Quite a few of the biggest sporting events in the world are not held annually - the Olympics and the Football, Rugby and Cricket World Cups being the most obvious 4-yearly ones, and the Ryder Cup, in golf, a biennial one. You also have British Lions tours, which have dropped into a 4-yearly, 3-opponent pattern that effectively means Britain and Ireland tour New Zealand only once every twelve years.
A lot of the reason for these periods is historic - the Olympics were held every four years because the ancient games were, and the creators of the modern games felt it quaint to uphold that tradition. FIFA, in starting its World Cup, did not want to interfere with the Olympics' status (in the 1920s) as the principal international competition, so chose a 4-yearly cycle to interlock with them. A similar founding principal (of not seeking to 'compete' with the Olympics) lay behind the choice of dates for British Empire Games. The fact the Ryder Cup was biennial (4-yearly, really, if one considers it from the point of view of the "touring" team) had nothing to do with the Olympics, but more to do with cost - in the 1920s and 1930s, neither PGA had the funds to send a team overseas every year, and a similar consideration lay behind the relative infrequency of Lions tours in what was then Amateur Rugby.
Now that sport is global, professional and the events we are talking about are jaw-droppingly profitable, is it a surprise that some of these major events, out of sheer demand, haven't become more frequent? It would take little to convert, say, the Euro finals in football into a World Cup Finals, to mean those being played every two years. Similarly the Olympics; there would be no shortage of cities willing to bid and host a biennial games, and if that meant sacrificing Commonwealth and European Games in athletics and swimming, would fans of those sports miss them if replaced by more Olympic finals? There seems almost nothing stopping an annual Ryder Cup bar tradition, all the competitors spend all summer flitting back and forward across the Atlantic as it is. And as all the home nations go to the southern hemisphere for annual tours nowadays, a Lions tour more than once every 4 years hardly seems too much to arrange.
But would these events lose some of their aura, some of their mystique, if played more regularly? Would we have got as excited about an Olympics this summer as we will about the one in 2016? Is the rarity, the waiting, part of what makes them so special to begin with?
A lot of the reason for these periods is historic - the Olympics were held every four years because the ancient games were, and the creators of the modern games felt it quaint to uphold that tradition. FIFA, in starting its World Cup, did not want to interfere with the Olympics' status (in the 1920s) as the principal international competition, so chose a 4-yearly cycle to interlock with them. A similar founding principal (of not seeking to 'compete' with the Olympics) lay behind the choice of dates for British Empire Games. The fact the Ryder Cup was biennial (4-yearly, really, if one considers it from the point of view of the "touring" team) had nothing to do with the Olympics, but more to do with cost - in the 1920s and 1930s, neither PGA had the funds to send a team overseas every year, and a similar consideration lay behind the relative infrequency of Lions tours in what was then Amateur Rugby.
Now that sport is global, professional and the events we are talking about are jaw-droppingly profitable, is it a surprise that some of these major events, out of sheer demand, haven't become more frequent? It would take little to convert, say, the Euro finals in football into a World Cup Finals, to mean those being played every two years. Similarly the Olympics; there would be no shortage of cities willing to bid and host a biennial games, and if that meant sacrificing Commonwealth and European Games in athletics and swimming, would fans of those sports miss them if replaced by more Olympic finals? There seems almost nothing stopping an annual Ryder Cup bar tradition, all the competitors spend all summer flitting back and forward across the Atlantic as it is. And as all the home nations go to the southern hemisphere for annual tours nowadays, a Lions tour more than once every 4 years hardly seems too much to arrange.
But would these events lose some of their aura, some of their mystique, if played more regularly? Would we have got as excited about an Olympics this summer as we will about the one in 2016? Is the rarity, the waiting, part of what makes them so special to begin with?
Comment