Should players, sports organizations, or the whole COC boycott the Sochi Olympics?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by jammies

Sorry, that does not follow. There is nothing inherently contradictory about saying "We are willing to break the rules to demonstrate our displeasure with egregious human rights violations, but no other reason is acceptable".

There isn't, but that isn't the argument. My argument, based on history, is that the IOC won't allow its rules to be broken to make this point. The rest of the argument was about how much free speech Valo was prepared to accept. Since the IOC is a private organization (not to mention that this will be in Russia, so Canadian/American free speech principles don't apply), it can allow or deny whatever it wants and deal with whatever public or (Russian) legal consequences that would follow. But I was curious to see how far Valo's views on freedom of speech go. In the end, he's choosing to argue over nothing, since he has subsequently agreed that he has no problem with people marching in wearing an offensive symbol.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

There isn't, but that isn't the argument. My argument, based on history, is that the IOC won't allow its rules to be broken to make this point. The rest of the argument was about how much free speech Valo was prepared to accept. Since the IOC is a private organization (not to mention that this will be in Russia, so Canadian/American free speech principles don't apply), it can allow or deny whatever it wants and deal with whatever public or (Russian) legal consequences that would follow. But I was curious to see how far Valo's views on freedom of speech go. In the end, he's choosing to argue over nothing, since he has subsequently agreed that he has no problem with people marching in wearing an offensive symbol.

What? The point that you missed is that if people want to take a stand on an issue the presence of the IOC shouldn't stop them. However, if the issue they want to take a stand on is one of spreading hate they should be prepared to face a severe backlash. Conversely, if it's a call for human rights to be respected the IOC should be prepared to face a sever backlash should it seek to punish or censor the individual.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

What about the second question? This is a modern interconnected world, so at what point do human rights or other abuses become enough to make a boycott okay? I honestly paid very little attention to the Beijing games in any capacity so I don't recall if there was any talk of boycott there, but should there have been? What if Russia's policy was based upon race as well as sexuality? Would that be enough?

Btw, I'm not calling on you to decide one way or the other here, I'm just sort of spitballing on the idea of where you draw the line.

You know your putting me in a tough spot where no matter how I answer I look like a cold callous ####### right.

I don't know if there's an equivalency level.

Personally I thought that China should have never gotten the Olympics because of their horrendous human rights record, and on top of it environmentally they are a disaster who has never been called out on it.

But in terms of Boycotts, the only Olympics to be boycotted were Moscow (invasion of Afghanistan, the world called the boycott to punish the Soviet Union) and Las Angeles (retailiation by the Eastern Bloc, which was great because of Canada's medal haul .

The only other times the Olympics have been cancelled were 1916 (WW1) and 1940 and 1944 (WW2).

For the most part I believe that the IOC views the Olympics as an international event not predicated on countries internal politics, neither host or participants.

Now here's where I am callous. Why aren't nations calling for Iran to be excluded for example (execute Homosexuals), or Russia during the cold war (horrible human rights, institutionalized and brutalized homosexuals classed as mental illnesses), The United States (minority rights up until the 70's).

The IOC is not an international force for good, its a massive marketing and administration team. They don't really see themselves as forces for governmental change.

Boycotts would be up to individual countries at this point, this is why the Moscow Olympics were boycotted. However I do know that a lot of athletes were crushed.

Let me put this question back to you though. While a lot of countries have done great things with equal rights for Gays etc, is it an important enough issue to completely screw up foreign relations and policy with Russia who right now could be classed as an ascendant world power. Same question with China who owns almost every country in the world, are homosexual rights and human rights in China a big enough priority nationally to potentially screw up relations with China?

Its easy enough to stand up and scream yes, and in an ideal world it would be the right thing to do. To punish a nation for a major transgression, but there are countless other factors.

Its up to the individual nations, but for the U.S. or Canada or UK or whatever to boycott would have major diplomatic repercussions.

It would come down to the athlete level if they want to do something. However they would probably need to get approval from their nations Olympic Committee.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by gargamel

It was a disgrace that so many countries allowed the 1980 and 1984 Olympics to be politicized, and another boycott would be similarly ineffective in doing anything other than hurting the athletes and billions of spectators around the world. Some of the things that Russia is doing are disgusting, but the Olympics should never be about anything other than sport.

I think athletes should get a cut of Olympic profits . . . . . so they should boycott for that reason.

