The British Empire and the International Olympic Committee

The British Empire was, throughout the late-Victorian and Edwardian period, the dominant force in international sport, and the relationship between the empire and the modern Olympic movement was, from the first, an ambivalent one. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) was, in many respects, a French creation: it was founded in 1894 by Baron Pierre de Coubertin, a French aristocrat and educational reformer, and its headquarters, until 1968, was in Lausanne. The British were, however, the largest and the most influential single national bloc in the early IOC, and the British Empire was, throughout the first half of the twentieth century, the principal institutional form in which the British were organised in international sport. The relationship between the British Empire and the IOC is, in effect, the history of the modern Olympic movement seen from the side of the most powerful national-and-imperial bloc of the early twentieth century.

The British ambivalence towards the modern Olympics was, throughout the late-Victorian and Edwardian period, a substantial feature of British sporting life. The 1896 Athens Olympics, the first of the modern Games, was dismissed by the British sporting press as a French conceit; the British team was small and poorly prepared, and the British cyclists and weightlifters who competed were, on the whole, a disappointment. The 1900 Paris Olympics, the second of the modern Games, were held in conjunction with the Universal Exhibition, and the British team was, on the whole, drawn from the ranks of the British sporting middle class. The 1904 St. Louis Olympics, the third of the modern Games, was a disaster for British sport: the Games were held in conjunction with the Louisiana Purchase Exposition, and the British team was, in effect, a small and largely unsuccessful group of competitors.

The British Olympic Association

The British Olympic Association (BOA) was founded in 1905, on the initiative of the Irish-born sportsman John Pius Boland, a winner of the 1896 Athens tennis championship, and the future Lord Desborough. The BOA was, throughout the first half of the twentieth century, the principal British organisation in the Olympic movement, and it was, throughout that period, the principal institutional form in which the British government (and, after 1928, the British Empire) was represented at the Olympics. The BOA’s first president was the Earl of Cadogan; its first secretary was the future Sir Theodore Andrea Cook, the editor of The Field and the author of the standard history of the 1908 London Olympics.

The BOA’s most consequential early moment was, perhaps, the 1908 London Olympics. The London Olympics, which were awarded to London in 1907 in preference to Berlin, were the first Olympics in which the British played a leading role, and they were, in many respects, the first Olympics in which the British Empire was, as an empire, prominently represented. The Canadian team was, for the first time, a separate national team; the Australian team was, for the first time, a separate national team; the South African team was, for the first time, a separate national team. The 1908 London Olympics were also the first Olympics at which the marathon was run over the modern distance of 26 miles 385 yards, and the first at which the Olympic flag was raised.

The Empire and the Olympic Movement

The British Empire’s relationship with the Olympic movement was, throughout the first half of the twentieth century, a complex one. The Empire Games, founded in 1930 as the British Empire Games and held in Hamilton, Ontario, were the principal institutional form in which the British Empire was represented in international sport. The Empire Games were, in their early decades, a small and somewhat parochial affair; the 1930 Hamilton Games had only 400 competitors from 11 countries. The 1934 London Games, the second of the Empire Games, were a more substantial affair, with 500 competitors from 17 countries. The 1938 Sydney Games, the third of the Empire Games, were a still more substantial affair, with 500 competitors from 15 countries.

The British Empire’s relationship with the Olympic movement was, however, more than the Empire Games. The British Empire was, throughout the first half of the twentieth century, the largest single national-and-imperial bloc in the IOC. The British representatives on the IOC were, in many respects, the dominant figures in the early Olympic movement: Lord Desborough (IOC 1905–45), Lord Burghley (IOC 1930–57), Lord Aberdare (IOC 1957–86), and the Marquess of Exeter (IOC 1964–2010). The British presence on the IOC was, in effect, the principal institutional form in which the British Empire was represented in international sport, and the British influence on the IOC was, in many respects, the principal institutional form in which the British Empire was represented in international affairs.

