I am a fan of the Olympic ideal. I see that ideal as this: once every four years, countries suspend their political, military, religious and cultural disputes for a couple of weeks, and instead send their own choice of athletes to compete against one another celebrating our common human excellence. Here are some implications of this idealistic concept:
None of this means that all sporting activities should be free from political involvement or rulings against racism or sexism. At World Championships and test matches and international meets of all sorts we can have rules excluding the competitors of ill-behaved countries. But not at the Olympics. For that brief period we set aside all our complaints and concerns about how other countries do things and simply engage with them precisely as they are.
I believe that, although idealistic, this concept of an Olympics would be politically feasible if a few key countries took the lead in promoting it. Sporting-based truces have been sustained even in modern warfare (e.g. the famous Christmas day football matches in the World War One trenches). It would also be desirable – that, just for a couple of weeks every four years, we set aside all our differences and celebrate human physical excellence, self-discipline, commitment, and the will to win. These are by no means all of human virtue. But they are virtues almost all of humanity can agree upon, share, and exalt.
* Lord Bates's three thousand mile walk from Greece to London in support of the Olympics Truce