At last, the real Olympic legacy

  fourm member 11:05 21 Apr 2013

It is good to see that, at last, we've found the proper British way to treat the gold medallists from London 2012. Mo Farah has been accused of cashing in.

  spuds 12:19 21 Apr 2013

And the point of the post is?.

I would imagine that dozens or even thousands would or have done the same thing, but they might not be as important or of 'celebrity' status?.

  fourm member 12:38 21 Apr 2013

The point is that the British way is to condemn success.

I'm sorry if you misunderstood and I thought I was criticising Mo Farah. I wasn't.

  Aitchbee 13:07 21 Apr 2013

"The point is that the British way is to condemn success."

I would substitute 'success' with 'greed' in this case.

  fourm member 13:55 21 Apr 2013


'I would substitute 'success' with 'greed' in this case.'


A private business has decided that it makes commercial sense for it to pay Farah to appear. What is greedy about him accepting the offer?

You're demonstrating the point perfectly. The British way is to be jealous of someone else's success and try and bring them down as a result instead of saying 'Well done' or even 'If I work as hard as that at what I do, maybe I'll be successful'.

  WhiteTruckMan 14:08 21 Apr 2013

I would be more inclined to question the nature of the race itself. I think the large majority of participants are amateur runners, running for no personal gain other than the achievement itself. And yet there are professional athletes taking part for financial gain. It's one thing to offer a prize for the winners, thats the nature of competition, but quite a different thing to be paid just for appearing.


  fourm member 14:25 21 Apr 2013


It has been that way for a long time.

These days, there are a lot of marathons and they compete to attract the star names.

Having star names attracts sponsors. Having sponsors increases the resources available to the organisers and allows more runners to take part. More runners means more charity fundraisers and more funds raised for charity.

  fourm member 14:30 21 Apr 2013

The first London Marathon had 7,741 entrants. This year it is about 35,000.

  Forum Editor 18:47 21 Apr 2013


One of the main reasons for the success of the London Marathon has been the way it has been marketed - partly by getting famous runners to take part. They've taken part because they've been paid to do so, and their participation has made the London Marathon into the world's biggest and best known.

Mo Farah has a talent, and he's profiting from it - I see nothing wrong with that at all. It happens in all fields of human endeavour, and in most countries it's admired.

  WhiteTruckMan 20:23 21 Apr 2013


They've taken part because they've been paid to do so

Which says more for their financial aspirations than their sporting/athletic ones, imho.


  fourm member 07:25 22 Apr 2013


You make it sound as though Mo Farah blackmailed the London Marathon into including him.

If a business organisation came to you and said, in effect, our business plan shows that we can get a net benefit by paying you £x to do this would you really say you'd like to do it for free?

Referring to the London Marathon as a charity may be strictly true but its charitable status is more to do with not having to pay any tax than actually being a 'charity'. Take a look at this summary of its finances. So, inferring that taking money from a charity is somehow depriving the poor is mischaracterising the situation.

Incidentally, 'opening shops' is not an option. The huge successes in 2012 have resulted in an over-supply in the personal appearance market and even gold medallists are finding it hard to earn money that way.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Dell XPS 13 9370 (2018) review

The art of 'British' pulp fiction

Best password managers for Mac

TV & streaming : comment regarder le Tournoi des Six Nations 2018 ?