However, I'd be in favour of athletes wearing "I Support Gay Rights + Putin Sucks" emblems on their uniforms at the Olympics. That would get just as much attention or more than a boycott.

Perhaps Putin should just declare that homosexuality doesn't exist in Russia like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did regarding Iran a few years ago. That would take care of the issue for the duration of the Olympics.

Cowperson

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Let me put this question back to you though. While a lot of countries have done great things with equal rights for Gays etc, is it an important enough issue to completely screw up foreign relations and policy with Russia who right now could be classed as an ascendant world power. Same question with China who owns almost every country in the world, are homosexual rights and human rights in China a big enough priority nationally to potentially screw up relations with China?

Its easy enough to stand up and scream yes, and in an ideal world it would be the right thing to do. To punish a nation for a major transgression, but there are countless other factors.

Its up to the individual nations, but for the U.S. or Canada or UK or whatever to boycott would have major diplomatic repercussions.

It would come down to the athlete level if they want to do something. However they would probably need to get approval from their nations Olympic Committee.

That's really the thing I'm struggling with myself, at what point does it tip to being enough of an issue to use the Olympics as a foreign relations tool, and if it would be effective to do so. While I consider gay rights to be an important issue I don't know that it's the hill you'd want to die on, but that leaves me asking what would reach that level, and I'm not coming up with a definitive answer. Like you said, in an ideal world you take these countries to task for what are some serious abuses, but there is much more to consider than that.

I think the onus falls on viewers to put the pressure where it will actually be felt, the pockets of sponsors. If Visa gets enough pressure maybe future games take things like this into consideration. Athletes have the ability to be the public face of that pressure. I'd love to see an American athlete make a statement against Russian policies, which would be a brave move seeing as the Russians could certainly take action against them.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

That's really the thing I'm struggling with myself, at what point does it tip to being enough of an issue to use the Olympics as a foreign relations tool, and if it would be effective to do so. While I consider gay rights to be an important issue I don't know that it's the hill you'd want to die on, but that leaves me asking what would reach that level, and I'm not coming up with a definitive answer. Like you said, in an ideal world you take these countries to task for what are some serious abuses, but there is much more to consider than that.

I think the onus falls on viewers to put the pressure where it will actually be felt, the pockets of sponsors. If Visa gets enough pressure maybe future games take things like this into consideration. Athletes have the ability to be the public face of that pressure. I'd love to see an American athlete make a statement against Russian policies, which would be a brave move seeing as the Russians could certainly take action against them.

At a sponsor level it makes sense, but the clothing sponsors for the Olympics probably make $100's of millions on the Olympics. the Credit Card companies do as well. The broadcasters make huge bank on selling advertising.

Plus if lets say ABC bowed out and refused to live up to their contract they'd get sue'd into out space.

Unless Russia goes to war the nations of the world won't boycott.

I think it falls to the individual to boycott, the sponsors are too big to care.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by bcsoda

I don't know much about this, but what kind of effect would a more localized boycott have? For example, if TV stations refused to broadcast the Olympics, bars and restaurants didn't show the Olympic games, and patrons refused to go to bars and restaurants that were airing the games? Would it only effect Canadian companies, or would it have some sort of rebound effect and hit Russia as well?

TV rights to the games are sold well in advance of the actual hosting site being chosen. In your hypo, the host site would still get the money, CBC would still be out the $, the companies who bought ads would be out the $, but the reduced viewership for this set of games would reduce the $ paid for the media rights to future games, since the viewership : $ ratio would be off.

Originally Posted by Rathji

I have a gay coworker, and asked her about this just now, her response was that it would be much better to use the Olympics in Sochi as a world stage to bring more attention to the issue rather than impact the hard work of so many amateur athletes.

Something that makes a statement during the opening ceremonies, like flags or prominent gay athletes or something that is obviously promoting equality.

Alternatively, and just an idea here, but have a boycott and the nations that boycotted can have their own Olympics at the same time (or slightly later). I'm sure there are a few cities that could host such an event without too much notice and planning--maybe Vancouver could actually get some snow this time around.

[Puppet Guy]

Patrick Burke has written a very good article on this and makes some great points:

The time has come for us to recognize that politicizing sport only limits sport’s real potential to change the world. Russian extremists say that being gay means to be lesser; it is to be weak, to be soft. What will they say when (not if, when) a gay athlete wins a gold medal in their country?

