CHARLES BANNERMAN: High level sporting competition is far too precious to expose to the destructive forces of worldwide nationalism
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
THE Commonwealth Games beginning in Birmingham on Thursday make this a good time to ask what the Commonwealth and international sport are all about.
Apart from a handful of its 56 members, the Commonwealth is an association of former parts of the British Empire.
The inaugural sports gathering in 1930 was called the British Empire Games but, as Imperial demise progressed, the word Commonwealth was introduced in 1958, Empire dropped in 1970 and
British discarded in 1978 to leave the Commonwealth Games.
It does seem curious that so many now independent territories, allegedly oppressed for so long by the evil British Empire, should voluntarily stick together as a group which has, at its centre, Great Britain and its monarch.
Politically, I can’t actually see much point in the Commonwealth, especially if there’s any residual notion of red paint on a world map, and with the dissolution of Empire now history, I see no particular leadership role for Britain in this partly anachronistic organisation.
However, there’s no doubt that any voluntary and benevolent association of over 50 nations must be a force for good in the world.
What really mystifies me is that some more advanced Commonwealth countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada still not only retain the Queen as their head of state, but she even appoints Governors General.
These are people with powers to perform pretty extreme acts like sacking governments and ministers, as happened in Australia in 1975, but representing someone in a palace up to half a world away. This is quite astonishing in a modern democracy, but it’s for the people of these countries to change it.
In sporting terms, the Commonwealth Games are short of Olympics or World Championships, but still a significant step above basic international competition. That, I believe, is the Games’ main strength – offering this intermediate level which is especially valued by Commonwealth team members unlikely to make the Olympics.
I think it’s also sensible to split the UK into its four constituent parts to help avoid overwhelming many of the other teams, some of them quite tiny. In fact I’d go further and suggest that England, Australia and possibly Scotland could be further subdivided into regions to equalise competition.
Already, I can hear offended howls about medal tables and national pride, but I see disposing of some of this stuff as a further benefit. Because, despite having coached a number of Scotland and Great Britain international athletes, including three at Commonwealth Games, I don’t actually believe in international sports competition as such.
What I do believe in passionately is competition above club and national levels, but unfortunately the only vehicle at the next stage up is between nations.
I really wish that there was an alternative because international sport carries with it all the trappings of unsavoury, flag waving nationalism. I find people winning titles and immediately wrapping themselves in national flags thoroughly distasteful.
National interest imposes on sport all manner of undesirable baggage from the inanities of “Anyone But England” and “we won the World Cup in 1966” to institutionalised drugs abuse in pursuit of national prestige.
The realisation of high level sporting competition is a precious objective, and far too precious to expose to the destructive forces of worldwide nationalism. Sport is about performing, not parochial national interest.
