|
||||||
| Amateurism
In the second half of the nineteenth century, English gentlemen-athletes thought that one had to be an 'amateur' to take part in important contests. Originally this meant a difference in social class: upperclass sportsmen were 'amateurs', sportsmen from the working classes were 'professionals'. At the end of the century the definition was refined: an 'amateur' was someone who did not earn any money with his sport. Discussion continued about the exact definition: Can an amateur take part in contests in which also professionals participate? Can someone be an amateur in one sport and a professional in another? Is a sports teacher a professional? Can the sport club pay the travelling expenses of an athlete?
The IOC justified its policy by referring to Antiquity: the Greek athletes were also amateurs and the only prize for an Olympic victory was an olive-crown. Several scholars, e.g. Mahaffy, Gardner and the very influential Gardiner, described the classical Greek athletes as true amateurs and considered the Hellenistic and Roman period, when professionalism came to the fore, as a period of decline, although athletics was being practiced more intensively than ever before. Being themselves great supporters of the modern amateurism, these authors applied their ideal to the ancient Greeks. Today historians no longer think that the Greek athletes were amateurs. Many athletes were indeed aristocrats, but they had no qualms in accepting prizes at the games or rewards at their home-coming. |
||||||