No Union Flag on athletics kits

[Rhiannon]

The main reason to have an identifiable team kit at international competition is ease of identification for spectators.

[jeremyp]

The World Championship is a team competition. 

[Rhiannon]

Yes, spectators should be able to identify their team by the kit they wear, hence my use of the expression 'identifiable team kit'. Of course the GB team could wear neon yellow as their team kit and still be the GB team.

[Udayana]

Ah I see, it's all to encourage Hooray Henry patriotism and national rivalry!

[Rhiannon]

Well, in a sense. I think the WC bases its image on the Olympics, which is pretty much about nationalism at the elite level. But also it used to be an amateur sport, and state funding was pretty essential for athletics to function at international level.

But thinking about this now, and looking at the IAAF website with its endorsement of great philanthropic bodies such as a Chinese oil and gas giant, coupled with countries such as Qatar being allowed to 'buy' themselves champions from elsewhere, the whole thing's pretty much a joke. Maybe in the same way that in cycling Team Sky are a British team but not the GB team, and in F1 Lotus are British and Lewis Hamiltion is British but neither represents GB as such, athletics needs to move on and have Team Nike, Team Coco Cola, Team Amazon. After all, many elite athletes train away from their home country in centres sponsored by people like Nike. I'm not sure how it would translate for the Olympics, but just as Steve Ovett was behind the times in his rant against athletes being paid, so maybe Rutherford and others are old school in terms of the importance that they attach to the Union Flag and national representation.

[Sassy]

Do you think our athletes are just not good enough or there are prejudices against them.
So they think they might let them win.

I think that if they are no representing the GB then GB should not support the athletes or provide sponsorship for them.

If it is nothing to do with GB then let them pay for their own training and provide their own sponsorship. No tax relief for companies who do provide the sponsorship has to come out of their pockets...

Athletes who are not representing GB in a GB event should not be allowed to compete.

Well what did they expect... If truth is told...but for GB and the people and companies of GB where would the Athlete be.

[Sebastian Toe]

He's not saying he can't give his best. He's saying he wants to display that he's there for his country.

I think he is actually if his quotes are to be believed:

'Rutherford insists the union jack flag on his vest has always been a motivation for his best performances.'

'Rutherford says the flag on his vest during London 2012 helped inspire his gold medal performance.'

Couldn't he just get his mum to sew on a wee union jack onto his vest before he goes? 

[ProfessorDavey]

Well, in a sense. I think the WC bases its image on the Olympics, which is pretty much about nationalism at the elite level. But also it used to be an amateur sport, and state funding was pretty essential for athletics to function at international level.

But thinking about this now, and looking at the IAAF website with its endorsement of great philanthropic bodies such as a Chinese oil and gas giant, coupled with countries such as Qatar being allowed to 'buy' themselves champions from elsewhere, the whole thing's pretty much a joke. Maybe in the same way that in cycling Team Sky are a British team but not the GB team, and in F1 Lotus are British and Lewis Hamiltion is British but neither represents GB as such, athletics needs to move on and have Team Nike, Team Coco Cola, Team Amazon. After all, many elite athletes train away from their home country in centres sponsored by people like Nike. I'm not sure how it would translate for the Olympics, but just as Steve Ovett was behind the times in his rant against athletes being paid, so maybe Rutherford and others are old school in terms of the importance that they attach to the Union Flag and national representation.

But despite Jeremy P's post that the World Championship is a team event, I really struggle with that in track and field athletics.

These are individual sports - sure you can bundle up all the individual results and pretend it is a team sport, but it isn't really. And that is a bit different in cycling where the team members actively support each other to ensure one of them wins during the actual sporting competition. That isn't the case in athletics.

I I doubt that even Rutherford sees this as a genuine team sport. In the Olympics he won gold, the 'team' came third (I think because again the Olympics isn't a team competition). Would he have preferred to have won an individual bronze (or no medal at all) if the team had come come top (of course not). In a genuine team event the most important thing for the individual is for the team to win - that's how the individual wins. You cannot imagine a top footballer preferring to score in a losing team in the world cup final, rather than not scoring but being in the winning team.

[ProfessorDavey]

The World Championship is a team competition.

Really - I thought it was a series of individual events with the competitors competing under the banner of their country.

So if it is a team competition, which team won in 2013? Wikipedia doesn't seem very clear, although it is clear who won all the individual events.

[jeremyp]

The World Championship is a team competition.

Really - I thought it was a series of individual events with the competitors competing under the banner of their country.

So if it is a team competition, which team won in 2013? Wikipedia doesn't seem very clear, although it is clear who won all the individual events.

Isn't there a medals table and a points system or something?  Maybe I'm confusing it with the European Championships.

[Rhiannon]

He's not saying he can't give his best. He's saying he wants to display that he's there for his country.

I think he is actually if his quotes are to be believed:

'Rutherford insists the union jack flag on his vest has always been a motivation for his best performances.'

'Rutherford says the flag on his vest during London 2012 helped inspire his gold medal performance.'

Couldn't he just get his mum to sew on a wee union jack onto his vest before he goes? 

