Otacon
Hall of Fame
Tennis, due to its popularity at the end of the 19th century, was immediately part of the first Olympic games in 1896. Nevertheless, it was dropped from the Olympic competition in 1927 because of a complex and serious conflict between the International Olympic Committee and the International Tennis Federation. It only reappeared as a medal sport in the Olympics at Seoul, in 1988. This paper provides explanations to this conflict in the particular context of the twenties and presents its main actors: Henri de Baillet-Latour, president of the IOC, and Albert Canet, president of the International Tennis Federation. Whereas the issue of amateurism was put forward, other unspoken stakes—commercial and economic, symbolic and social—can be discovered in correspondences. Most of all, this conflict between the two institutions symbolized the main interests of the world sport movement during the interwar period.
Official tennis poster of the 1924 Paris Olympics
After the First World War, sports enjoyed a great success internationally which will lead to " The Roaring Twenties of Sports", a significant period of change. The increase in leisure time of the popular class and the economic boom after the war are at the root of these upheavals. At the beginning of the 1920s, they led to a gradual popularisation and democratization of sports, which, in turn, led to two major turning points in the organization of international sport.
In the first place, the increase in the number of members leads to an acceleration of the institutionalization of sports. In France, for example, the "Union des Sociétés Françaises de Sports Athlétiques" has organized all sports since the end of the 19th century, like a "super federation". In 1920, however, this Union disappeared in favor of an institutional autonomy of sports: the National Federations. On a world scale, in the same way, the multiplication of the National Federations leads to an accelerated development of the International Federations. The emergence of these new sports bodies, almost non-existent in the pre-war institutional landscape, now weakens the monopoly of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), one of the first international sports organizations, created in 1894. Interwar period therefore was an intense period of power struggles between the various institutions that make up the world sports organization. The establishment of Olympic competitions becomes an object of contention between the Federations that want to choose the terms of the competitions and the IOC which does not intend to be dictated its own regulation, its raison d'être ...
Henri de Baillet-Latour, IOC president
In this game, the International Federations do not all have the same power of persuasion: only the most developed ones have the means to worry the IOC. This is the case of the International Federation of Football Association (FIFA) which strongly opposes the Olympic movement between 1925 and 1936. The International Tennis Federation, as we shall see, also has excellent assets to counter the IOC . The 1920s are for the ITF an important moment of memberships (clubs and national federations), organization and therefore of rise to power. This new institutional situation sounds the death knell of the Olympic monopoly.
This delicate context is aggravated by the emergence of a second upheaval: the gradual democratization of sports practices. The model of amateur sport, inherited from English clubs, has prevailed since the end of the 19th century. Amateurism consists, for an athlete, to exercise his practice without obtaining any financial or material benefit. It is therefore a class value, associated with the domination of the aristocracy in the organization and practice of sport. Also, when the sport begins to gain the less well-off social classes after the First World War, the regulation of amateurism becomes inappropriate, because it is elitist. But the IOC, whose leaders defend their aristocratic privileges, imposes Olympic Games exclusively amateur. For their part, the International Federations, like those of tennis or skiing, show the same conservatism with their own competitions. But unlike the IOC, they are directly opposed to the scattered and uneven indiscipline of members, clubs and national federations. Thus, the interwar period gives rise to new cheating practices by athletes, often supported by their close institutions. We then speak of "false amateurs" or "hidden professionals" to name these sportsmen who, secretly, receive money to practice their sport. Offenses are diverse and make the debates within the Federations more complex. Some champions made money out of their participation in competitions.
Albert Canet, ITF president
Others obtain for their victory a sum of money or goods they resell. Many athletes receive a compensation by their club or their National Federation, called "loss of income" for the salary lost during competitions. It then became necessary, from the 1920s, to create new regulations for all these complex cases. As a result, sports federations reformulate their amateurish regulations in a more or less strict manner, thus creating an entirely disparate institutional landscape. The IOC, meanwhile, attached to a conservative elitism, wants to reach a consensus on the definition of amateurism to facilitate the selection of sports and athletes at the Olympics. These divergent logics between the institutions then cause new conflicts or aggravate those already existing. This is particularly the case between the IOC and tennis, as we will see.
