Federer and Nadal: Professionals at the Olympics
Join the debate on whether professionals should play in the Olympics. < Back to Story
Quick links:
- News archive
- Features
- Events Round-up
- Olympics Live
Your View
-
Sunday August 24
0030 Athletics - Men's marathon
0630 Boxing - Six finals
0730 Basketball - Men's final
1330 Closing ceremony
All times BST
| G | S | B | Tot | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CHN | 51 | 21 | 28 | 100 |
| 2 | USA | 36 | 38 | 36 | 110 |
| 3 | RUS | 23 | 21 | 28 | 72 |
| 4 | GBR | 19 | 13 | 15 | 47 |
| 5 | GER | 16 | 10 | 15 | 41 |
| 6 | AUS | 14 | 15 | 17 | 46 |
Keep the Olympics amateur?
Join the debate on whether the Olympics has become too professional.
Vancouver - day seven
Images from the seventh day of action in Vancouver with golds galore and beer-laden celebrations.
Vancouver - day six
American Lindsey Vonn lit up the Winter Olympics with her downhill gold medal success.
Vancouver - day five
All of the best snow-fuelled action from Vancouver in the Winter Olympics, with biathlon taking centre stage.
Opening Ceremony
After a tragic start to the Winter Olympics, the opening ceremony tried to lift the spirits in Vancouver.
Olympic memories - Great Britain
A look back at some memorable Great British moments from previous Winter Olympics.
Olympic memories - overseas
A look back at some other memorable moments from previous Winter Olympics.
London 2012 sailing venue
Images from the Weymouth and Portland National Sailing Academy, which will hold the London 2012 sailing events.
Decade in pictures
Skysports.com delves into the archives for pictures that have define a decade of sporting moments.
Around the site today
Change your game!
Achieve bigger and better feats by getting your secondary school to join Sky Sports Living for Sport.
Stars to watch
Andy Schooler picks out 10 non-British superstars to watch at the 2010 Winter Olympics.
Mobile Services
Get news and premiership goals on your mobile or your handheld device or mobile phone
RSS Feeds
Feeds offer an easy way to keep up with Olympics throughout the day
Newsletter
Have the top news and columnists delivered to your inbox every morning
365 network
-
Websites
-
Partners
-
Betting & Gaming
-
Mobile, Fun & Games
Comments (103)
Mark Dawe says...
I think the days of the Olympics being totally amateur are long gone but the principal of fairness, excellence and sportsmanship will never leave it. I think this is the most important part of the Olympic experience. Yeah there are multi-millionaires competing but they don't get any prize money for winning Olympic gold, only fame and glory. Let the best compete, thats what I think
Posted 22:29 9th August 2008
Bisesu Gbedemah says...
I would prefer to dwell on the original and ancient inspiration behind the olympic ideal. It was all about physical fitness, bodily strength and allied mental & physical skill or prowess. Hence the saying in connection with throwing of the discus ..."the strongest throws the farthest". Applying this maxim, it would seem that the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that the games are designed to weed out the very weakest athletes. There is room only for the best specimens. Therefore the olympic glory belongs to and is 'fairly conferred' on the strongest and most physically skilled atheletes. It is an acknowledgement of their superior strengths & skills. If this basic concept is accepted as underpinning the olympic ideal, what does it matter if any competitor is an individual person(professional or amateur) or a country. After all, there is no cast-iron guarantee that, on the day, a professional participant will always perform better than an amateur participant on the olympic stage. Each will strive assiduously to excel to the best of his ability. Excellence always tends to reflect strength and skill in some way. I have not even touched on the question of which sport should be admitted to the games! And the vexed question - how much any person normally earns as a professional or an inpecunious amateur isn't really the point. It is a moot point in my humble opinion. So we ultimately come back to the dominant or recurrent theme of the olympics: on the actual day, "the strongest will throw farthest". Who would you or should you back as a spectator? I would gladly say three cheers for "inclusion". And down with excluson! Finally, is such a view of the Olympics not commensurate with world peace? It proably is. What do you think? 09/08/2008
Posted 18:33 9th August 2008
Marianne Taylor says...
no pro should be at the games,i thought it was about none pro sports people,its getting worse all the time,its all about money like the rest of this horrible world.
Posted 18:01 9th August 2008
Lony Bonetti says...
