Restructuring the Summer Olympics

Which sports should stay, which should go?

Is there anyone out there who would argue against the point that the Summer Olympic Games are too large? Hello? The Games have been growing faster than green grass after a summer rain for more than a decade now, and at last comes the news that the International Olympic Committee is considering the removal of some of the 28 sports on the program. (Sadly, these sports will be replaced; they never learn.)

At IOC meetings this week in Lausanne, it was announced that baseball, softball and modern pentathlon are in danger of being taken out of the Games. Greco-Roman or freestyle wrestling might be next on the endangered list, or racewalking. Rugby and golf could be added to replace them.

But for a minute, forget the individual sports in question. Think about the Games in general. They're huge. So huge that very few cities in the world can successfully host the Summer Olympics, because of the need for multiple, eight-figure facilities and housing for more than 10,000 competitors. Even those cities that can host the Games must do so by spreading them over a geographic area the size of Vermont. (Sydney did a marvelous job with its Olympic Park, which hosted dozens of events, but that required the movement of hundreds of thousands of spectators a day. To achieve this, volunteers simply dialed down the security -- you could enter Sydney Olympic Park without tickets, for example -- which will not happen again in our lifetimes.)

Sports are added to the Games for two reasons:

1) To help the sport.

2) To help the Games.

That means: A sport that gains Olympus generally is eligible for far more support (read: money) than one that it not. That also means: The IOC might perceive basketball with NBA stars or a hot, young sport like triathlon as benefitting the Games. So it's give-and-take and intensely political.

If I were the Olympic czar, I would apply three standards in evaluating sports for inclusion in the Games.

1) The highest achievement in the sport is an Olympic gold medal. (Track yes, basketball no.)

2) The sport is so traditionally attached to the Games as to be innately Olympian. (Fencing yes, tennis no.)

3) The sport is played by many countries in the world. (Swimming yes, badminton no.)

I would consider tossing out any sport which is simply dying or for which the Olympics are mere diversion, tradition be damned.

By these standards, here are some of my ideas: