BBC - 606 - - A21062774 - Time to squeeze squash into the Olympics

19 comments

Time to squeeze squash into the Olympics

by Matt Slater - BBC Sport (U1647490) 23 March 2007

Peter Nicol has every right to be an angry and bitter man.

That he isn’t – he's more of a lager man, and for proof of that you could have got yourself down to the Canary Wharf Squash Classic this week and joined him at the bar for a friendly beer – speaks volumes about his character and the sport that very nearly made his name.

I say nearly because Nicol is one of the best squash players of all time. And that, sadly, means he is only almost famous.

Despite being the world number one – Britain’s first - for a total of 60 months between 1998 and 2004, Nicol’s was the kind of fame that got him a seat at Sports Personality of the Year but not a mention. That’s a shame, because not only was Nicol a British sporting success story, he also has a personality.

So why isn’t the 34-year-old Scot better known in the land that invented his sport? Well, in two words, the Olympics, or lack thereof.

Because despite meeting the International Olympic Committee’s criteria for Olympic status of having an international governing body - the World Squash Federation - and being played in at least 75 countries – there are now 125 national bodies affiliated to the WSF – squash remains uninvited to the IOC’s four-yearly sports extravaganzas.

The sport nearly made the line-up for London 2012 only to have its golden ticket ripped from its hand at the last minute in 2005. Having emerged with karate as the next “most likely to”, squash needed a two-third majority in a vote of IOC members to get the invite. It barely got half that and remains, with karate, on the outside looking in.

The word around the squash club water-cooler is that the vote was a revenge attack from the Americas after “their” sports, baseball and softball, got the chop.

I have no comment to add here apart from wondering how baseball and softball got into the Olympics in the first place…popular in 75 countries? Perhaps they were counting all the places where people wear baseball caps.

What I will say is that for a sport that we do very well in – we’re the reigning men’s and women’s world team champions – to not be at London 2012 is a disaster for both squash and Team GB.

The life of a so-called minority sport can be a very quiet one in this football-obsessed country in between Olympics – to not have even that chance to blow your own trumpet means your sport’s claims for fame, money and support can easily go unheard.

Not that a place at the party in 2012 would have helped Nicol’s fame. He retired as a player last year, having won 52 professional titles and four Commonwealth golds.

Which brings me back to the anger and bitterness that some in his position might feel. Those Commonwealth golds could easily have been Olympic golds. And then we’re talking about Sir Peter Nicol, the Steve Redgrave of racquet sports.

For his part, Nicol is remarkably sanguine about the IOC snub. He told me Olympic golds were never on his radar as a young player and he is more than happy with his Commonwealth haul.

He also said gaining Olympic status wouldn’t automatically help squash reverse the decline in popularity it has experienced in this country since its peak in the early 1980s. For him, there is much the sport can do on its own to boost its profile and freshen its image without the IOC’s stamp of approval.

He’s right, of course, and he’s in the thick of those efforts himself.

But when pressed it was clear just how much not being at London 2012 will hurt him and his sport. And he expressed very real disappointment for the current crop of excellent British players under 30 that will be too old to challenge for medals if, as he and everybody else in squash hopes, the sport gets in for 2016.

This got me thinking about the Olympic programme – who’s in and who’s not. Because I agree with Nicol, squash is a classic Olympic sport. It is certainly no less an Olympic sport than the other racquet sports the IOC does like, badminton and tennis, or the bat sport it hasn’t kicked out, table tennis. Global, athletic, competitive and technical, it ticks all my boxes.

It also – with my IOC-style “smaller, cheaper Games” hat on – doesn’t have to be expensive. A men’s and women’s competition of 32 competitors each adds only 64 Olympic Villagers and the whole competition can be staged on just two of the modern glass courts they are using to such great effect on the professional circuit.

Put them up somewhere nice – they’ve played in Grand Central Station and in front of the Pyramids recently – and you could have yourself another ratings winner. The game has come along way from the green smudges on white-washed walls days.

But most importantly, for me anyway, an Olympic squash gold medallist would be able to say to him or herself, “I’m the best at what I do and this is the pinnacle of my sport.”

