Are the Commonwealth Games second-rate?
Posted by AlexT - 14/12/09 at 03:12 pm
India is under pressure to deliver a world-class Commonwealth Games in 2010. Some commentators feel it is a waste of money, like Sharda Ugra, the Sports Editor of the respected news weekly ‘India Today’:
“The Commonwealth Games are the most redundant and peculiar of sporting events.”
Amid rumours that some of the worlds best athletes, like Jamaican sprint sensation Usain Bolt, will not be competing in Delhi, we recall American Olympic champion Michael Johnson’s reflection on the 2006 event:
Too many people try to put these championships on a par with the World Championships or the Olympics but they are not – never have been, never will be. Just ask the athletes, they know because they have to compete against the best in the world. I think that truth gets lost on the British media, the fans and the athletes themselves because they hardly compete outside of their country. But to have a presence on the international stage you have to compete against the best in the world. When a British – or Australian for that matter – athlete does well, people want to make it like an Olympic or World medal but it is just not the same level.
Will you watch the Commonwealth Games if stars like Usain Bolt are not present? Or is giving smaller nations a chance to take the limelight a good thing?
Category : Sport, The Commonwealth's Relevance
Stay Updated : 
RSS 2.0 feed.
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:11 pm
I think the very fact that countries like India get a chance to host a major sporting event is a good thing; in the corrupt and overly political world of the IOC, it’s unlikely they will get the chance to host the Olympics in the near future, and hosting such events are bound to have positive consequences for Indian tourism and local employment prospects.
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
The Commonwealth Games are marvelous. No bother with drug cheating Americans.
December 2nd, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Er, wasn’t Ben Johnson a Jamaican-born Canadian? I’m not sure drug-cheating is a uniquely non-Commonwealth feature…
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:06 am
The Commonwealth Games were always about friendly sports competition and I feel that actually puts them above the Olympics and other international sporting events that are simply all about winning. Sure the very word “competition” means there will be winners and losers, but the Commonwealth Games focus on friendly participation – probably stemming from the old and maybe odd British value on amateurism (that isn’t an insult, by the way) – the not the winning but taking part, non-political values. These games are about building bridges (excuse the term) between Commonwealth nations regardless of position on the world stage. If it came down to cutting back on global sporting events, the Commonwealth Games should be enshrined as an example to follow, so bye bye Olympics!
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:44 pm
I object to the British having four teams in the Commonwealth Games while everybody else only gets one. There should be one Great Britain team in the Commonwealth Games – same as the Olympics, or else it just is not fair.
December 4th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
James: the reason that you get the four countries in the UK competing separately in the Commonwealth Games is precisely to make it more fair. There are a lot of dependent territories (e.g. Cook Islands) that take part in the Commonwealth Games on their own (I think it’s 71 nations in total), not as part of the UK, Australia, New Zealand etc. It’s designed to be the ‘friendly’ games so they can take part – if the UK participated as one big whole it would take away these much-relished opportunities.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Let’s not forget that Netball gets a look in at the Commonwealth Games. Given how many women play it across the world it has been ignored by the Olympics basically because the Americans don’t play. Seems to me there is still a place for the Games.
December 20th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
It is an imperative move for a large and densely populated country like India to host the Commonwealth Games looking at the benefits of hosting such World Class Sports events.
Yes there would be economic gains such as the visiting tourist during the Games and no doubt this will enhance foreign currency gains and a considerable volume of trade activities would take place.
But looking at the other side of it – The organizing bit! The degree of monopoly by the British as Ex Colonial masters should be objectively look into to benefit all state parties within the Commonwealth.
January 5th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
It seems that quite a few English athletes are not going to be travelling to New Delhi, and are focusing instead on the Olynmpics 2012… Does this back up the argument that they are a rather overlooked sporting event?
Read the full article here: http://in.news.yahoo.com/48/20091224/1252/tsp-english-athletes-to-miss-cwg-10-repo.html
January 11th, 2010 at 9:35 am
The great man himself – Usain Bolt – now appears to be wavering about not going to the Commonwealth Games in New Delhi. Apparently the Commonwealth Games aren’t important enough on the international sporting calendar to muck up training for other events. A sad indictment of their falling place on the world stage?
http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/news-20796–8-8–.html
October 11th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
i agree that commonwealth games r not a wastage of money but it provides india an opportunity 2 enhance contacts wid other contries and let everyone knew its importance
October 11th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
cw games are not a wastage of money