What do people mean the olympics is for amateurs and amateurs alone, its about the best of the best
Posted 17:42 9th August 2008
Christopher Churchill says...
if any profesional sports person wants to take part in the olympics. then i think they should as long as they are willing to take a cut in wages they receive. at the end of the day the olympics are about everyone let them represent the country if thats what they want to do
Posted 16:18 9th August 2008
Mark Spridgeon says...
Who wants to watch second rate amateurs when you can watch professionals at the top of their game compete. For example, how many of you would tune in to watch amateur Joe Bloggs Vs Xi Xian in the Tennis final compared to the number who would tune in to watch Federer Vs Nadal? It is idealistic nonsense to think there are any real amateurs left in the world anyway. Even our amateur boxers get a government grant so they don't have to work and a fully paid for support team who don't have to do other work. Look at the number of NBA players coming over this summer, after a gruelling 82 game basketball season they still CHOOSE to play at the olympics for their country. Why deny anyone the chance to do that?
Posted 12:52 9th August 2008
Olanzo Jackson says...
Well we all know the reason why people compete in sports, every one wants to be the best and for u to be the best you have to compete against the best, so i think they should prove to the world that they are the best and so i think yes they should compete..... I my self is a sport man and ill happy to know i am the best cricketer in the world wit a few medals aroung my neck... you think about it that way. may the best team win the olympic.
Posted 12:35 9th August 2008
Shashank Rawat says...
I agree with Jason clark and Pete Cezhcho. The Olympics is for everyone whether you're a star or an amateur as long as you qualify. Infact the more stars there are the more people will care about it. Also with regards to whether a sport should be in the olympics, it doesn't matter if the olympics is the ultimate prize in a particular sport or not. The olympics are bigger than any individual or any particular sport. When you're competing in the olympics in, say tennis, you're not playing for the ultimate prize in tennis but for an olympic medal for your country and what it stands for. The Olympics is about representing a country's prowess in sport in general and it has nothing to do with being amateur or professional and the importance of the olympics in a particular sportsman's career. In this context, the more stars and sports there are the better.
Posted 01:46 9th August 2008
Ben Lancaster says...
If you just let amateurs play you can't call yourself the best in the world can you? You will just be the best of the people who aren't quite good enough. The Olympic Games involves the best athletes in the world and that wouldn't be the case if only amateurs were entered.
Posted 22:44 8th August 2008
Will Ladds says...
its impossible to make the olympics amateur, even in boxing its not amateur, the british team are very well paid.(albeit alot less than the wiorld class pros) its just in boxing proffesional and amateur have different rules, ie headgear and a point per punch rather than 10 9 10 8 rounds. who would watch the olympics if the 100 metre runners where 1 second slower than the pros? the olypics should be the cream of sport. you cant be the best if your an amateur, are there any decent amateur football, rugby, basketabll teams in the world ? no
Posted 20:20 8th August 2008
Joe Willett says...
I agree with Ritesh Lamsal. Yes the Olympics has always been meant for amateurs, and yes it is exciting to see possible future stars coming through, but is it not designed to be the pinicle of sports worldwide? If so, surely its only fair (and entertaining) to see the worlds best athletes fight it out for the ultimate prize. I'm sure if you actually asked top professional sportsmen and women if they'd love to win a gold medal at the olympics there would be only one answer. The fact that it seems inferior to competitions such as the world cup is that professionals have't been allowed to compete in the olympics, the money doesnt mean a thing, ask any athlete and they only want to be considered the BEST, that can be achevied in the olympics!
Posted 18:07 8th August 2008
Jack Winsley says...
I feel that pro's should be able to go to the olymipics because they are not representing themselfs trying to be #1 they are there for switzerland or spain or GBR
Posted 18:02 8th August 2008
Brendon W says...
Surely the Olympics are about the best athletes in the world. It doesn't matter whether they're professional or amatuer. What's the point in a sporting event the excludes the best?
Posted 16:31 8th August 2008
Aka Andrews says...
I echo James Dixon's comments and would also add that I shall not be watching these Olympic Games given China's Human Rigts record. The costs of the games runs into $billions. They should all be held in Athens, the home of the Olympics, with the winning country funding the event. The costs of the 2012, that we are hosting is now runmning into £Billions more than Tessa Jowell led the Country to believe it would cost. The British tax-payer will be footing the bill for the next 30 years or more, as have the citizens of Greece.
