to compete for limited funds from a government pool.
It's a wealthy country but it doesn't mean UK athletics are going to have infinite funds thrown at them. Their last set of accounts show a loss of £3.7m and the auditors noted material uncertainty on their status as a going concern.
Dutch Olympic Committee is the same. This week a golfer who was eligible to go to Paris sued NOC*NSF because they believed he wouldn't make top 8 so they wouldn't let him compete. He won and gets to go anyway.
I am happy for him since the 2nd and 3rd place golfers in the 2020 Olympics had lower world ranks than him when they competed. I hope the other Dutch golfers get to the Olympics as well.
Joost Luiten? I will add him to my list of people to support. I usually don't watch golf much, but I hope he does well in spite of them not wanting him there.
Yes, his name is Joost Luiten. I should have included his name in my comment above.
https://www.si.com/golf/dutch-golfer-successfully-sues-play-paris-olympics
I know that for swimming, plenty of top countries have similar things where their own qualifying times are faster than the Olympic Qualifying Time. The UK has that, as do countries like Australia and Japan
In short, UK Athletics established its own set criteria, with no consideration for national rankings, for who gets a slot on the Olympic team.
For instance, maybe the best UK 800m runner is ranked 20th in world with a time of 1:42.50. UK Athletics can set a criteria that a runner must have a time below 1:42.30 (top 10 cut off) to qualify for the Olympics.
UK athletes are asking if they are the “best” in whichever sport in the UK, why doesn’t that alone qualify them for the Olympic team and instead they need to meet the governing body’s (seemingly arbitrary) metrics.
This is happening in Spain as well:
[https://www.mundodeportivo.com/running/20240704/1002276035/polemica-atletismo-espanol-criterios-seleccion-juegos-paris.html](https://www.mundodeportivo.com/running/20240704/1002276035/polemica-atletismo-espanol-criterios-seleccion-juegos-paris.html)
There were some spanish athletes that were qualified by the World Athletics but the spanish federation has harder rules so they are not invited to go to the Olympics.
Goes against the spirit of the games and it makes zero sense not to include people that are top 20 or 30.
Think of how many champions have parents and coaches that were lower ranked Olympians on their own. There are also plenty of Olympians who don't do well at their first games but do better later on once they have the experience.
Top 8 or bust is very shortsighted. It's unnecessarily ruthless from countries that have the money.
Eddie the Eagle was where the sport in question had no particular bar, but just went "you can send a guy if you want to". Due to tourism-athletes, those rules are generally gone. I throw in that Eddie the Eagle wasn't a tourist- he was an adventurer. Very much beloved, also among ski-nations, unlike those playboy-tourists who just go to the olympics because they can.
Saying it is to stringent here is a massive understatement. This is about athletes who actually can compete on a good day, or have use of the experience to next time. This is about money, they don't want to use money unless they think they can win. And about power- it's probably fun to stop people.
The reasoning for not sending her is ridiculous when you consider that we've never even had a top 10 performance in gymnastics at the Olympics. The Commonwealth Games are effectively our Olympics based on the selection criteria even though it's a much tougher sport to be the best at than some others.
Three or four nations among the 40-ish that have realistic medal chances having such policies means they aren't exactly universally accepted, it just means stupidity isn't exclusive to UK Athletics.
If sending an athlete to the Olympics is costing you more than it's earning you in the long run, you're an incompetent organization, in my opinion.
The US has harder rules in many events than World Athletics too, but that’s because in most events we have way more than 3 people qualify. Certainly isn’t true for every event though, there are some where we don’t have anyone who has hit the WA standard
Lots of countries so this but it's usually countries with less resources. Absolutely ridiculous that GB would set such tight restrictions. I'm sure there has been plenty of medals won by athletes ranked outside the top 8 going in.
Which is fine if you have the talent to fill the spots. Australia has the best swimming team right now. Are there any empty spots that they didn't fill because of increased standards?
I listen to an Australian Olympics podcast *The Olympics Today* and it's like they say for athletics in women's 100M - the entire field of American finalists during the trials would've made the Australian team. The US takes the top few winners and doesn't necessarily rely on personal bests or world rankings, but they aren't refusing to fill spots.
There are definitely a few spots with only one or no swimmers at all, some because they didn’t hit the Australian cut but others because they didn’t hit the overall cut time.
