I like sports ~ yes, even spectator sports, especially as I grow too old to participate as I used to ~ and I usually enjoy most of the Olympics.

The customary approach to network TV coverage of the Games in the US is not completely to my taste. I'll watch, because bad coverage is better than none at all, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

The network "suits" seem to think that their broadcasts need to appeal to a "general public" that is not particularly interested in or knowledgable about sports, so they invest hours in maudlin "human interest" pap when they could be showing us actual Olympic competition.

They also seem to think their viewers are xynophobic superpatriots who have no interest in witnessing great athletic feats by human beings from around the world, but are interested ONLY in watching Americans win. This precludes not only coverage of great international competitors, it also rules out showing us sports that the US is not expected to win ~ even when there are American participants falling short of medal-winning status but putting on a decent show nevertheless.

And to those of you who bemoan the advent of "professionalism" ~ Puh-leeeeeeze!

The nineteenth-century European cult of "amateurism," within which the modern Olympic movement developed, was the private reserve of the idle rich. Young adults able to live off the interest earned by their family fortunes needed something to do with their time, since they fancied themselves above actually working for a living, and so they developed amateur athletics.

Much of the early distaste for professional athletes stemmed from the fact that young athletes who could compete in sports ONLY if they were able to earn a living thereby were ipso facto members of the despised lower class, and often of the "wrong" ethnicities.

I would think that that competitors whose livelihood depends upon their competitive and athletic skills are those most likely to give us a good show: not only great physical skills, but also superior gamesmanship and a "never say die" approach that is always admirable and often provides high drama. But not to the 1890s aristocrats who founded the Olympics based upon their cult of amateurism, which really meant "only for true gentlemen, like us."

Since at least a half-century ago, the idea of amateurism in world-class internation sport has been a joke, anyway. In some sports ~ skiing is the best example ~ there were no skilled competitors who were not professionals, and so the rules were bent further for some events than for others. And also, of course, as several folks have mentioned, many nations groomed and trained full-time athletes for international competition by signing them up for the military assigned to positions that they never truly filled as they trained and practiced and competed in their respective sports on a full-time basis.

I'm glad that the obsolete, hypocritical, and completely inconsitent requirement for amateurism has finally found its way into the dustbin of history. At the Olympics, I want to see the best competing against the best, and in most sports, that means pros.