Posted 15:30 8th August 2008
Robert Powell says...
There is a very simple way to guage whether a certain sport should be part of the Olympic Games - Ask any sports person what is the ultimate prize in their field. If it is not to participate in and win in the Olympics then they should not be there. Try it - it works. Tennis (Wimbledon) Golf (A Major) Football (World Cup). You can even equate it to sports such as Basketball. For an amateur anywhere (even in the USA) they are likely to say Olymics but a professional would want to win the NBA - then don't rob someone else of their ulimate prize. "Amatuers" can still be paid (like runners) but they still want that gold medal over anything else.
Posted 13:55 8th August 2008
Stevie Fizzle says...
it's irrelevant whether the guys performing are pro or not. it's only about finding out who's the best in the world and you can't do that if the best players aren't competing. if there's only non-pro's playing and one wins a gold at tennis singles for example, he's not the best in the world cause he hasn't played the best in the world who are professeional. there's a reason why the best are pro and you can't punnish them cause they're good at something. What happened to the GB footy team?!?!
Posted 13:02 8th August 2008
John Rash says...
Yeah, ban all the pros, so we'll see unknown peoples in tracks, aquatics, gymnastics, cycling etc competing each other. Yeah, what a fantastic Olympic we will have...
Posted 12:22 8th August 2008
Oliver Farr says...
The simple test of whether an Olympic Gold is the biggest medal in the sport or not, should be applied. If it is not then it shouldn't be in the Olympics. So: Football - World Cup v Olympic Gold Tennis - Wimbledon / French Titles v Olympic Gold Basketball / Baseball / Ice Hockey, while all huge in the United States for national clubs. These sports don't have other huge International Tournaments so probably, the Olympics is the highest international honour in these sports. Golf - The Open / Ryder Cup v Olympic Gold I also believe they are looking at Cricket in the Olympics! Whilst I can understand while Cricket wants to get in on the act, again it would be nowhere near the biggest title in that sport. As for amateurs v professionals; how amateur is a multi-million pound sponsorship package? The idea of 'true' amateurs appears to only apply to the boxers but even now they use the Olympics as a spring board for a professional career. So overall amateur v professional isn't really the issue to me. The issue should be if the Olympics are the pinnacle of your sport or not. If it's not, then your sport should either stop 'milking' the Olympics and leave it to the sports where Olympic Gold is the biggest prize or abandon the tournaments in your own sport that are bigger than the Olympics.
Posted 11:58 8th August 2008
Ben Johnson says...
Its a little late moaning that the top sports men and women are going for gold at the olympics. With the funding given and fitness levels required to take part, there are very few amateurs left. Do you think Paula Radcliffe is working along side Dwain Chambers at ASDA on the weekend ? No she is out each day training and competing all year. Taking the massive win bonuses, appearance bonus and goverment funding. This applies to the majority. The important difference is, these super rich people go for gold without pay at the olympics, which is refreshing.
Posted 11:00 8th August 2008
Anthony Moran says...
I can clearly see why there is a debate. On the one hand you got professionals, who earn a significant amount of money from their profession, and are indeed very good at what they do. On the other hand you got relatively unknown amateurs who are seeking some recognition that stems from the biggest sporting event the world has to offer. The question is whether professional sportmen should be omitted from the event, just because they are very good at what they do? Is that fair? is it justified? If you take a look at boxing for instance; if you had professional boxers in every weight division, fighting for an olympic medal, and taking Audley Harrison out of the equasion of course, would the likes of Amir Kahn get the recognition, and the platform they need to make it into the professional scene? Or are the likes of Amir Kahn good enough to make it to the top without the olympics? Maybe. However, Shouldn't we get excited by witnessing possibly rising stars, and professional sportsmen from the olympics? Another point I would like to make is, dont we see enough of these professional sportsmen week in week out? Wouldn't it be more riveting to watch unknown, fit, dedicated and ambitious athletes giving their all; putting everything on the line; fiercely and competitively, in order to get the recogniiton they rightfully deserve? It is surely an open ended question. Nevertheless, professional or amateur, I will surely be an eager and charismatic spectator.
Posted 10:56 8th August 2008