Scorecard

Sydney, Slimly

No one was more delighted by the International Olympic Committee's choice of Sydney over Beijing to host the Olympics in 2000 than those members of the U.S. Congress who had sought to keep the Games out of China because of the People's Republic's violations of human rights. Senator Bill Bradley, Democrat of New Jersey, said, "This is a good day for those who are struggling for freedom in China and a proud day for the Olympic movement." Representative Ben Gilman, Republican of New York, called the choice of Sydney a "major victory for human rights the world over."

However, considerations of freedom and human rights had precious little to do with last week's IOC balloting in Monaco. Despite China's abysmal treatment of political dissidents, Beijing led Sydney and the three other bidding cities—Berlin, Istanbul and Manchester—through three rounds of voting. The fourth and final ballot, by which time Istanbul, Berlin and Manchester had, in that order, been eliminated, produced a razor-thin 45-43 victory for Sydney.

Working in favor of Sydney were its impressive Olympic preparations and flawlessly presented bid; the potentially huge marketing opportunities in China for Olympic-related enterprises made Beijing attractive. While it is true that Australia promises greater political stability than China, Beijing's candidacy most likely was hurt less by the opposition of the U.S. Congress than by a single Chinese official's ill-considered reaction to that opposition. Less than a week before the vote, Zhang Baifa, Beijing's executive deputy mayor and head of its bid committee, warned that China might boycott the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta as "revenge" for "meddling" by U.S. politicians. Other Chinese officials quickly called Zhang's threat "an erroneous interpretation" and said there would be no boycott, but Zhang's remarks may have proved fatal to Beijing, possibly causing one or two IOC votes to shift to Sydney. With a group as self-centered as the IOC, one suspects that the hint of an Olympic boycott carried greater weight than issues of freedom and human rights.

Not So Fab

Nike officials issued a mea culpa last week after it became known that the eligibility of three dozen of the U.S.'s best high school basketball players was jeopardized by their participation in the Nike Town Fab 40 Shootout on Sept. 11 and 12. "We dropped the ball on this one," said Nike's Keith Peters, and that's putting it mildly. The kids played in two games, and Nike showered each of them with plane tickets, hotel lodging, $350 worth of shoes and clothes, and $100 gift certificates.

Unfathomably, Nike didn't bother to clear any of this with the National Federation of State High School Associations or, except in one case, the various state athletic bodies, all of which have rules limiting the favors athletes can receive and the games in which they can play. The Minnesota State High School Athletic Association allowed Sam Jacobson, a 6'5" senior swingman from Cottage Grove High, to attend the event, but only after Jacobson had insisted that Nike seek such clearance. Another player who was more on the ball than Nike was Pete Lisicky, a 6'4" senior guard from Whitehall (Pa.) High. He cleared his participation with Penn State, the college to which he has committed, as well as with his high school coach, but, bureaucracy being what it is, Pete still has to answer to Pennsylvania officials on Oct. 6.

The fact that the high school players put their trust in a supposedly savvy corporation like Nike may ultimately spare them from suspension. But the episode raises questions about the efforts of sneaker companies—not just Nike—to sink their hooks into young athletes. Ed Sparks, executive secretary of the Maryland Secondary School Athletic Association, called Nike's actions "a form of child abuse," and while that is hyperbolic, Nike is guilty of arrogance in not having checked eligibility rules before the Fab 40 Shoootout. In Nikean terms, the company just did it. To prove that it is truly contrite and not playing a p.r. game, Nike should cut back on its involvement with high school athletes.

Bumpy Road
How sad that Michael Andretti, after a year in Formula One that was marred by eight early, often disastrous, exits in 12 races, has abruptly left that circuit and will return to Indy Car racing in '94. Sadder still: Andretti won't be rejoining the Newman/Haas team, for which he competed from 1989 to '92; his seat is now occupied by ex- Formula One champion Nigel Mansell, who two weeks ago sewed up the Indy Car title—in Andretti's hometown of Nazareth, Pa. Andretti instead will join the unproven team of Chip Ganassi. A few weeks ago, when it was first speculated that Andretti might lose his Formula One ride, one of his closest advisers fretted that the Newman/Haas and Penske Racing teams, which dominate Indy Car racing, had no spots opening up. "Who's he going to drive for?" the adviser said. " Chip Ganassi?"

Rallying Round