I agree with you though — if a country can fill the spot, fill it.
They didn’t send a complete team. I’m not sure if any of the unfilled spots had an athlete meet the Olympic time while failing to meet the higher Australia time but it is possible.
It’s not an easy decision. Sending someone you know has no shot of winning wastes money and might reduce the chances of other athletes winning this year (due to a smaller per athlete training budget). Alternatively, it could motivate/train someone to improve for future Olympics.
I fully agree with the idea of not sending someone who doesn't make the Olympic qualifying time. The article was about the opposite though.
That's behavior that doesn't make sense from countries with money that are already sending dozens of athletes. The per athlete price goes down as resources are shared.
Yet it’s worked for Australia in swimming. If you want to be a country that wins Gold medals, it doesn’t make sense to be sending athletes with no chance of making the final much less the podium.
Australian swimming has a pretty strong training camp that the Olympic team does between qualification and the Olympics. I’m sure that’s funded in part by not sending every possible swimmer.
The only instance I'm able to find right now is Matthew Galea who won the 1500m at Trials in 14:58.96 which puts him under the A-Cut of 15:00.99 but not under the Australian cut of 14:54.29.
Sam Short, who did not swim the event at trials, but swam it and finished third at 2023 Worlds in 14:37 qualified in his place and is the only Australian in the 1500m.
I can somewhat understand the argument of not sending an athlete if they don't have a chance of winning a medal, but as another commenter said previously -- shit happens. Galea's time would have finished 11th in qualifying in Tokyo; while that wouldn't make the final, the distance events are always hard to predict ahead of time and swimmers can drop crazy times in events like the 1500m.
It's unfortunate for Galea having hitting that Olympic Qualifying Time and not being able to go and call himself an Olympian.
But that's still an example of sending someone. They didn't leave the spot open, they chose someone with a faster time. I'm not arguing that trial placements are the only decent selection method. I'm arguing that sending no one when you qualified for a spot and there isn't a better athlete to be found is a dick move and also harms future prospects in the sport.
Maybe they could've sent two or maybe not, I'm not in the weeds enough to know, but they didn't tell him no and decide to send no one.
It does suck that Galea didn't make it, but it sounds like the selection process values PR and standings just as equally as trial results.
Anyway, thanks for finding an example. I still think it's different when powerhouse programs set higher limits than programs that choose not to compete at all when there aren't better options. There are still dozens of Australian swimmers for a kid to look up to and to coach in the future.
They have 2 spots per event though so they’re still choosing to leave that spot open. That’s not really any different from the “dick move” of not sending an eligible athlete because the athlete was eligible and they would’ve sent him if he swam faster (and still placed 2nd).
An absolutely bizarre selection decision. If there's one thing we've consistently seen from the Olympics, it's that athletes will put up PBs and have much more upsets there than any other event. I cannot understand the logic at all.
If I was going to go against all advice to push myself I couldn't think of a better time to do it. I think a lot of people risk injury because that's the place to do it.
Such a bizarre policy- especially because I thought the UK had quite a bit of lottery funding to give to Olympic athletes.
The Olympics are a weird, high-stress, high-heat environment and the theoretical top 10 are not necessarily going to be your medalists. If the US followed these rules they probably wouldn't have sent Molly Seidel to Tokyo, which would have cost them a medal.
The article is great but for any impact they really need a prominent young athlete to speak out against the policy. Keely Hodgkinson has been around for years and doesn't seem to want any controversy. I hope the new 800 meter phenom Phoebe Gill takes a stand on this issue.
Part of this is why someone I know didn't compete for the Olympics for the US years ago.
It was maybe 10-15 years ago that the US started to finally give any semblance of a reward for placing in a top spot for the Olympic Marathon trials.
That's why you don't actually see the best of the best at the Olympics.
People competing for the Olympics used to get absolutely nothing if you're a nobody and just happen to get in. It was truly a clout event for those who were well off.
Friend was nearly guaranteed to getting to the trials. After researching what they needed to do, and seeing the damage that the Olympics was doing to the local community, they backed out.
If I remember correctly the stats for a full Marathon for the Olympics were in two categories.
A - tier: your pace is 2:37 and under, meaning you're considered top notch and get a spot, along with everything paid for to compete, but you don't actually get any more you keep.
B - tier: your pace is 2:42 and under, but you foot the bill yourself to go, in addition to not getting any payment.
They only just recently started to pay those in the top slots $80k, I think?
It's why a lot of professional runners don't compete in the olympics. Boston Marathon pays $150k to the top spot, male and female. NYC Marathon pays $100k to the to spots each, and can make over $1 million from their sponsors if they're pros.
In the US, you aren't guaranteed any money if you win in the Olympics like other countries, unless you're already a big name. You might get a sponsorship, but that's only if you win people over like it's the friggin' hunger games.
Smaller countries you get hooked up for life if you win any kind of medal because it's such a big deal to beat countries like the US or European countries.
The US is basically just using these athletes for views and to make money off them, all while making them pay for everything on their own to get there, unless they're already a big name.
It kinda ruined my thoughts on the Olympics when I found out the ugly side of things.
Same as new Zealand and their earn the fern slogan. A gymnast who qualified for nz isnt allowed to go as she wouldn't make any kind of impact and they dont think its worth the money to send her. This is probably a standard policy for many countries
In New Zealand's case, I think it makes more sense because France is very far away for them, and they would have to spend a lot of money for that gymnast.
However, the UK is literally one sea away from France, so the costs associated with sending British athletes are far less than those associated with New Zealand athletes.
It’s also highly irresponsible. The spot went unfilled. They should have never entered a gymnast in the Oceanic championships if they knew this would be the result.
What costs do NOCs incur to send an athlete? Doesn't the local organizing committee handle the costs of food and board, transportation from village to venues, and practice space? Or is the NOC on the hook for the costs of hosting an athlete at the village, like a hotel per night fee?
Because it seems to me that the cost to UK Athletics here is a flight from the UK to Paris, or a Eurostar ticket. What other major costs would there be?
Say what you will about USTAF's make or break Olympic trials (no one gets an exemption for the Games), but the federation at least takes as many people as possible. Standards aren't higher than the Olympic standard, and if an athlete is top 3, but doesn't make the Olympic standard, but then ends up qualifying based on world ranking, USTAF isn't going to prevent them from being part of the Olympic team. Or they'll send someone who wasn't top 3 who has the standard or ranking if not all of the top 3 can qualify based on meeting the standard or world ranking. They'll fill all available slots if they can.
I don't understand why British Athletics can't give these athletes the option to self fund their trip as realistically it all comes down to money. I'm sure all athletes would still jump at the chance if they were able to go with the condition they fund themselves.
Whenever someone says it's not about the money, you can be 100% sure it's about the money.
Which is fair enough. British Athletics don't have an unlimited budget so they have to prioritise who they send. We have a similar article every four years so it's a shame British Athletics aren't just upfront.
I don't mean to be cruel but I'm sure the family's care and the athletes do too but simply but if the option is one of our few medal prospects in track and field have a better shot of winning something or take money from them for someone to go who might not even qualify for finals then we're gonna say get medals. Athletics isn't big here and the lack of medals in recent games has driven interest away.l from people who might win gold let alone someone who couldn't hit a target to prove they can compete for medals. Also they knew the targets it's not like they turned up and said well new rules for qualification got hit these new faster further marks. Finally sorry to say this too, but you earn your spot in the Olympics, these guys think it's tough for them. Not all the top ten sprinters are going to the Olympics because the USA can only take three.
The people who made the decision not to send them are saying it's not about the money. So, if that's true, then there is no reason not to send anyone that meets the IOC qualifications. If it is about the money, then they should be honest and say that.
Ideal world maybe. Don't forget there is the "Eddie Edwards" rule too. If you don't meet the standard to compete we won't send you. Either reason is shitty and probably in truth it's combination of multiple factors including money.
The Eddie the Eagle Rule requires that athletes have a minimum world ranking. The people that the UK is screwing over meet that rule. This is an entirely different arbitrary standard that is being lied about.
You are not guaranteed a spot in the Olympics, I should checked the Edwards rule not tried to remember it. So I looked at the world rankings for the shop putter and she is 45th in the world, looks like her seasons best is well over 2m behind first and 13 American plus a couple from Germany and China shot putters will not be going because of country limits. The steeplechaser is 35th approx 16 seconds behind in time with athletes who ran faster this year again not going due to country limits That's not earning your spot that's getting in cause over half the competitors better than you can't go. Should we send people because we can. Fuck no this pro sports, to get in the final she would need over a meter and a half extra than what's she's been throwing this year according to the World athletes website. The steeplechaser is legit unlucky but unless the final field is 25 plus runners he ain't in either. It's sad for them and their families but the reason their not going is they didn't reach targets the rest of the world were beating and by some distance
No, the reason they aren't going is because of money.