Do you want the rest of the story or am I just wasting my time ?
I'm translating a long french paper.
Official tennis poster of the 1924 Paris Olympics
After the First World War, sports enjoyed a great success internationally which will lead to " The Roaring Twenties of Sports", a significant period of change. The increase in leisure time of the popular class and the economic boom after the war are at the root of these upheavals. At the beginning of the 1920s, they led to a gradual popularisation and democratization of sports, which, in turn, led to two major turning points in the organization of international sport.
In the first place, the increase in the number of members leads to an acceleration of the institutionalization of sports. In France, for example, the "Union des Sociétés Françaises de Sports Athlétiques" has organized all sports since the end of the 19th century, like a "super federation". In 1920, however, this Union disappeared in favor of an institutional autonomy of sports: the National Federations. On a world scale, in the same way, the multiplication of the National Federations leads to an accelerated development of the International Federations. The emergence of these new sports bodies, almost non-existent in the pre-war institutional landscape, now weakens the monopoly of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), one of the first international sports organizations, created in 1894. Interwar period therefore was an intense period of power struggles between the various institutions that make up the world sports organization. The establishment of Olympic competitions becomes an object of contention between the Federations that want to choose the terms of the competitions and the IOC which does not intend to be dictated its own regulation, its raison d'être ...
Henri de Baillet-Latour, IOC president
In this game, the International Federations do not all have the same power of persuasion: only the most developed ones have the means to worry the IOC. This is the case of the International Federation of Football Association (FIFA) which strongly opposes the Olympic movement between 1925 and 1936. The International Tennis Federation, as we shall see, also has excellent assets to counter the IOC . The 1920s are for the ITF an important moment of memberships (clubs and national federations), organization and therefore of rise to power. This new institutional situation sounds the death knell of the Olympic monopoly.
This delicate context is aggravated by the emergence of a second upheaval: the gradual democratization of sports practices. The model of amateur sport, inherited from English clubs, has prevailed since the end of the 19th century. Amateurism consists, for an athlete, to exercise his practice without obtaining any financial or material benefit. It is therefore a class value, associated with the domination of the aristocracy in the organization and practice of sport. Also, when the sport begins to gain the less well-off social classes after the First World War, the regulation of amateurism becomes inappropriate, because it is elitist. But the IOC, whose leaders defend their aristocratic privileges, imposes Olympic Games exclusively amateur. For their part, the International Federations, like those of tennis or skiing, show the same conservatism with their own competitions. But unlike the IOC, they are directly opposed to the scattered and uneven indiscipline of members, clubs and national federations. Thus, the interwar period gives rise to new cheating practices by athletes, often supported by their close institutions. We then speak of "false amateurs" or "hidden professionals" to name these sportsmen who, secretly, receive money to practice their sport. Offenses are diverse and make the debates within the Federations more complex. Some champions made money out of their participation in competitions.
Albert Canet, ITF president
Others obtain for their victory a sum of money or goods they resell. Many athletes receive a compensation by their club or their National Federation, called "loss of income" for the salary lost during competitions. It then became necessary, from the 1920s, to create new regulations for all these complex cases. As a result, sports federations reformulate their amateurish regulations in a more or less strict manner, thus creating an entirely disparate institutional landscape. The IOC, meanwhile, attached to a conservative elitism, wants to reach a consensus on the definition of amateurism to facilitate the selection of sports and athletes at the Olympics. These divergent logics between the institutions then cause new conflicts or aggravate those already existing. This is particularly the case between the IOC and tennis, as we will see.
Do you want the rest of the story or am I just wasting my time ?
I'm translating a long french paper.