To send the strongest possible message of support to the LGBT community, we must send our athletes — those who are LGBT, those who are LGBT-supportive, those with LGBT family members or friends. Let them show that champions stand strong with their teammates and training partners. Send our openly LGBT and “publicly pro-gay” athletes and let them compete. Let them win. Show the world that there are elite LGBT athletes who are not afraid to be themselves, on and off the playing field. That the majority of the world’s finest athletes support their LGBT teammates, coaches, and opponents by treating them as equals in competition.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/patrickburke/dont-boycott-sochi

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

TV rights to the games are sold well in advance of the actual hosting site being chosen. In your hypo, the host site would still get the money, CBC would still be out the $, the companies who bought ads would be out the $, but the reduced viewership for this set of games would reduce the $ paid for the media rights to future games, since the viewership : $ ratio would be off.

Calling all lawyers. Huge lawsuits by the people that bought advertising.

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Alternatively, and just an idea here, but have a boycott and the nations that boycotted can have their own Olympics at the same time (or slightly later). I'm sure there are a few cities that could host such an event without too much notice and planning--maybe Vancouver could actually get some snow this time around.

Bring back the goodwill games Ted, and add monster trucks as a medal event.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And if you want to allow one type of political statement, then you should be prepared to allow any.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

There isn't, but that isn't the argument.

Above is the argument. It is wrong due to false equivalency.

The End.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

At a sponsor level it makes sense, but the clothing sponsors for the Olympics probably make $100's of millions on the Olympics. the Credit Card companies do as well. The broadcasters make huge bank on selling advertising.

Plus if lets say ABC bowed out and refused to live up to their contract they'd get sue'd into out space.

Unless Russia goes to war the nations of the world won't boycott.

I think it falls to the individual to boycott, the sponsors are too big to care.

Yeah for sponsors the ship has sailed, I'm thinking more of putting considerations like this on the radar of companies going forward. Perhaps Visa thinks twice about renewing it's sponsorship if they get significant pressure. The cynical side of me can't help but think that would just lead to mastercard stepping in.

[polak]

The Olympics are supposed to be the one event where countries can meet and compete without politics getting in the way. Taking away the chance for hundreds of athletes to compete in what will probably be the defining moment of their lives is incredibly stupid.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

The Olympics are supposed to be the one event where countries can meet and compete without politics getting in the way.

You are kidding right?

[GrrlGoalie33]

Originally Posted by valo403

Yeah for sponsors the ship has sailed, I'm thinking more of putting considerations like this on the radar of companies going forward. Perhaps Visa thinks twice about renewing it's sponsorship if they get significant pressure. The cynical side of me can't help but think that would just lead to mastercard stepping in.

It's a slippery slope for the Athletes though, I think. Companies like VISA sponsor the games themselves, but don't they also sponsor individual athletes?

If VISA removes it's sponsorship of the games because they don't want their name seen at the games, they may pull sponsorship from individual athletes as well, which is a definite lose situation.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Frankster

It's a slippery slope for the Athletes though, I think. Companies like VISA sponsor the games themselves, but don't they also sponsor individual athletes?

If VISA removes it's sponsorship of the games because they don't want their name seen at the games, they may pull sponsorship from individual athletes as well, which is a definite lose situation.

True, but I'd say that human rights trumps getting paid to bobsled, at least it does for me.

[polak]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

You are kidding right?

That's what they are supposed to be.

Actually for the most part, that ideal is maintained pretty well. Outside of groups who aren't affiliated with the actual games using them as a platform and the two major boycotts in the 80's, politics rarely gets in the way of the actual sporting events.

[GrrlGoalie33]

Originally Posted by valo403

True, but I'd say that human rights trumps getting paid to bobsled, at least it does for me.

As a gay woman, and an athlete, I'm just so torn on this entire issue.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

That's what they are supposed to be.

Actually for the most part, that ideal is maintained pretty well. Outside of groups who aren't affiliated with the actual games using them as a platform and the two major boycotts in the 80's, politics rarely gets in the way of the actual sporting events.

But for many country the point of athletics is to show their particular political ideals were superior, and it still happens today.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Frankster

As a gay woman, and an athlete, I'm just so torn on this entire issue.

Yeah, me too, every seemingly simple answer has a flip side. After I posted that previous response I found myself thinking ' Is that fair? Is it okay even if it's not fair?'

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

Yeah, me too, every seemingly simple answer has a flip side. After I posted that previous response I found myself thinking ' Is that fair? Is it okay even if it's not fair?'

You are a gay female athlete.....