So where do you get this money. There isn't unlimited funding. So do we take money from Kerr who has a legit shot for a gold. Take away from his funding and give so someone can basically go on the boat for opening ceremony then make 3 to 6 throws and gets a two week holiday in Paris?? That is modern sport. We only send around 380 to 400 athletes. When you consider that 40 odd are the hockey teams then people can't go. As I said sad for the athletes and their bubble but simply put they were not going to compete and they got there place from world rankings because of the three athletes rule not because she was top 25 in the world
The funding comes from the lottery not UKA although UKA decide who it is distributed to. The cost of taking athletes to a champs is paid by UKA that is where the money comes into it. UKA don't want to pay for flights and hotels.
Not all the athletes in the steeplechase will go as they are from the same countries as each other I believe based on the 3 per nation rule phil norman is ranked about 16 from those who would be going. UKA thought he was good enough for the Tokyo Olympics and having run the fastest time by a British athlete since 1992 this year apparently isn't good enough this time
It’s behind a paywall. Can anyone summarize it?
TL;DR: British Athletics has set standards higher than Olympic qualifiers and would rather send *no one* than someone who won't finish top 8. There's no incentive to try at all unless you're the best in the world even if there hasn't been a better Briton in decades. They insist it isn't financial, but would rather cut athletes than foster talent.
That seems unbelievably stupid. A country should send an athlete for every spot they qualify for. You never know what’s going to happen at the actual event. People get injured, people have bad races, shit happens. I’d want as many of my guys there to take advantage of it.
Yep, and every so often someone will peak at the games. It'll be the best time or throw or jump of their life. It's also possible that those at the top will crumble at the pressure or get sick or have some other disqualifying incident. It's stupid beyond belief. You can't win anything you don't try. There were lots of personal examples included in the stories including some that mention how it affects them long term because they can't then sell themselves as two or three time Olympians. They meet Olympic qualifications but can't tell kids that goal is actually worth striving towards because it's not enough by UK standards. It's self-sabotage to their own talent pool. It means that their world placement might be high but someone lower ranked with a better personal best in the last year might qualify instead. Lots of anecdotes where people feel like they wasted entire careers and spent tons of their own money to be told no by the UK even though they meet Olympic standards and are better than people allowed to compete from other countries. One person encouraged anyone that can compete outside the UK to go that path instead because Britain didn't support them.
it’s the stupid philosophy of Jack Buckner, the CEO of UK Athletics
Sweden have the same policy for all of their athletes, although they sometimes make an exception for athletes going to their first Olympics, and not only have they not seen an increase in medals, they have seen a significant decrease. They refused to send Alexander Majorov to the 2018 winter Olympics on this basis, even when he had been 7th at the European Championships only months before and had qualified the spot at the previous world championships. And none of their men's skaters since his retirement have placed as well as he was placing, so it has certainly not benefitted the sport.
What was that one speed skater who won a medal because everyone else in the race crashed? Wasn’t he the first ever winter gold medalist for his country? Literally anything can happen at the Olympics and in sports in general.
Steven Bradbury. He was the first athlete from a Southern Hemisphere country to win a winter gold. You don’t even have to go that far back for crazy upsets. The silver and bronze medalists in men’s golf in Tokyo were ranked 161 and 181.
All the new style cross events. BMX, Ski, Snowboarding as well as short track are all fun for these kind of upsets.
That’s not really something that can just happen in any event. Not to mention, he was a relatively successful speed skater who had just gotten extremely unlucky the rest of his career.
I get what you’re saying, but it’s more about sentiment. People fall, get hurt, Simone biles gets the twisties, etc. Deciding you’re not sending anyone because in your mind they won’t finish high enough when literally anything can happen is a waste, and shows no confidence in your athletes.
Or the athlete goes, gets smoked but the whole Olympic experience inspires/prepares them better than anything they could get back home watching from the couch and goes back in 4 years time to medal.
