U.S. Olympic success provides rebuke to government planning
MOST NATIONS DIRECTLY SUBSIDIZE THEIR ATHLETES
TEAM USA dominated the 2016 Rio Olympics, winning 121 medals, more than any other country. That tally is more than reason for national pride. It’s also a triumph of free-market forces over government micromanagement. Why? Because the United States is one of the few nations where the government does not directly subsidize Olympic athletes.
The results speak for themselves with this year’s Olympics especially notable. The United States’ 121 medals were 51 more than second-place finisher China. The margin between the first- and second-place nations’ medal tallies was the largest since 1932 (excluding boycotted Olympics).
These results were achieved even without direct U.S. government funding of Olympic athletes, unlike most other nations. Officials in Britain plan to spend over $780 million to support Olympic athletes over the next four years. China’s training programs, which begin working with children at a tender age, are notorious for their focus and brutality.
In contrast, the U.S. Olympic Committee generates income from television broadcast rights and corporate sponsors. In the latter category, U.S. Olympic programs are competing for sponsorships with professional teams.
This means U.S. Olympians (and their families) often make substantial financial sacrifices to compete. So the idea of government subsidy has emotional appeal in those instances.
Yet there are obvious problems with government financing. For one thing, government-run Olympic programs tend to be wasteful. (Imagine that.)
Author David Wallechinsky, who has written several books about the Olympics, stressed that issue in a 2009 interview with Voice of America.
“The problem is, like anything else you put the government in charge of, there is a certain amount of corruption in some of these countries,” Wallechinsky told VOA. “A lot of the officials take most of the money, and it doesn’t really get to the athletes.”
Even in countries where such corruption isn’t a widespread problem, many question whether the government should divert money from other needs to subsidize athletes. In 2014, Yahoo News reported that Canada’s spending on Winter Olympic sports had more than doubled since 2006.
Yet Janice Forsyth, director of International Centre for Olympic Studies at Western University in Ontario, Canada, noted the additional spending didn’t necessarily translate into better results. She noted in an email to Yahoo News, “Most of the medals won by Canadians in Sochi come from new events on the program (added for Sochi), or newer sports, which typically don’t have as much competition worldwide as the older established sports.”
Another problem is that government-run programs inevitably involve government bureaucrats deciding which athletes are most deserving of financial support. Needless to say, that doesn’t tend to achieve optimal results.
Writing at Forbes.com, venture capitalist Victor W. Hwang notes the U.S. model “fosters a different psychology” where American athletes who win medals often express joy, while athletes from “countries with centralized training programs” simply appear relieved to win.
“Their athletes often looked like they had just dodged a bullet,” Hwang wrote. “It’s the difference between doing something because you purely love it, versus doing it because you have little choice. Or the difference between encouraging people to aim higher, versus punishing them for failing.”
Government’s reach and control seems ever-expanding. Sports fans and Team USA athletes alike should be glad Olympic training remains an exception. Government programs can’t outperform market forces, and they’re certainly no substitute for individual drive and initiative.