‘Olympic Games Are an International Farce’: The 1920 Antwerp Games and the Question of Great Britain’s Participation Matthew P.Llewellyn* he Euphoria that surrounded the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) decision to award the 2012 Summer Olympic Games to the City of London creates the impression that the Olympics are central to the aspirations of British sport. Upon closer inspection, however, British ainity for the Olympic Movement appears to be a very recent phenomenon. In fact, history reveals the Olympic matters held an extremely tenuous position in Britain throughout the formative years of Modern Olympic competition. he nation’s apathy emerged most clearly during the 1920 Olympic Games held in Antwerp. his essay examines how the Council of the British Olympic Association’s (BOA) attempts at ensuring the nation’s participation in Antwerp proved extremely diicult. Appealing to the beneicence of the British public, the British Olympic Committee (BOC) launched a 30,000 fund-raising scheme in an efort to train and prepare the nation’s athletes for Antwerp. he diiculties in raising such a prodigious amount would ultimately force the BOC to seriously question the nation’s participation in future Olympic competition. v On July 6, 2005 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) awarded the 2012 summer Olympic Games to the city of London. In defeating a highly favored Paris bid, the British capital realized the unrivaled prospect of hosting the summer games for the third time since Baron Pierre de Coubertin’s 1894 revival of the Olympic movement. Relecting on the IOC’s decision, former Prime Minister Tony Blair described London’s nomination as a “momentous day” for Great Britain.1 London bid leader and former Olympic gold medalist Sebastian Coe reiterated Blair’s message, expressing his joy that Britain had captured “the biggest prize in sport,” the Olympic Games.2 he euphoria that surrounded the IOC’s decision creates the impression that the Olympic Games, like the World Cup in soccer, are central to the aspirations of British sport. Upon closer inspection, however, British ainity for the Olympic Movement appears to be a very recent phenomenon. In fact, history reveals that Olympism3 held an extremely tenuous position in Great Britain throughout the formative years of modern Olympic competition. he nation’s apathy emerged most clearly during the 1920 Olympic Games, organized in haste and held in the war-torn city of Antwerp, Belgium.4 * Matthew Llewellyn is a Ph.D. candidate at Pennsylvania State University in State College, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Olympika XVII (2008), pp. 101-132 101 Llewellyn When the guns stopped iring on November 11, 1918, Pierre de Coubertin and the IOC turned their immediate attentions towards reviving the modern Olympic movement. In recognition of Belgium’s bravery during the Great War, the IOC awarded the Games of the VIIth Olympiad to Antwerp at a meeting on April 5, 1919, in Lausanne, Switzerland, the new administrative home of the Olympic movement. For Coubertin, the choice of Antwerp, a city recently liberated from German occupation and oppression, provided an ideal setting for the irst postwar games.5 he Reverend Robert S. de Courcy Lafan, vicechairman of the British Olympic Association (BOA) and a “noble ally” of Coubertin, pledged his unwavering support to the IOC’s decision to revive the cycle of modern Olympic Games.6 Writing in the Times on April 14, 1919, Lafan, a chaplain to the British Forces during the Great War, made a patriotic appeal to the British public. Even though the “time is short and the diiculties are great,” Lafan admitted, Britain must show “their gratitude and admiration towards the heroic Belgian people by doing their utmost to make the Olympic Games of Antwerp a signal and convincing success.”7 he continuation of the Olympic program so soon ater the culmination of the Great War was the source of widespread indignation throughout Britain. he horrors of the war, a bitter four-year struggle in which 723,000 British servicemen perished on the battle ields of Europe, were still fresh in the minds of many Britons.8 With the national debt soaring at over £7.5 billion, ten times its pre-war level, unemployment rates reaching an alarming high, and an economy locked in a recession, the idea of diverting the nation’s depleted energies and resources towards an event long-dismissed by many throughout Britain as a trivial and debased French festival of athleticism, was met with hostility and discord.9 Immediate post-war developments also proved less than conducive to an Olympic revival as Britain’s imperial sovereignty came under threat following the emergence of large-scale, newly-organized nationalist movements in Egypt, India and the recently acquired Mesopotamia. Meanwhile, Russia was now led by Bolshevik revolutionaries, and in Ireland the British government was embroiled in a bitter guerrilla struggle following the declaration of an independent Irish republic. In this socially and politically challenging post-war environment, the raising of a British Olympic team for Antwerp seemed rather inconsequential. In the face of post-war austerity and continued