That an international footballer or professional tennis star cannot say the same – can anybody remember the reigning football or tennis Olympic champions? No cheating – suggests to me that they should be the next to follow baseball and softball to the Olympic graveyard.

Which will make plenty of room for squash and perhaps give Nicol a belated opportunity to coach our boys and girls to Olympic glory and public acclaim.

comment on this article | send to a friend

Latest 10 comments

view all 19 comments

Read members' comments or add your own

comment by Okwonkwo (U7893563)

posted Mar 24, 2007

I played squash for my university and various times around the country and, comparing it with other sports, it is difficult to find another sport which more completely fills the olympic criterion for inclusion.

I can't understand why it is not included, especially when comparing it's athleticism with say archery et. al. Strange science indeed!!

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by mindajax (U1652628)

posted Mar 24, 2007

I like Squash, and perhaps it should be given more recognicion but it is not a spectator sport. Watching it on TV would be a nightmare because of how fast the ball goes, it is sometimes hard enough to follow when you're playing, let alone watching on a small screen.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Matt Slater - BBC Sport (U1647490)

posted Mar 24, 2007

Hello all, thanks for your comments. It seems most of us are singing from the same hymn sheet on this subject but here are a few observations/replies from me.

GoldenSCOTJOCK, I hear your pain but I'm sorry to say you're lashing out at the wrong journalist. I know all about the popularity of baseball (and softball) in this country and elsewhere. I was the editor of our US sports index before we shut it down (not my call but our American readers don't pay licence fees) and I love baseball. In fact, I went to high school in the US and played the game to a reasonable standard. I remember going along to watch a team in London when I got back as I was thinking about carrying on with baseball. This was about 15 years ago and they had a few GB players, apparently. I wasn't that impressed, my high school team would have beaten them.

Now this proves nothing about baseball/softball's suitability for the Olympics except to say Team GB probably weren't going to win many medals. What is more pertinent is the fact that you list 13 countries where the game is "hugely popular" (Netherlands Antilles? pop. 183,000 Puerto Rico? 51st state of America) and then suggest there are many, many more. Well, erm, I'd add Australia to add that list (although they view it more as a way of keeping fresh for cricket) and that's about it. Those non-Americans in the MLB come from those dozen countries you've listed. So let's get one thing straight, baseball and softball were included in the Olympics at the behest of the powerful US lobby and are only very marginally "global" games.

I also don't understand why you think softball being a "ONLY woman sport" is a good thing. I think the fact that men and women can play sports like squash is far better and much closer to the ideals of the modern Olympics.

But the popularity issue isn't the most important factor here. The real point for the IOC is that the Olympics have got too big and expensive. Getting rid of two very periphery team sports got 300 people off the head count and saved the hosts building at least one more venue. As a result of the 2005 vote, Regents Park is no longer a London venue. And what do you think the Athenians are doing with their baseball/softball venue right now?

But the absolute clincher for me, and this clearly applies more to baseball than softball, is that an Olympic medal is not the pinnacle of a baseball player's career for far too many of the world's best baseball players (basically, everybody apart from the Cubans). You're right, the MLB has become, like the NBA and NHL, a far more cosmopolitan place, but there is no way the very best MLBers are going to walk out on their teams for three weeks in the middle of the season to play for their international sides.

Put simply, the Olympics isn't important enough for the vast majority of good baseball players. The same applies to football and tennis.

I don't think any sport that doesn't have Olympic success right at the top of its list of honours has any business in the Games.

Now you're welcome to disagree with me but my opinion is not a result of any lack of research or knowledge about your sport.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by oldsquashmonkey (U7896077)

posted Mar 24, 2007

Yes, squash is a great game and I'm sure it would make an excellent Olympic sport. Maybe the BBC could start to help to give squash a higher profile. Squash is currently hidden within the 'Other sport' section where it will not be viewed unless you are actually looking for it. I am sure the BBC website (including the sports section) are looked at by people worldwide and maybe if squash was added to the main list this would encourage more people to read about and hopefully develop an interest in the sport.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by MagpieRH (U3180795)

posted Mar 25, 2007

Squash is a great game, both for fitness wih its intensity, and for stress relief in so much as you can smack the ball as hard as you like.
If it were on TV more, let alone in the Olympics, more people would see it, more people would get into it, and less kids would be obese. I've never seen an obese yet effective squash player, it requires far too much quick movement.

