The olympics, SO UNFAIR!!!!!?

Question

britain only have 300 athletes competing. no wonder china have SO MANY MEDALS(they have 600 PLUS ATHLETES AND SO DO USA). i think every country should have an equal amount of athletes competing to make it fair or their should be a maximum and a minimum do u agree?excuse my spelling

Answer 1

They cant help it if they are a bigger country who have more Athletes same with China. So i think you have it all wrong you say we should all have the same amount but that means China and USA will have to give up ALOT of there Athletes and good ones who will miss out on a chance of the olympics which only comes around every 4 years some Athletes are 29 or 30 and that means when 2012 comes they will be to old imperticuly the short distence runners.

Answer 2

Sports is about trying to produce the best among the best. I don't believe with your condition and your own rules of fairness will produce greatness.. It is the hardship that make human being show their true potential otherwise we will only see mediocre performance.  

Answer 3

Its not about how many athletes there are its about how good they are, even if we had 600 plus athletes like China and USA if they aren't any good we still won't get the medals.

Answer 4

You could have an equal amount all you want but it wont stop that some athletes are better than others. Everyone IS entitled to enter athletes to ANY of the competitions as long as those athletes are of the required standard.

If we havent entered athletes into every event it's because we dont have any good athletes in those events and therefore even if we could send Eddie the Eagle he wouldnt win, so whats the point? The results will still be the same.

China and the USA and the USSR of old train their athletes from a very young age and have people who are full time athletes. The UK is only just starting to fund people a bit so that they can train full time.

So we could send as many athletes as China or even more, and they will still win.  

Answer 5

It's just a case that we in the UK may only had 300 olympians who met the certain qualification standards, thats all.  I don't agree with maximum or minimum, it's about the individuals not the countries.  And look at Australia, thier population is much less than the UK for example and they always do really well.

Answer 6

SHUT UP IDIOT WAT IS THE SENCE OF BRINGING 600 PEOPLE TO THE OLYMPICS AND ONLY 200 ACTUALLY HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE IT TO THE FINALS THINK MAN UR COUNTRY DECIDED TO BRING THAT AMOUNT.....HOW IS THAT UNFAIR???? AND WHAT ABOUT SMALL ISLANDS LIKE JAMAICA WE CANT AFFORD TO BRING  THAT MANY DOES THAT MEAN WE SHOULD BE EXEMPT??? JAH KNOW STAR PEOPLE NEED TO THINK

Answer 7

I didnt know that and I think you are right. Mind you we would get golds for mugging stabbing and unemployment.

Answer 8

No, you have to qualify.

If you have a lot of sports people who qualify and make Olympic standard why should they miss out because of a quota?

Answer 9

Nothing is fair in this earth!!! Why don't you compair Bristish and India? Don't forget China only had had only one gold  medal 20 years ago

Answer 10

If every country have equal amount of participating athletes then it would take years or even decades to decide who gets medals. The fact is, any country can send any number of athletes but would it be worth it if aren't good enough to be in the top 10 or 20s? Also it costs a lot of money to nurture and look after athletes! Another important thing is, the people who are participating are already *qualified* - this means they already possess a very high standard of skill and ability to stand a chance of winning!

Answer 11

and where are the smaller countries going to get the athletes from, or for that matter the money to send them.  This is and international competition to find the best in the world, how can that be done if possibly hundreds of the best are left out because there country can only send so many.  

Answer 12

I see what you are saying, but it wouldn't really work. There are quite a few countries who only have a handful of athletes competing - would this mean that each country had to send, say, 6 athletes? If this were the case, say the limit was 200 each country, then what about those countries with one or two - would they have to be left out because they had not enough competitors?

At the end of the day, of course countries like USA and China have loads more athletes - they are bigger countries. Maybe also these countries invest more in their athletes? I am sure that getting gold, no matter how many, is just as great an achievement for every country that wins some.