Felt tip pen. It's much quicker.

[Rhiannon]

Well, in a sense. I think the WC bases its image on the Olympics, which is pretty much about nationalism at the elite level. But also it used to be an amateur sport, and state funding was pretty essential for athletics to function at international level.

But thinking about this now, and looking at the IAAF website with its endorsement of great philanthropic bodies such as a Chinese oil and gas giant, coupled with countries such as Qatar being allowed to 'buy' themselves champions from elsewhere, the whole thing's pretty much a joke. Maybe in the same way that in cycling Team Sky are a British team but not the GB team, and in F1 Lotus are British and Lewis Hamiltion is British but neither represents GB as such, athletics needs to move on and have Team Nike, Team Coco Cola, Team Amazon. After all, many elite athletes train away from their home country in centres sponsored by people like Nike. I'm not sure how it would translate for the Olympics, but just as Steve Ovett was behind the times in his rant against athletes being paid, so maybe Rutherford and others are old school in terms of the importance that they attach to the Union Flag and national representation.

But despite Jeremy P's post that the World Championship is a team event, I really struggle with that in track and field athletics.

These are individual sports - sure you can bundle up all the individual results and pretend it is a team sport, but it isn't really. And that is a bit different in cycling where the team members actively support each other to ensure one of them wins during the actual sporting competition. That isn't the case in athletics.

I I doubt that even Rutherford sees this as a genuine team sport. In the Olympics he won gold, the 'team' came third (I think because again the Olympics isn't a team competition). Would he have preferred to have won an individual bronze (or no medal at all) if the team had come come top (of course not). In a genuine team event the most important thing for the individual is for the team to win - that's how the individual wins. You cannot imagine a top footballer preferring to score in a losing team in the world cup final, rather than not scoring but being in the winning team.

I suppose we have to accept that 'team' means different things to different sports. No athlete will be required to take one for the team like Ole Gunner Solskjaer did in getting sent off after fouling Rob Lee. But the GB athletes are there to support each other - Martyn Rooney is team captain - and apparently view themselves as competing for their country as well as themselves.

[Nearly Sane]

I suppose there's a sort of Wittgensteinian aspect to the meaning of ream here - it's not exactly black and white about what a team is. In the Prof's use, it's effectively a single competition with a team playing together. As noted in that sense athletics can rarely be seen as such, though a relay would qualify. The TEAM GB thing is relatively new and previously for the Olympics or athletics competations we would have been more likely to refer to a squad.


There are examples of individual sports with team competations e.g. the Davis Cup, and the Ryder Cup, and in both of these I would suggest the individuals are far more focussed on the team result than their individual performance. There is a team championship in Eurpean athletics with points being awarded on the basis of all positions and that also has promotion and relegation. Language is fluid, and I think the branding of TEAM GB and the Olympics have pushed the wider definition of team into more general parlance here.

[Rhiannon]

The World Championship is a team competition.

Really - I thought it was a series of individual events with the competitors competing under the banner of their country.

So if it is a team competition, which team won in 2013? Wikipedia doesn't seem very clear, although it is clear who won all the individual events.

Isn't there a medals table and a points system or something?  Maybe I'm confusing it with the European Championships.

There's a medal table. You can find past ones on the IAAF website.

There was/is also a competition held over a weekend that works on points but for the life of me I can't think what it was called. There was a men's competition and a women's in Europe, the countries in the first two or three places then went onto the world finals which had the same format. I don't know if it even happens any more, it's been so long since I really watched athletics.

[Rhiannon]

This is what I remember.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Cup_(athletics)

And this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAAF_World_Cup_in_Athletics

The European Cup is now this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Team_Championships

which is what NS referred to.

[ProfessorDavey]

The World Championship is a team competition.

Really - I thought it was a series of individual events with the competitors competing under the banner of their country.

So if it is a team competition, which team won in 2013? Wikipedia doesn't seem very clear, although it is clear who won all the individual events.

Isn't there a medals table and a points system or something?  Maybe I'm confusing it with the European Championships.

Yes there is - but it isn't actually clear which of various ways of putting the individual results together constitutes 'winning'.

So is it most golds (often used in the media), most medals or IAAF points which gives points for the top 8 in each competition. In 2013 either Russia or USA 'won' depending on which approach you use.

Point is that if you cannot definitively say which 'team' won, then I don't think think it really is a team competition at all.

And even if it is the 'team' result certainly plays second fiddle to the individual results.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well, in a sense. I think the WC bases its image on the Olympics, which is pretty much about nationalism at the elite level. But also it used to be an amateur sport, and state funding was pretty essential for athletics to function at international level.

But thinking about this now, and looking at the IAAF website with its endorsement of great philanthropic bodies such as a Chinese oil and gas giant, coupled with countries such as Qatar being allowed to 'buy' themselves champions from elsewhere, the whole thing's pretty much a joke. Maybe in the same way that in cycling Team Sky are a British team but not the GB team, and in F1 Lotus are British and Lewis Hamiltion is British but neither represents GB as such, athletics needs to move on and have Team Nike, Team Coco Cola, Team Amazon. After all, many elite athletes train away from their home country in centres sponsored by people like Nike. I'm not sure how it would translate for the Olympics, but just as Steve Ovett was behind the times in his rant against athletes being paid, so maybe Rutherford and others are old school in terms of the importance that they attach to the Union Flag and national representation.