British sporting parochialism, the Council of the British Olympic Association’s (hereater cited as BOC) attempts at ensuring the nation’s participation in Antwerp proved extremely dificult.10 Emerging from the Great War inancially insolvent due to the suspension of wartime subscriptions, and reeling from the deaths of some it’s most prominent members, the BOC fought indefatigably to ensure Great Britain’s representation at the 1920 Antwerp games.11 Appealing to the beneicence of the British public, the BOC launched a £30,000 fund raising scheme in an efort to train and prepare the nation’s athletes for Antwerp, a sum drastically reduced follow102 ‘Olympic Games Are an International Farce’ ing the abject failure of a £100,000 appeal made prior to the abortive 1916 Berlin games.12 Despite the BOC’s eforts, many sections of the British public remained decidedly apathetic towards Olympic competition. While the working-classes were largely excluded from Olympic participation, much of the nation’s insular upper-middle class and aristocratic elites viewed the Olympic Games derisively. Fighting against the tide of public indiference and struggling to garner inancial support forced the BOC to contemplate the continued participation of a British team in future Olympic competition. The Question of Sending a British Team On May 29, 1919, the Times published a letter written by Olympians Arnold Strode Jackson and Philip Noel-Baker. Responding speciically to the Reverend Courcy Lafan’s patriotic appeal for the nation’s support to send a team to Antwerp, Strode Jackson and Noel-Baker demanded that the Olympic Games be temporarily postponed to allow for a full post-war recovery both at home and abroad. Strode Jackson, a gold medalist in the 1500-meters in Stockholm, and Noel-Baker, a inalist in that same event, had both experienced the grim reality of life on the front-line. Serving in the King’s Royal Rile Corps, Strode Jackson became the youngest brigadier—the highest ield rank—in the history of the British army. Decorated repeatedly for his heroics in battle, the former Olympic gold medalist returned from the trenches severely maimed, forcing him to retire prematurely from competitive athletics. Noel-Baker also served his nation admirably as a member of the Friends Ambulance Unit in France, Belgium, and later, Italy, winning numerous awards for his services in battle.13 Following the war, both were dismayed to observe the abject condition of many the of the nation’s most prestigious athletic clubs. Unable to maintain their “stafs, pavilions and grounds” and “burdened with debt,” Strode Jackson and Noel-Baker reasoned that the nation must “put our own house in order” before sending a team to compete in Antwerp. “Olympic Games cost money, and our money is needed irst for other things,” the two Olympians reasoned.14 he objections raised by two of the nation’s most respected athletic authorities served as a damning vindication against the IOC’s decision to revive the Olympic Games and the Reverend Courcy Lafan’s desire to see a British team represented in Antwerp. he dilapidated state of the nation’s athletic clubs paled in signiicance to the wartime deaths of many of Britain’s leading sportsmen. By war’s end, nearly 28 percent of the young men going up to Oxford and Cambridge between 1910 and 1914 perished in battle.15 he loss of such a large pool of future British politicians, scholars and leaders also had an enervating efect on British athletics.16 Since the revival of the Olympic Games in 1896, Oxbridge athletes provided the lifeblood of the British Olympic movement, winning a large portion of the nation’s medal harvest. he loss of prominent Oxbridge Olympians such as 110-meter hurdlers 103 Llewellyn G. L. R. Anderson and Kenneth Powell, long-jumper Henry S. O. Ashington, as well as other fallen athletes from universities and athletic clubs across Britain signiicantly diminished the cadre of elite athletes that the BOC could call upon if the nation decided to compete in Antwerp.17 Relecting on the “terrible losses” that the nation had sustained during the war, former British member to the IOC, Sir heodore Andrea Cook—recently knighted for his anti-German propaganda eforts—reiterated Noel-Baker’s and Strode Jackson’s calls for the temporary suspension of international Olympic competition. In a personal correspondence to Lord Desborough of Taplow, the founding chairman of the BOC and a man who had lost his two sons during the war, Cook maintained, “I do not see how we can contemplate international competition in any sport for some years to come.”18 Meanwhile, aiming to replenish this lost generation of Olympic caliber athletes, leading sports igures from Oxford and Cambridge universities joined forces to create the Achilles Club. Targeting the universities’ alumni, the Achilles Club promoted “inter-varsity sports contest” and “strict training regimes” in an efort to lure retired athletes back into competition.19 In a renewed plea to the Times on June 11, 1919, the Reverend Courcy Laffan dismissed appeals to temporarily adjourn the Olympic Games. Emerging as a primary vocal proponent of British Olympic participation following Sir heodore Andrea Cook’s resignation from the