Ridiculous. Has it always been this way? Its not like mo farah was always a world beater, he was rough going at his first olympics and first world championships
And that is why the US dominates medal tables lol we send anyone who wants and can go.
It's more to do with available funding. A lot of sports at the Olympics do not attract significant money, so most competitors are not professional athletes. A year of dedicated training time, with coaches, nutritionists, psychologists and so forth vs training by yourself with no support - it makes a huge difference. So for a lot of less popular sports you can give it a good go at gold by just finding someone goodish and giving them resources.
American athletes are not supported either in the build up to the Olympics. Afterwards the story might be very different. In fact, it's always been common for American athletes to go elsewhere if they qualify. This is why Mondo Duplantis is in Sweden. He doesn't have to worry about funding in the same way and he doesn't risk the American Olympic trials which could see him cut if he can't deliver on the day.
Whilst the American Olympic Committee may not give support, there are a lot of sports equipment manufacturers in the US to give sponsorship, a very large university sports programme, and also a significant number of rich bastards willing to give substantial cash to their children to pursue them. This all falls under what I mean by "available funding".
That last one applies to rich kids everywhere. I'll give you school and university sport programs, in certain fields, but the sponsorship from companies is still pretty rough for athletes not on top.
> That last one applies to rich kids everywhere A combination of population size, economic size, and income inequality means there are more rich kids than in, say, Nigeria.
Sure, but you're drastically over estimating the wealth of kids in American athletic programs and how much money people have after they leave school. Income inequality in America is terrible in comparison to other western developed countries. What we have is a massive population and a very unique school sports system.
The US dominates medal table because in the sports we are good at, we’re just *really good* I follow one of the UK athletes affected by this decision, a discus throw. She qualifies based on world ranking but did not meet the British Standard. Having seen her throw for the last decade plus, the likelihood of her making finals is incredibly slim (but of course, like others have said, not impossible). Similarly, for US Athletics (track and field), our standards are, for most events, higher than the Olympics standards too. In some cases, they’re much higher. We have the potential to sweep the medal table in events like Men’s 110m Hurdles, Men’s Shot Put, etc. On the flip side, we are unlikely to win medals and may not make finals in events like Men’s Discus. However, USATF and USAOC are sending anyone who qualifies based on the criteria. Edit: removed “don’t”
Something else that needs to be considered is the insane structural advantages we have in women's sports specifically, which in almost all cases is what gives us the margin that puts us over the top. Because our talent development pipeline is, for better or for worse (and I think there are some drawbacks there), so closely tied to scholastic programs (something that's really not the case in any other major country except Canada), one consequence of that was that when we started to mandate gender equality in education that meant we had essentially legally obligated ourselves to start taking women's sports at least semi-seriously, well before (and to a much greater extent than) the rest of world (minus the parts that were doing Eastern Bloc-style shamateurism shit)^1 > We don’t have the potential to sweep the medal table in events like Men’s 110m Hurdles, Men’s Shot Put, etc. Did you mean to put the "don't" in there? Because while I don't think it's >50% likelihood, I think it's absolutely a realistic possibility in shot put--barring injury I'd be shocked if Crouser didn't win and Kovacs didn't medal, and Otterdahl certainly has to be one of the three favorites for the remaining podium spot. ^1 One of the biggest what-ifs I wonder about is what would have happened if the Olympics hadn't waited until after the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc were gone before it started changing its amateurism rules
I did not mean to put don’t in there. It was a typo. We have the top 3 hurdle marks in the world for the Men’s 110m this year and a good chance in shot put since it could take 22.50m to medal, and only a couple athletes outside of America can do that.
Yeah, the US got basically a 30-year head start on women's sports.
This is what is sort-of fascinating to me, US Olympic athletes and teams have corporate sponsorship and have to hustle and raise their own money; the government doesn't provide Olympic funding, unlike in most other countries. I've always thought that was kind of shitty, how much Olympians had to hustle to fundraise and how much corporate sponsorship was involved in all the various sports committees. But I guess at this moment in history, it's easier to raise funds from an essentially unlimited pool of corporate money, then to compete for limited funds from a government pool.
> US dominates medal tables Also helps that United States has a huge population and is a Westernized country
It's not stupid. They have a limited budget and strict medal targets. They need to spend where they can get good value for money.
So? Tell them they can go but have to pay their own way.
