Why developing countries are just spectators in the ‘Gold War’: the case of Lebanon at the Olympic Games

Abstract

At the Olympic Games, there is an increasing gap between developed countries that are investing more and more government resources into sporting success, and developing countries that cannot afford the “Gold War”, and are just spectators in the medal race. Based on studying a representative case, Lebanon, I investigate issues and interests of developing countries in the Olympics. On the political level, the main motivation for participation is global recognition. On the sporting level, developing countries seek to use Olympic participation as preparation for regional Games where success is more likely, serving as a soft power tool for regional influence.

Keywords:

• Olympic Games
• sport
• developing countries
• Lebanon
• Middle East

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my graduate assistant Alex Brown for supporting me in the production of this article. My colleague Dr. Hilal Khashan, Professor of Political Studies at the American University of Beirut, provided very helpful feedback on the first draft of this paper. Given the lack of academic literature on the topic, everybody who was interviewed for this work was a valuable source that made this article possible. Lastly, I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

Notes

1. Houlihan and Zheng, “The Olympics,” 338–355.

2. De Bosscher et al., Explaining International Sporting Success, 396.

3. Baimbridge, “Outcome Uncertainty in Sporting Competition,” 162.

4. De Bosscher et al., “Explaining International Sporting Success,” 42.

5. Bingham and Shibli, The Global Sporting Arms Race; Cornelissen, “The Geopolitics of Global Aspiration”; D’Agati, The Cold War; De Bosscher et al., “Explaining International Sporting Success”; De Bosscher et al., Successful Elite Sport Policies; Digel, “Comparison of Successful Sport System”; Green, “Olympic Glory?”; Grix, “Sport Politics”; and Houlihan and Zheng, “The Olympics.”

6. Bergsgard et al., Sport Policy, 150; and Houlihan and Zheng, “The Olympics,” 340.

7. Bergsgard et al., Sport Policy, 194.

8. Johnson, “The New Gold War.”

9. Heywood, Politics, 105.

10. Hague and Harrop, Comparative Government and Politics, 361–362.

11. University of Surrey, “Introduction to Research.”

12. On Lebanese sport, see Nassif and Amara, “Sport Policy and Politics”; Reiche, “War minus the Shooting?”; and Stanton, “‘Pioneer of Olympism’.” On global elite sport policies, see Baimbridge, “Outcome Uncertainty in Sporting Competition”; Bergsgard et al., Sport Policy; Bingham and Shibli, The Global Sporting Arms Race; Cornelissen, “The Geopolitics of Global Aspiration”; De Bosscher et al., The Global Sporting Arms Race; De Bosscher et al., “Explaining International Sporting Success”; Digel, Comparison of Successful Sport System”; Green, “Olympic Glory?”; Grix, “Sport Politics”; and Houlihan and Zheng, “The Olympics.” For official statistics of Lebanon’s participation, see http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/countries/LIB/.

13. Cha, Beyond the Final Score, 9.

14. Stanton, “‘Pioneer of Olympism’,” 2115.

15. Stanton, “‘Pioneer of Olympism’,” 2116; and Reiche, “Investing in Sporting Success,” 6.

16. Stanton, “‘Pioneer of Olympism’,” 296.

17. FIBA, “China capture 2015 FIBA Asia Championship Crown.”

18. IOC, “Olympic Games Tripartite Commission Invitation Places.”

19. IOC, “Games of the XXX Olympiad.”

20. Ibid.

21. IOC, “Olympic Games Tripartite Commission Invitation Places.”

22. British Tennis, “ITF announces Entries.”

23. Reiche, “Success and Failure of Countries at the Olympic Games.”

24. Olympic Solidarity, “A Direct Line,” 3.

25. International Olympic Charter, 17, 18.

26. Olympic Solidarity, “A Direct Line,” 21.

27. Olympic Solidarity, “A Direct Line,” 14, 19.

28. “The Lebanese Diaspora.”

29. Katwala, “The World Cup.”

30. US Department of State, 2012 Report.

31. Reiche, “War minus the Shooting?,” 261–277.

32. Nassif and Amara, “Sport, Policy and Politics,” 7.

33. Stanton, “‘Pioneer of Olympism’,” 2116

34. Stanton, “Syria and the Olympics,” 295.

35. Kang et al., “Salvaging National Pride,” 100.

36. Heywood, Politics, 105.

37. Houlihan and Zheng, “Small States,” 9.

38. Stanton, “Syria and the Olympics,” 297.

39. International Olympic Charter, 83.

40. For an interesting suggestion, see “USA, Russia and Germany.”