Answer 13

No, it depends on how the athletes qualify, and also, not every country is participating in every sports event, that's why some countries don't have many athletes

Answer 14

that would be impossible to make all the countries have the same amount , some of the tiny island countries can only get 5 athletes there because of their tiny population

besides it doesn't matter which country get the MOST medals  

Answer 15

no ..in no way should it be maximum or a minimum, it should be on who and how many can make the team, for there country, ..you cant really go by your thoughts on this because, china could easy send any number you want usa to but what a bout some of the very small, or some that are just not capable of sending as many does that mean everyone has to send less, okay then you would have a olympics made up of 5 from each county ..oh boy wouldn't that be fun..NOT... it works well the way it is set up .... old saying "if its not broke don't fix it."... very true statement

Answer 16

No,they were Katie Hoff's words.

Answer 17

I don't agree with you. Bigger countries have more people so that usually means more people to put through. If the bigger countries have more athletes they should be able to compete. Even if they do have hundreds of athletes, it still depends on whether they are talented enough to win medals.

It wouldn't be fair if you limited the number of athletes able to compete.

Answer 18

I get what you mean, but i think we are doing so well! We were third or fourth in the medals table the last time i looked. Not bad for a country really. It wont last mind, but its nice to see.

Answer 19

If you want Britain to do better at the Olympics start pressuring your government to spend more money on sport facilities, coaches, national talent searches etc

  

Answer 20

Yeah I was thinking the same.

USA have 644 and China have 640 :S

Its really unfair, because obviously if y ou have more if you have a greater advantage.

They should have like a set amount, like forexample, everyone must have between 400-500 athletes competing.

But I guess its too late to be complaining for the olympics that are going on now.

Answer 21

no.

what about the small countries who only sent 3 or 4 athletes?

if britain was only able to qualify 300 athletes its their fault that the athletes from other countries were better.

and if I were you i wouldnt complain, they're not doing that bad.

Answer 22

No because some countries have as little as 3 people competing,which would mean that they would no longer be able to compete.

And the olympics wants to give each and every country an opportunity to compete in something.

Even if the limit was set at like 100,then half of the countries would no longer be eligable.

Answer 23

I bet you don't say that when London host the games because the  host country can have someone compete in every event.

Answer 24

Sounds fair enough to me. However; some countries can't muster more than one or two.

Would you have everyone restricted to two to make it an even field for everyone?

Didn't think so.

What you've got is what you're going to get for the foreseeable future. You might as well get used to it.

Answer 25

thats not possible im afraid.

the USA have teams in softball 15 people per team

baseball 15-20 plaers per team

volleyball again a team sport

do ya get where im going with this?

England could send more athletes if they chose to.

Im from Canada and we sent 330 we have 30 odd million people in our country

China has a billion people so they obviously have more people they can send.

Answer 26

Not really. Countries only send athletes that could POSSIBLY get a medal. So what if a country has 1000 athletes but none of them could even contend a bronze?

And even if you have 1000 athletes but they don't get in during the qualification test for the olympics... and qualification is based on the athlete's ability.

Answer 27

The Olympics bring the best athletes to the games

in the 4yrs in between, the athletes compete to qualify

China is the host Country, so that automatically got a spot

No use in sending athletes to the olympics if it is guaranteed they will be in last place

Answer 28

I agree but their populations are also so much more higher, america have 10 times as many people in their country and China have over a billion people... when you look at it that way it makes more sense.

There are also sports that are less popular in britain with fewer athletes competing so some do not reach the qualification levels that are set by the IOC. - This is the main reason

I'm sure China and the USA just make sure they have an athlete in every sport so they can show who is the greatest superpower.

Answer 29

That would mean that some countries with more than their fair share of world class athletes would have to leave some of them behind. This would not be fair on these athletes as im sure you'd agree.

Answer 30

If you're good, you're good and more people is not an issue. Nothing is going to change that.

Answer 31

Well when you include the idiotic inclusion of team sports with professional pansies like Football and Basketball then the teams are going to be large.

The games were much better before the inclusion of these non Olympic sports and when the sportsmen and women were amateurs and not overpaid professionals.