The amateurism myth (part two)

Or how amateurism had nothing to do with Ancient Greece

De Coubertin would have liked us to believe that the amateur status of athletes, required by the Olympics, was directly inherited to us by the Ancient Greeks. Nothing is further from the truth. The participants to the ancient Olympics (and the other games, like Pythian, Isthmian, Nemean or Panathenaean) were definitely not amateur according to the deCoubertenian definition.

On the other hand I just laugh when I see the misguided etymological interpretation of the word "athlete", coming for "athlon", supposedly meaning the prize, and thus establishing a non-amateur origin. Let us put things straight. The word "αθλος" in ancient greek initially means a feat, a difficult accomplishment. The labours of Heracles are "οι άθλοι του Ηρακλέους". It evolved in order to mean contest and subsequently to the prize of said contest. So, for me, αθλητής is somebody who enters a contest. In less ancient greek the word for prize evolved to "έπαθλον", something given as reward for an "άθλος". And yes, there were material rewards for the ancient winners, not just the kotinos. (See my article "Before the olympic medals: the olive wreath" where I give further details).

Ancient wrestlers

In the Iliad, Homer gives a particularly detailed account of the funeral games organised in order to honour Patroclus and of the valuable prizes that Achilles had offered to the winners. The first Olympic Games came later, in the 7th century, although those were the first for which an account exists, some archaeologists believing that the Games had started a century of two earlier. The first recorded winner was Koroivos, a local athlete from the Olympia region, who won the stadion race in 776 B.C. (And since we are giving chronologies, the last recorded winner was Zopyros, a boxer from Athens, who won in 385 A.D., with emperor Theodosios banning the games in 393).

In order to participate in the Games an athlete had to fulfil three conditions: to be of pure Greek lineage, to have paid his vows to Zeus Olympios and be ceremonially free from pollution by manslaughter. All competitors at the Games were required to train for ten months and were required to spend one month of this period in residence in Olympia. This was already making the preparation impossible for somebody who had to work in order to make a living. But such was the prestige of the Games that the cities were ready to sustain financially the athletes. 

Prizes offered by the various games. (Notice the shield for the games of Argos).

Under the laws of Solon, a winner in Olympia from Athens would receive 500 drachmas (an enormous sum). Those who won at the other great Games were receiving 100 drachmas. Athenian winners were also receiving a free meal in the City Hall every day for the rest of their lives. So, while the wreath of the winner had no intrinsic value, the subsequent rewards were quite substantial.

To tell the truth, not everybody was happy with the excessive rewards of the athletes and some observers pointed out that the financial rewards of the Games were causing young Greek men to shirk their other studies to concentrate on athletics, resulting in these men becoming worse soldiers and scholars. And the attraction of the profit led to behaviour similar to the one observed today with rich cities trying to attract the best athletes by offering particularly rich prizes and in some cases even attempting to have them change allegiance and compete for them.

I have already written about the opulence of the Panathenaean Games. Victors there were awarded olive oil harvested from the sacred groves of Athena, presented in an amphora that held 30 to 40 litres. And we are not talking about just one amphora. The winner of the men’s stadion race was receiving 100 and there was even a prize for the second (20 amphoras). In the case of wrestling the prizes were 60 and 12 respectively. While it is not easy to estimate the value of this oil at the period of the Games it remains that, by any calculation, we are talking about a small fortune, and for just one victory.

Amphora from the Panathenaean Games

At some point even the major games started adding prizes to the winners wreath as in the case of the Pythian Games, in Delphi, in the 3rd century B.C. and to make things clear there was no rule, not even a social norm, that prevented Olympic athletes from participating in competitions that offered material prizes, even cash.

C. Mann, summarises perfectly the situation.

Coubertin and his supporters let the public believe that the idea of ‘gentlemen’s sport’ followed the ancient model. According to their view, ancient athletes during the so-called good times, which means from the origins of the Olympic Games to the time of Pindar, were ‘amateurs’ who traveled to Olympia out of love for sport and noble competition. Later on, greedy ‘professionals’ from the lower classes entered the scene, causing specialisation, over-competition, and corruption; as a consequence, aristocrats and ‘true sport’ left the Greek stadia contests. This decadence model was repeated time and again by IOC officials. Scholars also adopted this view: for many decades it was the communis opinio that professionalism had caused the decline of Greek athletics.

Well, the ancient greek Olympics survived for more than 1000 years. Will the modern ones even come close to such a longevity? I strongly doubt this.