IOC during the war, Lafan reairmed his belief that the nation owed it to Belgium to compete in Antwerp in honor of that nation’s resilience and bravery during the Great War. Citing a letter issued by the Belgium Olympic Committee, in which the host nation revealed that they were “relying on the support of our Allies,” the BOC vice-chairman pontiicated, “I cannot believe that British sportsmen will turn a deaf ear to this appeal … here could hardly be a better opportunity of expressing this feeling than by giving to the Olympiad of Antwerp the support for which the Belgian Olympic Committee asks.”20 Sentimental appeals for immediate British support failed to resonate with Arnold Strode Jackson. he Olympic 1500-meter champion restated his belief that the Antwerp Games should be postponed until a full postwar recovery had taken place. “We shall be in a position to pay Belgium a far iner compliment two years later on,” Strode Jackson averred.21 Debates surrounding the nation’s participation in another major post-war international sporting event also germinated prior to the Inter-Allied games. he “Military Olympics,” as the event was more commonly known, was the innovation of Elwood S. Brown, a Young Men’s Christian Association (Y.M.C.A) leader assigned to the American Expeditionary Force (A.E.F) on the European continent. As historian Mark Dyreson has noted, the Inter-Allied Games were established in an attempt “to rebuild the world in the atermath of the calamity of the Great War” and to celebrate the fraternity among the successful Allied nations. Held between June 22 and July 6, 1919, at the newly established Pershing Stadium in Paris, the Inter-Allied games drew 1500 athletes from eighteen na104 ‘Olympic Games Are an International Farce’ tions. he defeated Central Powers (Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey) were, unsurprisingly, excluded.22 Despite the initial interest expressed by Lieutenant Colonel H. S. Huntington, Chief Physical Training Oicer of the British Army, and the occasional advertisement of the games within the mainstream national press, Great Britain did not send an oicial British team to compete in Paris. A team of English rowers, representing the British Army of the Rhine, did compete, however, winning irst place in the eight-oared shells event. 23 As the oicial United States military report on the Inter-Allied Games noted, Britain was among eleven nations that refused the invitation to participate in the Paris “owing to the fact that they had a very small number of men in France and the date for the games was too near to allow time for training and transporting others, or for the reason that their troops had already let French soil and were demobilized at home.”24 Reacting to Britain’s decision not to take part in the Inter-Allied Games, G. E. Goss, the Y.M.C.A’s National Director of Physical Education in Great Britain, recommended that the nation must take part in Antwerp. “I irmly believe that to uphold her dignity and prestige … Great Britain should take her place with the nations in this international sporting event,” Goss asserted.25 In the pages of the Times, as leading British sportsmen and oicials continued to debate the feasibility of reviving the Olympic Games so soon ater the war, a more heated discussion arose over whether or not the defeated Germans should be allowed to compete in Antwerp. Debates surrounding the inclusion or ostracism of Germany from the Olympics began as early as 1915, shortly after the outbreak of war. Tensions quickly escalated following the publication of an alleged statement made by IOC President Pierre de Coubertin in the Italian newspaper La Stampa on February 13, 1915. Proclaiming the IOC’s neutrality during the war, Coubertin asserted he would not “deprive Germany the right to manage the 1916 Games.” 26 heodore Andrea Cook, a prominent British member to the IOC at the time, reacted vehemently to Coubertin’s seemingly blind adherence to the principles of Olympism. In his position as editor of the country gentleman’s newspaper he Field, Cook spent the duration of the Great War documenting German war atrocities in Belgium and crusading against Prussian militarism, an endeavor that led him to strongly oppose Germany’s future participation in international sport.27 On April 15, 1915, a disgruntled Cook penned a detailed letter to the BOC chairman, the Duke of Somerset, and to vice-chairman, the Reverend Courcy Lafan, announcing his intent to resign from the IOC. “I will never be a party to any organisation, at the present time, in which Germans are admitted not merely as colleagues in administrative but as competitors with representatives of other countries,” Cook fulminated.28 he Duke of Somerset declared his support for Cook’s position, vowing that he himself “would never have anything to do with Olympic Games in which Germans were in any way concerned.”29 While the continuation of war in Europe dimin105 Llewellyn ished any possibility that the 1916 Berlin games would ever take place, Cook proceeded to submit his oicial letter of resignation to Coubertin, acknowledging how “painful” it was to be divided with the IOC president “on a fundamental question of principle.”30 Cook’s resignation