Definitely stick it in the Olympics, if not next year then 2012 - it's a sport we have a realistic chance of winning

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Rustigjongens (U7518752)

posted Mar 25, 2007

If it gives the GB team more chances of a medal then I am fully for adding squash, however, on a more serious note, is squash a sport which is a real spectator sport?, to my mind yes it is, therefore, it must fufil the requirements of the Olympic organisation.

I do not personally play the game, however I can see how much skill and fitness is required to play the game at the highest level.

So come on BBC give this sport some help by featuring it more on BBC sport.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by pjaksquash (U7958876)

posted Mar 31, 2007

I am a very committed squash player of over twenty years standing. When I slipped a disc twice I was told to give up league hockey and squash. I coped without hockey, but I would'nt dream of leaving squash!

Two years ago I contributed to a very small amount of current literature/analysis on the game of squash through my MA Sport & Culture dissertation project. Initially I responded to an article that Matt Slater might recall by Matthew Syed (former GB Table Tennis player). His article was titled ‘A sport dying a sad, lonely death; Squash; British Open’.

His article not only bemoaned the diminishing status and organisation of the sport of Squash at national level, but also the general condition of the sport at the ‘grass roots’ level. His main target was the British Open, considered by many players to be the defining championship in World Squash, despite the fact that other tournaments may be better funded and better supported. In Syed’s words, ‘ ”The Wimbledon of Squash” has become more like the Wimbledon of Football’. Syed focused on the uncertainty behind raising the funding, sponsorship and Television coverage for the event, and links this to the technical insolvency of England Squash in 2002.
Syed’s article, which criticised the sport’s authorities and its inability to obtain significant media coverage, resulted in a dramatic ‘backlash’ from UK squash institutions and individuals.

With regard to the Olympics, I was as disappointed as anyone when the voting did not go our way. As Matt Slater suggests, the voting atmosphere in Singapore was not conducive to change and vacant spots should be left to appease the representatives of those that had been dropped, and to avoid any further organisational and cost headaches. The game for the elite is, however, strong. It is maintained by the traditional hegemonic systems evident through the organisation, training and provision of facilities at county level, private racquets clubs, public schools, and national/global federations. Despite some recent ‘blips’ to the elite provision system (The threatened closure of the ‘historic’ Lambs Club, struggle to find sponsors for British Open), the elite game at national and global level is healthy.

The problem of wider recognition, more socially diverse participation and TV coverage can be partly explained on a sociological level by the decline of collective activity and increased obsession with body maintenance and surface appearances, and the major commercial and leisure development shifts that have affected the cultural identity of squash at the local level. The increase in ‘generic’ leisure club facilities since the late 1980’s typified by large-scale health and leisure club chains that either swap court space for gym space or do not build the facilities in the first place are other contributory factors.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by squashblogger (U8071202)

posted Apr 10, 2007

Well said, Matt. There is also a sad irony in the fact that some squash funding may disappear to boost our chances in Olympics sports for 2012:
http://www.squashblog.co.uk/2007/01/olympics-squash-funding-to-suffer.html

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by maximusbowl (U8286960)

posted May 6, 2007

I think it is about time that squash was entered into the Olympics. I was a squash player and referee for long enough, but it does not get the television cover like most of the sports and that is why it is slowly fading.At least you have to be fit to play, not like some minor sports. My main sport now is green bowling and that has now got into the Olympics.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by hertfordbridge (U5335159)

posted May 7, 2007

What exactly is the reason for the decline of squash "since the early 80s"? I'd be really interested, so if somebody knows or suspects, please let me know.

My 606

Browse 606...

More...

Time to squeeze squash into the Olympics

Latest 10 comments

Comment on this article

RATE THIS ARTICLE

Rate Breakdown

MY RELATED LINKS