U.S. Olympic teams headed to Beijing and beyond may be downsized and built mainly with bankable stars that give America its best crack at leading the gold count, predict the leaders of some Olympic sports.
The move toward U.S. squads that are thin on exotic longshots yet thick with glamour athletes seems likely under a new U.S. Olympic Committee plan to reward medal-producing sports with bucks while potentially cutting money for perennial losers, according to some sports federation bosses.
“The writing on the wall indicates that the teams will be smaller and comprised of just those who have an opportunity to compete well,” said Wes Barnett, head of USA weight lifting.
Team USA – which sent 537 athletes to Athens – may shrink by more than 100 athletes in future Summer Games, forecasts Tyrone Lockhart, head of USA Boxing.
“In the past, the USOC has tried to be all things to all people. They’ve said, ‘We’ll send a full team (to the Olympics) and see what sticks,”‘ Lockhart said. “Now they’ve looked around to see what makes the best teams. The countries that have made strides in medal totals are not funding full teams.”
Talk of a leaner American squad – and one representing fewer sports – emerged two weeks ago when USOC chairman Peter Ueberroth revealed the organization will stop writing $250,000 annual checks to each sport’s national governing body. Instead, the NGBs must earn that money by operating efficiently and, of course, by winning.
For smaller sports, such as team handball, USOC money supplies up to 70 percent of an annual budget used to hone athletes. Even a mid-level sport, such as weight lifting, needs the USOC’s help to meet 40 percent of its budget, Barnett said.
Under the new, performance-based budget, some Olympic sports could lose all of that money, said Steve Roush, the USOC’s chief of sport performance. “The possibility does exist,” Roush said.
What’s more, some NGB leaders worry that any dip in USOC dollars will leave less to invest in younger athletes, depleting talent pipelines for future Games.
USOC officials, however, say they still aim to field full teams. By law, any athlete who qualifies for the Olympics earns the right to represent America, Roush said.
“Now, would a reduction in funding for a sport decrease (an athlete’s) likelihood of qualification? I would hope that anyone we have who is currently qualifying would not be someone who stands to be affected in some severe way,” Roush said.
USOC leaders say their new payment plan replaces an environment of entitlement in which some NGBs grew complacent while waiting for yearly handouts.
“Make no mistake,” Roush said, “our focus will be on the elite-level athlete because the true measure (of success), the top priority and top evaluative tool, is medals won at each of the Olympic Games.”
But one Olympian who didn’t grab his first medal until his sixth year of competition questions whether he would have thrived under the USOC’s new system.
“Athletes start with nothing,” said Rulon Gardner, who earned wrestling gold at the Sydney Games in 2000, then won a bronze medal in Athens before retiring.
Most young athletes, Gardner said, rely on their NGBs to groom them and support them until the day they can win consistently and lure sponsors.
“You have to stay loyal and true to your NGBs. You can’t pull funding overnight,” Gardner said. “If we didn’t send a team (to Sydney) that had athletes of every age range and ability, I wouldn’t have been able to come out and win the medal like I did.”
Numbers game
The heads of some Olympic sports predict that the overall size of Team USA – already on the decline over the past three Summer Games – will shrink further under a new USOC funding policy.
Year | Site | Athletes
1996 Atlanta — 667
2000 Sydney — 602
2004 Athens — 537
(Source: U.S. Olympic Committee)
Staff writer Bill Briggs can be reached at 303-820-1720 or bbriggs@denverpost.com.