But despite Jeremy P's post that the World Championship is a team event, I really struggle with that in track and field athletics.

These are individual sports - sure you can bundle up all the individual results and pretend it is a team sport, but it isn't really. And that is a bit different in cycling where the team members actively support each other to ensure one of them wins during the actual sporting competition. That isn't the case in athletics.

I I doubt that even Rutherford sees this as a genuine team sport. In the Olympics he won gold, the 'team' came third (I think because again the Olympics isn't a team competition). Would he have preferred to have won an individual bronze (or no medal at all) if the team had come come top (of course not). In a genuine team event the most important thing for the individual is for the team to win - that's how the individual wins. You cannot imagine a top footballer preferring to score in a losing team in the world cup final, rather than not scoring but being in the winning team.

I suppose we have to accept that 'team' means different things to different sports. No athlete will be required to take one for the team like Ole Gunner Solskjaer did in getting sent off after fouling Rob Lee. But the GB athletes are there to support each other - Martyn Rooney is team captain - and apparently view themselves as competing for their country as well as themselves.

You can compete for your country in an individual sport without necessary being part of a team.

But surely to be a team sport the first requirement is that the individuals in the team compete against the other team, not members of their own team. This isn't the case in athletics.

Just as an example in the 100m final of the last athletics world championship there were 4 members of the same team (Jamaica) directly competing against each other. They weren't acting as team members, trying to ensure the 'team' won - nope each one of them was competing directly against each other.

[Rhiannon]

What is Martyn Rooney the team captain of then?

[ProfessorDavey]

What is Martyn Rooney the team captain of then?

I'm not saying that they try to create the appearance of a team but that doesn't really mean that there is a team competition, rather than a way to aggregate the results of individual competitions (in which team members compete against each other) to engineer a team result.

Wiki defines a team sport as:

'A team sport includes any sport which involves players working together towards a shared objective.'

That seems to be a reasonable definition to me. So in what way do the 4 Jamaican team members in the 100m final of the last world championship meet this definition? They don't.

Are they working together - nope. Do they have a shared objective - nope, I think each one of them had an individual (and mutually incompatible) objective to win gold for themselves. Sure there might be a secondary objective that if you didn't win you'd prefer one of your team-mates to do so, but that really is very, very secondary.

I cannot see how you can have a team event if individual team members are competing against each other in exactly the same manner as they are with others who are nominally in opposing teams. And when winning is an individual activity.

[Rhiannon]

Then you need to tell British Athletics they've got it wrong.

[ProfessorDavey]

Then you need to tell British Athletics they've got it wrong.

Why - it's up to them if they want to try to define an individual sport as a team sport. And it is up to me to disagree that athletics genuinely classifies as a team sport.

You haven't really addressed my point about individuals competing against their own 'team' members in this supposed 'team' competition. In a team sport you work together in competition against the opposing team or teams, you don't compete against your fellow team members in exactly the same manner that you do against opposition team members.

[Rhiannon]

Because it's not something I'm especially fussed about. If they want to call themselves 'Team GB' or whatever they can. If you think that they aren't a team then you can do that too.

[ProfessorDavey]

Because it's not something I'm especially fussed about. If they want to call themselves 'Team GB' or whatever they can. If you think that they aren't a team then you can do that too.

Indeed - I'm not that bothered either - they can call themselves what they want, but that doesn't mean it is really a team sport.

Interesting how few people here even understand how the 'team' element of the competitions even works, yet we'd probably have a good knowledge of who won key athletics events. I think that rather confirms that most people see athletics as a series of individual events won by individual athletes. The only exceptions of course are the relays.

[Rhiannon]

I don't know how swimming competitions work - do they have a points element?

Athletics clearly isn't a team sport but it does have team competitions; but it's a moot point whether there is a team element to the major championships. I suppose our national squad are positioning themselves as a 'team' to promote cohesion and mutual support between athletes. And of course during the Olympics Team GB was a marvellous marketing tool.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't know how swimming competitions work - do they have a points element?

Athletics clearly isn't a team sport but it does have team competitions; but it's a moot point whether there is a team element to the major championships. I suppose our national squad are positioning themselves as a 'team' to promote cohesion and mutual support between athletes. And of course during the Olympics Team GB was a marvellous marketing tool.

I think that is all true, but ultimately it comes down to individuals and individual competition.

I wonder whether the entire 'team' that wins the 'team' competition all get gold medals? I've no idea and that we don't know tells us that it isn't that important. In football for instance we see the whole squad in the world cup winning team getting winners medals, whether they played or not because it is a team game. Will an athlete in the GB team who went out in the heats of the 100m get a bronze medal if the overall team finishes 3rd. No idea but I've never heard of this happening.