came as a debilitating blow to both the IOC’s and the BOC’s attempts to strengthen the grip of Olympism in Great Britain. Predictably, the conclusion of the war brought the question of Germany’s future participation in international sport to the forefront. As Coubertin acknowledged, the Olympic ideal of universality would not allow the IOC to prohibit German athletes from competing in Antwerp.31 Conversely, the majority of IOC members wished to follow the precedent set by both the League of Nations and the Inter-Allied Games by banishing the former Central Powers altogether. Fortunately for the IOC, a diplomatic solution arose. In accordance with Olympic custom established in 1896, the national organizing committees established to oversee the running of each Olympics were charged with the responsibility of sending out invitations. he IOC, therefore, did not have the right to force the Belgians to exclude the defeated nations; they simply recommended that they not be invited. Accordingly, the Belgians omitted Germany and the Central Powers along with Bolshevik Russia of from their invitation list for Antwerp. In fact, the ostracized Germans did not return to the Olympic arena until the 1928 Amsterdam Games.32 he defeated nations found a far more receptive home within the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), the world governing body of soccer. Ignoring British objections, FIFA refused to banish the Central Powers from international soccer, a decision that forced a number of the remaining member-nations to revoke their membership. Meanwhile, Bolshevik Russia moved into a state of isolationism in international soccer, a policy the Soviet Union maintained until it joined FIFA in 1946.33 By October 1919, as proponents and detractors to British Olympism remained equally divided over the nation’s representation in Antwerp, the Belgian embassy in London asked the British government to oicially accept the nation’s invitation to the forthcoming 1920 Olympic Games. As historian Martin Polley has shown, the Foreign Oice, a governmental department responsible for promoting British interests overseas, only formally accepted an invitation to the Antwerp Games by accident. Ernest Lebuman, an oicial nearing retirement, himself replied positively to the Belgian invitation instead of forwarding it to the BOC as was the standard procedure.34 By the end of November the BOC received notiication from the Foreign Oice that they had inadvertently accepted an invitation from the Belgian embassy to compete at the Olympic Games in Antwerp.35 Subsequently, a departmental error committed the nation to be represented in Antwerp, infuriating the long list of critics who opposed an immediate revival of the Olympic Games and the participation of a British team. 106 ‘Olympic Games Are an International Farce’ Preparing the British Team With the nation oicially committed to compete in Antwerp due to a simple bureaucratic oversight, the BOC began to initiate preparations to ready British athletes for Olympic competition. On November 20, 1919, the BOC formulated a scheme aimed “at producing a team for the Olympic Games of Antwerp.” Aiming to reach out beyond the nation’s most prestigious universities and athletic clubs in search of potential Olympians, the BOC devised an elaborate athletic training structure to assist the various governing bodies of sport in Britain. Under the proposed guidelines, Britain would be divided into regional divisions, with each division containing a “Central Committee composed of representatives from governing bodies.” Seeking out promising athletes and providing them with appropriate training facilities, the Central Committees would be responsible for breeding the next generation of British Olympic champions. Despite the ambitious plans proposed, the cost of establishing elaborate training schemes and transporting and housing a team of British athletes in Antwerp would prove to be a challenging undertaking. Drawing up an estimate of potential costs, the BOC’s “Finance and General Purposes Committee” projected that the BOC would need to raise at least £30,000 through a public appeal to cover the nation’s Antwerp expedition. With only £550 in its bank account, the BOC’s request for such a vast amount of money would prove quite an endeavor, especially in a nation enveloped in post-war austerity.36 With the question of Britain’s participation in Antwerp inally settled, albeit inadvertently, two outspoken critics of the IOC’s plan to immediately revive the Olympic Games, Arnold Strode Jackson and Philip Noel-Baker, reversed their initial position and pledged their full support to Britain’s Olympic efort. Writing in the pages of the Times, the two Olympians put forth their own contrasting strategies for ensuring the best possible representation of British athletes in Antwerp. Rejecting the dilettantish training methods that had hitherto characterized British athletics, Strode Jackson recommended that the BOC pursue a policy of athletic specialization. By hiring full-time professional coaches, such as Oxford University’s Alfred “he Little Wonder” Shrubb—the former world record holder in every distance between two miles and the one-hour run— constructing