'Sports' that shouldn't be in the Olympics.

Athletes and swimmers are more like golfers than cyclists in that they earn through sponsorship and prize money, and generally don’t have the earnings potential of a golfer. Cyclists and footballers actually have contracts. Football goes some way to counter this with the U23 rules, but i don’t think they should be there either.

The Olympics is all about sports that don’t normally get a lot of coverage. Its diversity is what makes it compelling viewing, and you know, viewing isn’t mandatory.

There’s plenty I’ve no interest in, most even, but there are no sports that “shouldn’t be in the Olympics,” rack ’em up.

Ah, so we’re being picky about how they make their money? It’s an interesting distinction given that cyclists have contracts with teams which are funded through sponsorship rather than the athletes and swimmers who have contracts directly with the sponsors – if there was a team element to swimming or athletics then doubtless their contracts would work the same as cyclists’.

Presumably you also prefer having people there who largely earn their money through their performances at the Olympics rather than people for whom the Olympics is separate from their day job, their contracts are irrelevant and where their sponsors get no exposure?