If an otherwise erudite person has only read one thing in their life about sport, it is most likely George Orwell's essay “The Sporting Spirit” where he proposes that sport has become a proxy for national aggression on the world stage, and that the rise in enthusiasm for sport is directly correlated with the rise of the nation state. In the sixty years since he wrote his essay, from the aftermath of World War II, to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, his first proposition I think is only very slightly vindicated, while he was much closer to the mark with the second, and warrants further examination.

“At the international level sport is frankly mimic warfare. But the significant thing is not the behaviour of the players but the attitude of the spectators: and, behind the spectators, of the nations who work themselves into furies over these absurd contests, and seriously believe--at any rate for short periods--that running, jumping and kicking a ball are tests of national virtue.” - George Orwell, The Sporting Spirit.

It is true that sometimes sport does serve as an expression of national foreign policy; such as when the US, Australia, and other nations of the free world boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics to protest the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, or the reciprocal Soviet boycott of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. But in any history of the Cold War these now almost forgotten controversies would barely warrant much more than a footnote, and there is no evidence that either side regarded their actions as a linchpin of their global power plays. Perhaps the only time that war and sport became literally synonymous was the 1969 “Football War”, when Honduras and El Salvador briefly went to war immediately after an acrimonious match between the two countries.

As for the issue of national virtue, that a nation collectively suffering “small man syndrome”, and beating their chest for all the world to see, this charge has probably been levelled at all the Olympics host nations, and except for China, has not been generally true. Enthusiasm does not equal fanaticism, and Orwell's pessimistic appraisal is contradicted by the generally gracious and welcoming attitudes exhibited by each of the past host nations and accepted as such by their guests. Their attitude is no more aggressive than that of an ostentatious home owner inviting the neighbourhood around to admire his expensive new barbecue.

“There cannot be much doubt that the whole thing is bound up with the rise of nationalism--that is, with the lunatic modern habit of identifying oneself with large power units and seeing everything in terms of competitive prestige.” - George Orwell, The Sporting Spirit.

Here experience bears Orwell out, that the nation-state, artificial construct that it is, is torn between the necessity of eradicating the former ties of race, religion, language, and culture that naturally bind people into community, and finding something to replace it with that does not reek overly of clumsy, boring, ideological propaganda. Sports spectatorship suits this purpose admirably; being almost devoid of any inherent values but the actual rules of the game, simple to comprehend, with language, education, or former culture being no barrier to entry. In the fragmented multicultural substitute for traditional conceptions of society that the nation-state offers, sport is the one thing that safely unifies the populace under the national flag. Also it helps minorities that show little aptitude in finance, academia, or much else to find a place in the inclusive nation. So it is little wonder that the state so heavily subsidises sports training and venues, even sports boasting very wealthy teams are assured of having their stadiums paid for by the government.

Evidence for this is frustratingly obvious whenever one steps slightly outside one's own carefully crafted social circle of fanboys, artists, computer nerds, and religious fanatics to find that all anyone can talk about with ease is sport. This is by no means restricted to the lower orders of society where a naïve person might expect sport enthusiasm to predominate, I am continually surprised by the number of times that people of upper-middleclass professions like doctors and lawyers attempt to engage me in a discussion about football. Anyone who happens to catch the train during the State of Origin season can eavesdrop on many convivial discussions between bricklayers and professors of semiotics about some particularly exciting play on TV the night before. So pervasive has this become that if films about mad scientists were to be authentic, their dialogue would be peppered with equal enthusiasm for sport as schemes for world domination; “They called me a madman for wanting to create a race of atomic supermen, but I, Doctor Radium, will show them who's mad! By the way, what did you think of the Broncos match last night?” One can only wonder if the subliminal appeal of intellectual buffoon, Richard Dawkins, is that if he gets his way and religion is abolished, then an extra hour or two of Sunday morning TV will be freed for additional, much needed, sports coverage.

Perhaps the saddest thing about this development is that it is evidence of a loneliness and social isolation that has become endemic under statism, and worse, a loss the individual's sense of self that they can find nothing within themselves by which they can embrace as their own. A serious interest in art, politics, religion, philosophy will only serve to mark them as misfit, a social outcast, as not entirely trustworthy. Their choice then is to withdraw into an inner world, or seek out what are effectively underground networks that furtively share their passion. The prudent know that it is better to let themselves be swept along by the tide of triviality and “get on” in the world.

While Australian's are often characterised as sports mad, and it is sometimes easy to get that impression without much perspective, in truth Australia is quite moderate in its enthusiasm when compared to many other nations. Australia has nothing like the American Super Bowl which is virtually a national holiday, the Indian and Pakistani enthusiasm for cricket is such that when players retire they experience an easy transition into politics, the Brazilian passion for football is similarly entwined with politics so that the national elections are held to coincide with World Cup years, with many of the candidates also being retired footballers themselves. Even France, apparently now eschewing its reputation as a home of high culture, with the World Cup celebrations of 1998 far exceeding any public event in that nation's history.

If a study should be conducted on the public passion for spectator sport with each nation indexed from least to most fanatical, it would probably be found that the degree of ethnic homogeneity is the best coefficient of greater or lesser spectator sport enthusiasm. Indeed the degree of multiculturalism that exists within the borders of the aforementioned nations is far greater than what Australia currently experiences, and as Australia further moves towards the goal of uprooting any traditional (and divisive) sources of self-identification, we can expect sports fanaticism to reach a similar crescendo. Should a republic ever come to pass, we can look forwards to hailing President Ian Thorpe or President Cathy Freeman as shining figureheads of statist collectivism.

If one can take any solace from this inexorable trend at all, it is that in the push towards a global super-state, that sport is unlikely to prove to hold the same utility, and lacking anything other than an elitist vision of global centralised planning, popular resentment and instinctive suspicion towards the absolute of statism should remain high.

Thank you (or props) to Venkman, for proposing the Olympics as the inaugural essay subject for the site opening.