a national athletic stadium and instituting an annual British athletic festival, Strode Jackson hypothesized that Britain could regain its athletic prowess.37 Favoring a less drastic approach and one slightly more in tune with the Victorian amateur constraints of British athletics, Noel-Baker suggested that the BOC should irst concentrate on rebuilding the nation’s leading athletic clubs by constructing new tracks, providing part-time trainers, and supplying up-to-date equipment. “he promotion of sound, healthy, well equipped clubs is the whole secret of success,” the future Nobel Peace-Prize Laureate asserted.38 As the BOC and its supporters continued to debate the best possible methods for ensuring 107 Llewellyn British success in Antwerp, plans for Olympic reform were still contingent upon the collection of vast sums of money through a public appeal, an initiative that had not yet materialized. Appeal for National Subscriptions On January 31, 1920, the Times announced the launch of an appeal for national subscriptions. Signed by BOC Chairman Lord Downham of Fulham and his two predecessors, the Duke of Somerset and Lord Desborough, the appeal intended to raise £30,000, a sum the Times deemed suicient to “meet the expense entailed in the representation of this country at the Olympic Games at Antwerp.” he signatories of the appeal declared that the money would also be used to “raise the whole standard of British sport” by increasing the number of playing ields, improving the health of the public, and promoting class cooperation through sport.39 King George V graciously ofered his immediate support to the fund by donating £100 and expressing his hope that “every efort will be made to ensure that the United Kingdom is represented by its best athletes.”40 Reiterating the King’s message, he Field urged the nation to demonstrate their support for British Olympism by “subscribing generously” to the appeal.41 Appeals to the beneicence of the British public for subscriptions served as the primary avenue through which the BOC could raise suicient funds to train and prepare British teams for Olympic competition. In 1908, prior to London’s hosting of the Olympic Games, the public reacted favorably to an Olympic appeal by raising nearly £16,000 to help pay hosting costs.42 A similar initiative launched four years later in preparation for the 1912 Stockholm games, however, failed to capture the altruistic spirit of the British public as only £4,148 was subscribed.43 Similarly, following a disappointing third place inish in Stockholm, the BOC launched a public appeal to raise a staggering £100,000 in an efort to recapture the nation’s lost athletic prowess at the 1916 Berlin games. he appeal for such a prodigious amount of money evoked widespread criticism from detractors to British Olympism who claimed that the BOC was inancing professionalism. Unsurprisingly, prior to the outbreak of the Great War only the diminutive sum of £5,393 of the projected £100,000 had been raised.44 Given the successive failure of Olympic appeals, it seems astonishing that the BOC would again turn to a miserly public for inancial support. With the continued apolitical stance of the British government and their refusal to ofer subsidies to Olympic teams, a policy that dates back to the nation’s representation at the inaugural 1896 Athens games, the launch of a public appeal highlighted the desperate position of the nation’s Olympic boosters.45 Predictably, in the ensuing weeks and months the BOC’s appeal for public subvention failed to inspire the generosity of the British people, as total subscriptions lingered below £1,000. Britain’s post-war economic ebb appears the most 108 ‘Olympic Games Are an International Farce’ likely cause of the funds stagnation. Despite an initial boom period directly ater the war, the British economy soon plunged into a devastating recession. he carnage of the Western Front signaled the loss of Britain’s commercial markets in central Europe, Latin America and East Asia, notably to the United States and Japan. Heavy industries such as steel, textiles and coal sufered the most as exports rapidly diminished, a trend precipitated further by the introduction of new electronic and chemical technologies overseas. With unemployment rates gradually escalating and post-war retributions looming heavily, the government was forced into retaining high war-time rates of taxation, a policy that limited the disposable incomes of many Britons. For many observers, Britain’s ‘relative’ decline grew even more apparent.46 Despite Britain’s post-war economic ebb, austerity did not dampen the nation’s enthusiasm for domestic spectator sporting events such as soccer, cricket and horseracing during this period. In fact, as historians Mike Huggins and Jack Williams have demonstrated, attendance igures skyrocketed during the inter-war years.47 he British people, although inancially restrained, were willing to spend money on sport, so why not the Olympic Games? Class dynamics certainly shaped both the public’s love of sport and their general indiference to the Olympics. he British Olympic Movement, similar to most administrative and ruling bodies of British sport, was controlled and