Should America kick out foreign athletes to improve its Olympic chances?

Should America kick out foreign athletes to improve its Olympic chances?

By: Rachel Marsden

PARIS – Why is legendary U.S. Olympic swimmer, Michael Phelps, cheering like a madman for a French swimmer – particularly one who’s breaking Phelps’ own Olympic records? The answer is eyebrow raising and stirring online debate.

Phelps’ longtime former coach, Bob Bowman, is not just the coach of that same French swimmer, Léon Marchand, at Arizona State University, Bowman, an American, is also officially coaching at these Olympics – for Team France. All because France allowed him to coach his American and foreign athletes on deck at the Games, contrary to the U.S. Hungary can also thank Bowman for coaching Hubert Kos to Olympic gold last week. Meanwhile, one of the top female swimmers of these games, Canadian Summer McIntosh, has been training in Florida with another American coach, Brent Arckey.

As American athletes struggle for Olympic dominance amid an increasingly level global sporting playing field, online critics have suggested that the American system should start serving Americans only – beginning with the NCAA college program that acts as an Olympic feeder and actively recruits and pays foreign athletes.

But sports has always been a model for successful globalization. The fact that some observers online have been spotted getting nervous about the comparative performance of their own citizens is proof that the whole world is being lifted up to a higher level. And not just by Americans.

Where would American gymnastics be today without foreigners? Simone Biles’ current coaches are from France, and previous generations of top American gymnasts benefited from the expertise of top coaches from former Soviet bloc countries.

Meanwhile, rugby, water polo and soccer players from around the world have been able to pursue full-time careers in their sport in Europe’s professional leagues, just as top ice hockey players from anywhere can make a living in North America’s National Hockey League.

The impact of this globalization runs deeper than just sports, with a transformative impact at the societal level. How do you think seeing Phelps jumping up and down, cheering for a French Olympian impacts the average French citizens’ view of Americans? Hard to think of a better advert for generosity. And Marchand winning Olympic and NCAA meets under an American coach can also shift the widely held perception that so many Americans have of the French spending most of their lives on vacation from their four-hour workweek, killing time between labor strikes and protests. The impact on French kids of seeing Marchand doing something amazing encourages them to step up in their own lives, too. Although many will revert to old habits when the novelty of the Games fades, a handful just might be motivated enough to continue putting in the work, building character and lifelong values that transcend sport.

Speaking of common values, any Canadian who has been to Russia knows how a conversation with any local about hockey can create an instant connection – a launch point for engagement and understanding in other realms.

When Portuguese soccer superstar, Cristiano Ronaldo, uprooted his entire family and moved to Saudi Arabia to play for Al-Nassr FC, he explained that he was interested in assisting the country with its development beyond the game itself (although surely the $200 million a year payday helped). He and his girlfriend, living together in Riyadh despite that being technically illegal under Saudi law, are now considered symbols of modernization in a strict Islamic country that is very slowly coming around to the idea of women driving or being able to get around without being accompanied by a man (albeit only for Islamic pilgrimages, at this point).

It’s not much yet, but it’s a start, a seed of awareness.

The goal of globalization is generally to elevate the level of play for everyone. So why does the concept work in sports and not in other areas? Sport at the highest level outright refuses to prioritize diversity over meritocracy. No one cares where you’re from or what color you are – just how you perform. High-level sports don’t dilute standards to meet ideological whims for diversity or inclusion provisions that risk making them less competitive. No one’s going to let a person of short stature play center on the U.S. national basketball team or someone who can barely master the doggy paddle take the anchor leg of the U.S. Olympic swimming relay. Those people may have their place – in other sports.

You’d think that politicians seeking to impose ideological limitations on economic and political entities at home would clue into the fact that it puts their country at a disadvantage in relation to others. Meritocracy isn’t inherently anti-diverse. The Olympics are proof, with every kind of representation imaginable.

There is, however, one thing that the sporting and political worlds have in common that hinders global success: sanctions. The fact that the Russians, historically top Olympic performers, were excluded from the Paris Games has only lowered the overall level of play. The same goes for economic sanctions that effectively protect one’s own interests from competitors under the guise of punishment. The increased protectionism that some Americans now seek from elite foreign athletes would only drag everyone down, including Americans – particularly if other countries followed suit – and in one of the only areas where global cooperation has led to unlimited growth to universal benefit.