First we had Ian Thorpe who was popularly known as the ‘Thorpedo’. At this year’s Olympics it has been James ‘The Missile’ Magnussen and the 4 x 100m men’s swim team being dubbed the ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’. To say nothing of the numerous headlines including phrases such as ‘fails to launch’, ‘settle a score’, ‘battle’ ‘bravery’ ‘warriors’ or the ‘new weapon in the swimming pool’. Flicking through the sports pages of today’s newspaper, there is ‘a fight ahead’, someone is going to ‘lead the charge,’ and another has ‘battled the brigade’. To say nothing of the ‘shootout’, athletes ‘imploding’, others having a ‘showdown’ or a ‘surrender’ and medal winners nicknamed the ‘pistols’.

The use of military terminology in sport is not new. The sporting arena has been termed a battleground on endless occasions. However, it seems to be particularly during the Olympics when the usage of military metaphors and similes escalates to an inescapable level.

So does it matter? Well, in a word, yes. One only has to look back to the infamous Olympic games in Berlin in 1936, and the use of sport by the Hitler regime to make a point about Aryan superiority to know that it does. Hitler saw sport as a training ground for military recruiting and a way of feeding a nationalistic fervour. However, despite its use by a much-reviled figure, the use of military terminology in sport has nevertheless been accepted as the norm.

                           
 

Using such terminology on a daily basis makes the horrors of real war somehow seem less horrific. The normalising of military terms through the sports pages desensitises us to the outcomes of war. We become so habituated to reading how an athlete destroyed his foes that when we read the same language in the world news pages we are already immune to the impact those words would otherwise have. War can be viewed as a game, like the sports that share its language, making it seem less real and less serious. We can forget that the conquering that happens on the real war fronts, often involving the deaths of civilians, and of women and children, as well as of soldiers, are ones that involve real deaths not temporary sporting ones. Real wars do not have entertainment value. Having a battle reported on the back pages of the newspaper makes the far-away battle of page 12 seem ordinary, acceptable.

Another problem with the use of this terminology is that it encourages a violent macho culture in sport, with admiration of aggression in sport, of combative attitudes. These seem to be far removed from one of the fundamental principles of Olympism, as stated in the Olympic Charter in force as of 8 July 2011 (available on the website) that ‘The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.’ The aim of cooperative participation in sport, the ‘spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play’, also espoused in the charter, are undermined by the military terms that are constantly used in sports reporting which is the language of winners and losers and is not about participation.

This language elevates winners and makes winning the top goal whereas we know that in real war everyone is a loser and many losses are irretrievable. The simplicity of the sporting analogy enables us to mistakenly think that only winning counts and that losing is not an option, thereby feeding the philosophy that underpins governments’ continued participation in wars. The national pride attached to winning in sport is out of proportion to its real value, but it stimulates national pride and facilitates a similar desire to win on the real arena of real war where people die. Being labelled a ‘loser’ is almost the worst insult you can throw at someone and this disgust about losing supports continued military participation in world conflicts.

So as Australia contemplates its tally of medals at these Olympics, far less than the number anticipated, expect retribution. There will be consequences, including a lot more money to be fuelled into elite sport (at the expense of money for community participation in sport.) After all, no-one wants to be a loser, do they?