The Empire’s Contribution to Olympic Sports

The British Empire’s contribution to Olympic sports was, throughout the first half of the twentieth century, a substantial one. The British were, throughout the period, the principal national-and-imperial bloc in track and field, in rowing, in cycling, in shooting, in sailing, in boxing, and in equestrian sport. The British contribution to Olympic sports was, however, complicated by the British sporting culture’s deep ambivalence about the modern Olympic movement. The British sporting middle class, which dominated British Olympic sport, was, on the whole, suspicious of the modern Olympics; the British sporting press was, on the whole, hostile to the modern Olympics; the British sporting establishment was, on the whole, indifferent to the modern Olympics.

The result was, throughout the first half of the twentieth century, a substantial gap between British Olympic performance and British sporting capacity. The British Olympic team was, throughout the period, smaller than the British sporting capacity would have suggested. The British Olympic team was, throughout the period, less well-prepared than the British sporting capacity would have suggested. The British Olympic team was, throughout the period, less successful than the British sporting capacity would have suggested. The 1948 London Olympics, the so-called “Austerity Games,” were the first Olympics in which the British played a major role since 1908; the British team finished eleventh in the medal table, behind the United States, the Soviet Union, France, Italy, Sweden, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Netherlands, Finland, and Switzerland.

The Decolonisation of British Olympic Sport

The post-1945 decolonisation of the British Empire was, in Olympic terms, a substantial transformation. The British Dominions became independent nations, the British Empire Games became the British Commonwealth Games (1970), the British Olympic Association was joined by a substantial number of national Olympic committees of the former British colonies, and the British bloc in the IOC was gradually diluted. The 1956 Melbourne Olympics, the first Olympics held in the southern hemisphere, were, in many respects, the first Olympics of the post-imperial era. The 1960 Rome Olympics, the 1964 Tokyo Olympics, and the 1968 Mexico City Olympics were all, in many respects, the Olympics of the post-imperial British sporting era.

The most consequential decolonisation moment was, however, the 1970 British Commonwealth Games, held in Edinburgh. The 1970 Edinburgh Games were the first to be held under the new “British Commonwealth Games” name, and they were the first to be held under the new “Commonwealth Games Federation” body. The 1970 Edinburgh Games were, in many respects, the first post-imperial Commonwealth Games, and they were, in many respects, the first major international sporting event in which the former British colonies were represented as independent nations.

The Empire’s Sporting Legacy

The British Empire’s sporting legacy is, in many respects, a substantial one. The British were, throughout the first half of the twentieth century, the largest and the most influential national-and-imperial bloc in international sport, and the British influence on the modern Olympic movement was, throughout that period, a substantial one. The British Empire’s sporting legacy is, however, not without its darker sides. The British Empire’s role in the propagation of cricket, rugby, football, hockey, and tennis was, throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a substantial one — and a substantial one, moreover, that has had a much longer and more consequential afterlife than the Empire itself.

The British Empire’s sporting legacy is also, in many respects, a contested one. The 2012 London Olympics, the third Olympics held in London, were, in some respects, an attempt to put on display the British Empire’s sporting legacy; the 2012 London Olympics were also, in some respects, a moment of reckoning with the British Empire’s role in the propagation of cricket, rugby, football, hockey, and tennis. The 2012 London Olympics were, in many respects, the first Olympics in which the British Empire’s sporting legacy was, as a legacy, the subject of substantial public debate.

Historiographical Note

The historiography of the British Empire and the modern Olympic movement has been transformed, since the 1960s, by the work of J. A. Mangan, Brian Stoddart, and the contributors to the Oxford Handbook of Sports History. The earlier celebratory accounts — the histories of the BOA, the IOC, and the British Empire Games — have been supplemented, and in places supplanted, by the more critical accounts of the post-colonial generation. The unresolved question in the field is the same as for the British Empire’s role in the propagation of cricket, rugby, football, hockey, and tennis: how to weigh the British Empire’s substantial sporting contributions against its substantial sporting imperialisms. The present generation of historians has, on the whole, declined to give the British Empire’s sporting legacy a clean bill of health.

In this Section

Other Sections