Hacker News Reader

Comment by larrik | Hacker News Reader

The Olympics were supposed to be for amateurs only, not professional athletes. This is a distinction that disappeared primarily when the Soviets made it nonsensical (as Communism meant a disconnect with what you did and why you were paid), and I remember into the 90's it was discussed when the NBA "Dream Team" was formed for the Olympics.

Why it was so important they be amateurs, I couldn't tell you.

View on HN

My understanding is that it was classism. That is, only the "right" people could dedicate themselves to becoming a world-class athlete without any financial support, and they didn't want to complete with the "wrong" people. I think you can see similar in how "prize fight" boxing was initially looked down upon as a corruption of gentlemanly dueling.

(Can't find sources for this right now, sorry. And I'm not even positive I am remembering it correctly. So perhaps take my response with a grain of salt.)

I've read articles to this affect as well.

I have social clubs near me that start at 45,000 a year to join. (You're required to spend a lot of money). Men only up until somewhat recently.

Basically golf/tennis and dining for rich folks or people they are trying to impress. Got invited a lot when I would work directly with fortune 100 CEO's. Was both fun and educational.

Interesting to meet board members of companies I loved / hated.

Classicism. It was really so that the upper-classes could keep the working classes out of it. They had their own money, so they could be amateurs and not make money from competition. Where as regular people needed to also make money in sports to just survive.

This seems like the most simple answer where money, power and privilege continue to take every step necessary to restrict leakage.

Is there research that supports this, though? Or even "amateur" analysis of these times and the players and patterns of behavior that indicate rule-making in the IOC with this aim?

There’s a parallel with unpaid internships at elite institutions. Who can afford an unpaid internship?

This has been discussed in startupland as well.

The idea being: founders often come from fairly wealthy circumstances or support structures.

That way, if they fail they can be rescued (~can still move in with mom or dad).

And thus, the wealthy are most at liberty to take risks offering potentially outsized returns without paying the price others might.

This is a key reason why I strongly believe that UBI would be a massive boon to entrepreneurship. If everyone had that sort of safety net, we'd see a lot more startups and a lot more upward socioeconomic mobility.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com