In the summer of 2016 the world witnessed a show of talent as 11,544 athletes from over 200 nations took to the stage and showcased what they had been dedicatedly working towards over the last four years. It was a fight for not only personal achievement and glory in the hopes of winning gold, but also a reflection of the talent nations from around the world were breeding and nurturing which was displayed on the country’s medal table. However, once again the Olympic values were undermined and hundreds and thousands of spectators were left baffled when they witnessed record-breaking gold medal performances from some very unlikely countries. It resulted in the all too familiar scenario of seeing if Kenya’s Kenyan runners were faster than the Kenyans running for other countries. Except this time it wasn’t just Kenya involved in the latest transfer of allegiance cases.
The recent scandal of the Olympics involved many athletes questionably changing their allegiance to compete for smaller nations because they would not of been able to make their own Olympic team. Such competitors seeked to switch the country they internationally represented because they felt the depth of talent in their own country was too strong to contend with in order to compete at the most elite competitions. Aisha Praught, a steeplechase runner from the USA, switched her sporting allegiance to the tropical island of Jamaica. The Caribbean island is home to household names in the sprinting sphere, however is not renowned for its distance runners. Jamaica had no elite athletes to contend in the 3000m steeplechase so Praught’s decision to apply for a dual citizenship (by the virtue of having a Jamaican father) meant she would automatically qualify to compete in Rio in the black, green and gold colours – an opportunity she would not have received had she continued to run under the stars and stripes. This type of action displayed doesn’t demonstrate the kind of attributes an Olympic athlete should possess. It doesn’t exhibit perseverance or resilience. Praught along with many other athletes have found a loophole in the system and are taking the easy route to success no matter how contentious in relation to ethics. The current rules for athletics stands as athletes are allowed to compete for another country after sitting out a period of 12 months once there is no objection from their original Federation. If there is an objection, the athletes would then need to wait for three years before representing their new country (IAAF rule 5.4). I strongly believe that the rules need to be adjusted in order to stop unnecessary transfer of athletes.
Big cash bonuses given to medal winners should be stopped to prevent countries from poaching promising talent from other nations. Some countries are widely known to reward athletes with lucrative bonuses for bringing home a medal while others won’t proffer anything at all except for a pat on the back. Financial gain can be a massive contributing factor in transfer of allegiance cases. For example, 3000m steeplechase Rio gold medalist Ruth Jebet was born in Kenya but made the decision to race for Bahrain in the most recent Olympics. Jebet claimed she changed her allegiance to the small Gulf island after being offered alluring bonuses. These benefits included Sh52 million (Kenyan shillings) by the Bahraini government for her achievement as opposed to the Sh1 million she would have been paid had she won gold for Kenya. Transfer cases like these have been faced with mockery from fans as they question the link between the athlete and the country they are now competing for. The Bahraini government argue that they are establishing role models wearing the colours of their country on the international stage which will encourage future generations to reach higher standards in their sport. However, is it just a clever way of disguising something which is morally questionable and goes against the spirit of the games? Why not use home-grown talent who are products of the system that athletes of that nation will actually go through to inspire the next generation instead of using expatriates? The current system allows poaching to occur. The consequences of this for the future of sport means the development of athleticism will not be nurtured in certain areas of the globe, denying many promising stars of the future the opportunity to shine through. Upcoming athletes will be made to feel insubstantial as their state will just buy somebody who is better, faster and stronger than them to ensure they will secure gold. This is unfair. This must change. Amendments to the rules have to be made.
I also believe that it is the responsibility of home federations to send more athletes to the Olympic Games who meet the qualifying standard. For example Alison Leonard, British 800m runner, missed out on traveling to Rio for the Games after finishing outside of the top two during the British Olympic trials. She came within 0.3 seconds of automatically qualifying for the team. Although she met the qualifying standard set by the IAAF and UKA, she wasn’t considered to be a medal contender so wasn’t granted that 3rd slot available on Team GB and instead it was left vacant. I strongly believe countries should be filling all available slots whether athletes are considered to be capable of making the final of their event or not. Leaving those spaces empty is an insult to the efforts of the driven athletes who are committed and work tirelessly in an attempt to make it to the top of their sport, often without the aid of funding. This can leave many looking for other reprehensible ways of fulfilling their ambition.
It is imperative that the current rules are tightened. There should be criteria set in place that athletes have to meet before they are granted transfer of allegiance. This is crucial. If a sturdier, more robust framework was in place, the elemental principles of the Games could be maintained. I would suggest the criteria should include; athletes have to prove that they are not receiving enough support from their home federation and that athletes have to show a significant dedication to the country they are transferring to. For example Andrew Fisher who switched his allegiance to Bahrain continues to live and train on Jamaica and has only ever visited Bahrain once. I do not believe this should be considered as ‘commitment’ to his new country. Finally once you have competed internationally at a senior level for a country you cannot change your allegiance unless you successfully meet the criteria, a belief shared by Lord Coe, president of the IAAF. With these amendments the Olympics will not be tarnished by unjust amounts of transfer cases and we will see greater fairness within sport.
In the Olympic charter it states “the Olympics are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries”. However, this is simply not the case. Yes, ultimately athletes compete against each other, nevertheless they compete under the symbols of different flags. One country’s team versus a team made up of athletes from another country.
The Olympics has the power to unite a nation together to support people who are incredibly talented and are awe-inspiring at what they do. We should embrace this unique and rare quality of the Games. To ensure we do not lose this power to connect people we must protect it. The only way we are able to do that is by changing the rules regarding transfer of allegiance.