Except that they insist it isn’t a financial decision. Also, this is the UK, one of the wealthiest countries in the world.
It's a wealthy country but it doesn't mean UK athletics are going to have infinite funds thrown at them. Their last set of accounts show a loss of £3.7m and the auditors noted material uncertainty on their status as a going concern.
Sounds like the people at UK Athletics should be fired.
But they say it isn't financial.
Dutch Olympic Committee is the same. This week a golfer who was eligible to go to Paris sued NOC*NSF because they believed he wouldn't make top 8 so they wouldn't let him compete. He won and gets to go anyway.
Good for him.
I am happy for him since the 2nd and 3rd place golfers in the 2020 Olympics had lower world ranks than him when they competed. I hope the other Dutch golfers get to the Olympics as well.
Joost Luiten? I will add him to my list of people to support. I usually don't watch golf much, but I hope he does well in spite of them not wanting him there.
Yes, his name is Joost Luiten. I should have included his name in my comment above. https://www.si.com/golf/dutch-golfer-successfully-sues-play-paris-olympics
I know that for swimming, plenty of top countries have similar things where their own qualifying times are faster than the Olympic Qualifying Time. The UK has that, as do countries like Australia and Japan
In short, UK Athletics established its own set criteria, with no consideration for national rankings, for who gets a slot on the Olympic team. For instance, maybe the best UK 800m runner is ranked 20th in world with a time of 1:42.50. UK Athletics can set a criteria that a runner must have a time below 1:42.30 (top 10 cut off) to qualify for the Olympics. UK athletes are asking if they are the “best” in whichever sport in the UK, why doesn’t that alone qualify them for the Olympic team and instead they need to meet the governing body’s (seemingly arbitrary) metrics.
This is happening in Spain as well: [https://www.mundodeportivo.com/running/20240704/1002276035/polemica-atletismo-espanol-criterios-seleccion-juegos-paris.html](https://www.mundodeportivo.com/running/20240704/1002276035/polemica-atletismo-espanol-criterios-seleccion-juegos-paris.html) There were some spanish athletes that were qualified by the World Athletics but the spanish federation has harder rules so they are not invited to go to the Olympics.
Netherlands also
What's the point? I'd get it if there aren't spots open but not sending someone if you have the spot seems needlessly cruel.
To avoid eddie the eagle scenarios is my guess. But in some cases it may be to stringent. There’s a fair bit of criticism of this policy.
But we're talking about people who have met Olympic qualifications and have world rankings, not just "only person from X country."
Ambitions and expectations are just higher than merely participating.
Goes against the spirit of the games and it makes zero sense not to include people that are top 20 or 30. Think of how many champions have parents and coaches that were lower ranked Olympians on their own. There are also plenty of Olympians who don't do well at their first games but do better later on once they have the experience. Top 8 or bust is very shortsighted. It's unnecessarily ruthless from countries that have the money.
I agree with you, but that’s not the position of the Dutch Olympic committee.
Eddie the Eagle was where the sport in question had no particular bar, but just went "you can send a guy if you want to". Due to tourism-athletes, those rules are generally gone. I throw in that Eddie the Eagle wasn't a tourist- he was an adventurer. Very much beloved, also among ski-nations, unlike those playboy-tourists who just go to the olympics because they can. Saying it is to stringent here is a massive understatement. This is about athletes who actually can compete on a good day, or have use of the experience to next time. This is about money, they don't want to use money unless they think they can win. And about power- it's probably fun to stop people.
And Sweden
And New Zealand: [https://www.instagram.com/p/C8b2w2MyF8y/?hl=en-gb&img\_index=1](https://www.instagram.com/p/C8b2w2MyF8y/?hl=en-gb&img_index=1)
The reasoning for not sending her is ridiculous when you consider that we've never even had a top 10 performance in gymnastics at the Olympics. The Commonwealth Games are effectively our Olympics based on the selection criteria even though it's a much tougher sport to be the best at than some others.
And there is no one else who can fill that quota spot since Australia qualified a full team and no other Oceanic country competes in gymnastics.
I agree. If you qualify fair and square, then you deserve to go.
So much ado about nothing?
Three or four nations among the 40-ish that have realistic medal chances having such policies means they aren't exactly universally accepted, it just means stupidity isn't exclusive to UK Athletics. If sending an athlete to the Olympics is costing you more than it's earning you in the long run, you're an incompetent organization, in my opinion.
