Oct 022009
 

But? But??

The WSJ has that word in an article comparing the cities that wanted to get the Olympics. (It was published before the Obamas’ bid was turned down.)

The article is titled, “Is Chicago the World’s Top Sports Town? All Olympic Cities Have Home Teams, but Chicagoans Live and Die by Theirs; 8 Million Tickets.”

After telling about the sports wonders to be found in the Obamas’ home town, it goes on to disrespect the competing cities:

It’s hard to find another Olympic city that compares. Beijing? The city has virtually no professional sports infrastructure. Athens? Yes, its people like soccer and play some decent basketball, but sports is anything but the pulse of the city. Barcelona—like Munich, Rome and Mexico City—has a fervent allegiance to soccer, but not much else on the sports front. Seoul? Montreal? Paris? Moscow? None can make a serious claim to the sports throne.

Sydney and Melbourne may be the most sports-oriented of host cities—their residents go mad for professional Aussie Rules Football, rugby, cricket and soccer teams. But [emphasis added] the towns may be better known for their participation in recreational sports than for their obsession with the various gridirons and pitches.

Huh? A place with lots of participation in recreational sports is somehow not the kind of sports town for the Olympics?

Oh, never mind. I must be living in the past. The days are long gone when professional participation in sports (like that of Jim Thorpe) disqualified one for the Olympics.