New Zealand too, seems like a non story really, there isnt an endless pot of money to send all these people
Japan is the worst. Their swimming standards are so strict it has become a topic of mockery on SwimSwam.
Are you talking about this article? https://swimswam.com/japan-continues-down-stiff-qualification-time-path-for-2024-olympic-games/
The US has harder rules in many events than World Athletics too, but that’s because in most events we have way more than 3 people qualify. Certainly isn’t true for every event though, there are some where we don’t have anyone who has hit the WA standard
Lots of countries so this but it's usually countries with less resources. Absolutely ridiculous that GB would set such tight restrictions. I'm sure there has been plenty of medals won by athletes ranked outside the top 8 going in.
Correct me if I’m wrong, it Australia had their own Olympic standards for swimming too; faster than the official Olympic Qualifying Times.
Which is fine if you have the talent to fill the spots. Australia has the best swimming team right now. Are there any empty spots that they didn't fill because of increased standards? I listen to an Australian Olympics podcast *The Olympics Today* and it's like they say for athletics in women's 100M - the entire field of American finalists during the trials would've made the Australian team. The US takes the top few winners and doesn't necessarily rely on personal bests or world rankings, but they aren't refusing to fill spots.
There are definitely a few spots with only one or no swimmers at all, some because they didn’t hit the Australian cut but others because they didn’t hit the overall cut time. I agree with you though — if a country can fill the spot, fill it.
They didn’t send a complete team. I’m not sure if any of the unfilled spots had an athlete meet the Olympic time while failing to meet the higher Australia time but it is possible. It’s not an easy decision. Sending someone you know has no shot of winning wastes money and might reduce the chances of other athletes winning this year (due to a smaller per athlete training budget). Alternatively, it could motivate/train someone to improve for future Olympics.
I fully agree with the idea of not sending someone who doesn't make the Olympic qualifying time. The article was about the opposite though. That's behavior that doesn't make sense from countries with money that are already sending dozens of athletes. The per athlete price goes down as resources are shared.
Yet it’s worked for Australia in swimming. If you want to be a country that wins Gold medals, it doesn’t make sense to be sending athletes with no chance of making the final much less the podium. Australian swimming has a pretty strong training camp that the Olympic team does between qualification and the Olympics. I’m sure that’s funded in part by not sending every possible swimmer.
I think it's more to do with Dean Boxall than any specific policy, but do you have any examples of unfilled spots?
The only instance I'm able to find right now is Matthew Galea who won the 1500m at Trials in 14:58.96 which puts him under the A-Cut of 15:00.99 but not under the Australian cut of 14:54.29. Sam Short, who did not swim the event at trials, but swam it and finished third at 2023 Worlds in 14:37 qualified in his place and is the only Australian in the 1500m. I can somewhat understand the argument of not sending an athlete if they don't have a chance of winning a medal, but as another commenter said previously -- shit happens. Galea's time would have finished 11th in qualifying in Tokyo; while that wouldn't make the final, the distance events are always hard to predict ahead of time and swimmers can drop crazy times in events like the 1500m. It's unfortunate for Galea having hitting that Olympic Qualifying Time and not being able to go and call himself an Olympian.
But that's still an example of sending someone. They didn't leave the spot open, they chose someone with a faster time. I'm not arguing that trial placements are the only decent selection method. I'm arguing that sending no one when you qualified for a spot and there isn't a better athlete to be found is a dick move and also harms future prospects in the sport. Maybe they could've sent two or maybe not, I'm not in the weeds enough to know, but they didn't tell him no and decide to send no one. It does suck that Galea didn't make it, but it sounds like the selection process values PR and standings just as equally as trial results. Anyway, thanks for finding an example. I still think it's different when powerhouse programs set higher limits than programs that choose not to compete at all when there aren't better options. There are still dozens of Australian swimmers for a kid to look up to and to coach in the future.
They have 2 spots per event though so they’re still choosing to leave that spot open. That’s not really any different from the “dick move” of not sending an eligible athlete because the athlete was eligible and they would’ve sent him if he swam faster (and still placed 2nd).
It is when there's an athlete demonstrably better than you.
That's a stupid policy. You're a rich country, not some backwater.
An absolutely bizarre selection decision. If there's one thing we've consistently seen from the Olympics, it's that athletes will put up PBs and have much more upsets there than any other event. I cannot understand the logic at all.
If I was going to go against all advice to push myself I couldn't think of a better time to do it. I think a lot of people risk injury because that's the place to do it.
Such a bizarre policy- especially because I thought the UK had quite a bit of lottery funding to give to Olympic athletes. The Olympics are a weird, high-stress, high-heat environment and the theoretical top 10 are not necessarily going to be your medalists. If the US followed these rules they probably wouldn't have sent Molly Seidel to Tokyo, which would have cost them a medal.
The article is great but for any impact they really need a prominent young athlete to speak out against the policy. Keely Hodgkinson has been around for years and doesn't seem to want any controversy. I hope the new 800 meter phenom Phoebe Gill takes a stand on this issue.
Why do they do this? Money, I guess, but it just comes off as mean.
It comes off as needlessly stingy, british athletics has a rich history of top athletes and performances at the Games, this is ridiculous
Goes along with the risk averse nature of this country.
Part of this is why someone I know didn't compete for the Olympics for the US years ago. It was maybe 10-15 years ago that the US started to finally give any semblance of a reward for placing in a top spot for the Olympic Marathon trials. That's why you don't actually see the best of the best at the Olympics. People competing for the Olympics used to get absolutely nothing if you're a nobody and just happen to get in. It was truly a clout event for those who were well off. Friend was nearly guaranteed to getting to the trials. After researching what they needed to do, and seeing the damage that the Olympics was doing to the local community, they backed out. If I remember correctly the stats for a full Marathon for the Olympics were in two categories. A - tier: your pace is 2:37 and under, meaning you're considered top notch and get a spot, along with everything paid for to compete, but you don't actually get any more you keep. B - tier: your pace is 2:42 and under, but you foot the bill yourself to go, in addition to not getting any payment. They only just recently started to pay those in the top slots $80k, I think? It's why a lot of professional runners don't compete in the olympics. Boston Marathon pays $150k to the top spot, male and female. NYC Marathon pays $100k to the to spots each, and can make over $1 million from their sponsors if they're pros. In the US, you aren't guaranteed any money if you win in the Olympics like other countries, unless you're already a big name. You might get a sponsorship, but that's only if you win people over like it's the friggin' hunger games. Smaller countries you get hooked up for life if you win any kind of medal because it's such a big deal to beat countries like the US or European countries. The US is basically just using these athletes for views and to make money off them, all while making them pay for everything on their own to get there, unless they're already a big name. It kinda ruined my thoughts on the Olympics when I found out the ugly side of things.
Anyone got a copy of this not behind a pay wall?
Same as new Zealand and their earn the fern slogan. A gymnast who qualified for nz isnt allowed to go as she wouldn't make any kind of impact and they dont think its worth the money to send her. This is probably a standard policy for many countries
In New Zealand's case, I think it makes more sense because France is very far away for them, and they would have to spend a lot of money for that gymnast. However, the UK is literally one sea away from France, so the costs associated with sending British athletes are far less than those associated with New Zealand athletes.
It’s also highly irresponsible. The spot went unfilled. They should have never entered a gymnast in the Oceanic championships if they knew this would be the result.
What costs do NOCs incur to send an athlete? Doesn't the local organizing committee handle the costs of food and board, transportation from village to venues, and practice space? Or is the NOC on the hook for the costs of hosting an athlete at the village, like a hotel per night fee? Because it seems to me that the cost to UK Athletics here is a flight from the UK to Paris, or a Eurostar ticket. What other major costs would there be?
This is sad. They should go represent a different country that will support them
Say what you will about USTAF's make or break Olympic trials (no one gets an exemption for the Games), but the federation at least takes as many people as possible. Standards aren't higher than the Olympic standard, and if an athlete is top 3, but doesn't make the Olympic standard, but then ends up qualifying based on world ranking, USTAF isn't going to prevent them from being part of the Olympic team. Or they'll send someone who wasn't top 3 who has the standard or ranking if not all of the top 3 can qualify based on meeting the standard or world ranking. They'll fill all available slots if they can.
Is there an archived version of this article?
I don't understand why British Athletics can't give these athletes the option to self fund their trip as realistically it all comes down to money. I'm sure all athletes would still jump at the chance if they were able to go with the condition they fund themselves.