administered by upper-middle class and aristocratic elites. For example, since the inception of the BOC in 1905 all six of its presidents and ten of its thirteen chairpersons held aristocratic titles.48 Raised in the late nineteenth century English-public school system, members of the BOC were irmly entrenched in organized sports that were both elite and amateur in nature, activities that made the amateur ethos of the Olympic Movement even more appealing.49 he elitism of the British Olympic Movement naturally transferred to the Olympic arena as relected by the large proportion of university men, including twelve Oxbridge blues, who comprised the men’s track and ield team at the 1912 Stockholm games.50 Exclusion and snobbery appeared even more salient in other Olympic sports, such as rowing, fencing and equestrianism. A “Suburban Athlete,” writing to the British daily the London Standard conirmed the class-bias inherent in British Olympism when he complained that “Caste rules the world of athletes and all is snobbery … At present the whole tendency seems to be that only public school and university men shall have all the chances. hose who control the English contribution to the Olympic Games would like to see England represented by nice young men with nice pedigrees and splendid educations.”51 he exclusivity of the British Olympic movement was relected further by the BOC’s decision to limit the broadcast of the Antwerp appeal in a handful of elite London-based newspapers and sporting journals, such as the Times, Daily Telegraph and Baily’s Magazine of Sport and Pastimes,a decision that let the majority of the British public, particularly the predominantly working-class north109 Llewellyn ern regions of the country, unaware that an Olympic Games fund even existed. Unlike the American Olympic Committee (AOC) that promoted their fundraising appeals indiscriminately, the BOC were clearly targeting members of their own ilk for much needed inancial support.52 At least one member of the BOC, Sir heodore Andrea Cook, recognized the importance of advertising the appeal more aggressively “north of the hames.” Writing on the pages of his own newspaper he Field, Cook postulated, “hey [Northerners] have only to be told the cold hard facts of the position and they will rectify it at once.”53 Despite Cook’s optimism, the probability of the average Briton, whether they were cognizant of the appeal or not, ofering inancial support to send a team of privileged elites to compete on foreign soil was extremely improbable. Despite the BOC’s plans for democratization, the nation’s working classes were pushed to the periphery of the British Olympic Movement. Unsurprisingly they shunned the Olympic Games by focusing their energies towards professional sports, regarded as far more representative of their interests. As well, their money was directed towards sporting events that they could actually participate in and watch. Curiously, the BOC also lacked support among the majority of their own upper-middle class and aristocratic peers. For many sections of the nation’s sporting elites, the Olympic Games were viewed disparagingly as a foreign invention that paled in signiicance to Britain’s own prestigious sporting competitions such as tennis at Wimbledon, cricket at Lords, and rowing at Henley.54 he political reformer and leader of the Positivist Movement in Great Britain, Frederick Harrison, best captured the repugnance felt by the nation’s elites towards the Olympic Games when he branded them as “swagger cosmopolitan circuses.” Harrison went on to explain, “hey may be Olympic, but they are not English. It is not ‘cricket,’ as we used to play it at Oxford in the ities.”55 he inward-looking, parochial attitudes of many of Britain’s elites towards foreign sporting events and institutions was also evident in the nation’s rejection of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), soccer’s world governing body, and their later denigration of FIFA’s World Cup tournament.56 Writing in his memoirs, Sir heodore Andrea Cook summarized the nation’s insular perspective when he noted, “he truth is that the average Englishman would far rather see Oxford beat Cambridge, or Surrey ighting Yorkshire … than any amount of Czechoslovakians squaring up to a South American Republic.”57 Parochialism aside, the repudiation of Pierre de Coubertin’s modern revival by certain sections of the nation’s political and social elites was fundamentally driven by the belief that the Olympic Games were inextricably tainted by politics. he Field supported this claim when it argued, “What this country resents is the inevitable mixture of politics,” a combination that “seems inherent in the Olympic Games.”58 he interference of politics in modern Olympic competition manifested itself most clearly following scenes of Anglo-American wrangling during the 1908 Olympic Games in London. As the American publication 110 ‘Olympic Games Are an International Farce’ the World-To-Day sensationalized, “Not since the blood spattering days of 1812 have England and America clashed in a more desperate struggle for mastery.”59 Recriminations developed following the absence of the American lag lying within the Olympic stadium, and the failure of U.S. lag bearer Ralph Rose to dip the “stars and stripes” as an honorary gesture to King Edward VII. American complaints of biased British oiciating were also lodged during the tug-of-war, 400-meter and marathon events.60 he hullabaloo generated throughout the games caused a temporary rit between the American Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) and the Amateur Athletic Association (AAA) of Great Britain, and even led to a diplomatic squabble between U.S. President heodore Roosevelt and Sir heodore Andrea Cook.61 While the sporting nationalism that enveloped the London Games appealed to the majority of the British public, the nation’s elites believed the controversial events undercut notions of ‘true sportsmanship.’ From the elite perspective, the Olympics tarnished Britain’s coveted amateur ideal by fostering international disharmony rather than promoting the “spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play” espoused by the Olympic Charter.62 With many Britons decidedly apathetic towards Olympic competition, the BOC’s travails deepened even further as their appeal for national subscriptions faced stern competition from benevolent institutions and veteran associations which were concurrently spearheading fundraising initiatives of their own to combat the ater-efects of the Great War. Among the most prominent of these fund drives was King George’s fund for sailors, a project aimed at supporting seamen’s hospital’s across the country, and the Veterans Association’s appeal for £1,000,000 to erect an “Imperial Memorial” in honor of the nation’s gallant war dead.63 Commander-in-chief of the British forces, Lord Douglas Haig, also established a public appeal in honor of fallen British soldiers during the war.64 Predictably, an appeal for £30,000 to train and prepare a team of British athletes to compete in international Olympic competition failed to inspire public muniicence in the same manner as building veteran’s hospitals and commemorating the nation’s war heroes. An exasperated Reverend Courcy Lafan conirmed this truism, conceding that the BOC “could not put themselves in competition with Lord Haig’s appeal for the soldiers, nor with the appeal on behalf of the hospitals.”65 With the Antwerp games quickly approaching and appeal funds still barren, the BOC was forced into action. Conceding the importance of publicity, the BOC planned to promulgate the appeal more broadly by launching a strident media campaign throughout the ‘national’ press. Members of the BOC also discussed the possibility of lobbying politicians for support.66 Reviving the Olympic Appeal On March 31, 1920, ater consulting with a number of British politicians sympathetic to the nation’s Olympic cause, the BOC announced the formation of 111 Llewellyn a “House of Commons Committee” to assist in the procurement of the funds needed to send a British team to Antwerp. Sir Park Gof, M.P., headed the six man committee that included First Lord of the Admiralty Walter Long and chairman of the Liberal party Sir Donald Maclean. Sir Francis Stanley Jackson, a future president of the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and a member of the House of Commons Committee, proclaimed that the nascent organization “would practically guarantee that the £30,000 would be forthcoming.”67 BOC archival records reveal that each member of the committee would be responsible for guaranteeing at least £250 towards the Olympic Games fund, an important contribution given the languid state of the appeal. In the following weeks, several newly appointed committee members, such as Alfred Bigland, M.P., and P. J. Hannon Secretary of the British Commonwealth Union, were co-opted onto the BOC in order to give the House of Commons Committee authoritative standing in Parliament and within the eyes of the British public. Meanwhile, in an attempt to win the support of the nation’s elites, the BOC also co-opted a number of vice-presidents, the most notable of whom included future Prime Minster Andrew Bonar Law and inancier and politician Lord St. Davids, a move that further alienated the working classes from the increasingly aristocratic composition of the British Olympic Movement.68 As the House of Commons Committee endeavored to assist the nation’s preparations for Antwerp, the BOC received a generous £100 donation from the MCC, the supreme world governing body of cricket. British expatriates residing in Antwerp also expressed their generosity towards the nation’s Olympic eforts by providing unsolicited inancial support. Establishing a special committee, the city’s British colony launched its own appeal for funds, donating 5000 francs to start proceedings.69 As the Reverend Courcy Lafan conirmed, “Subscriptions for the British Olympic team from British residents in Belgium are reaching a very generous igure, and we trust the enthusiasm of Englishmen in their midst, and of our Dominions beyond seas, may in some measure compensate, in Belgian eyes, for the apathy they will consider so unintelligible in our own country.”70 hese displays of beneicence proved to be a rarity as the Olympic Games fund continued to lounder. Discussing the possibility of lowering the public appeal to a minimum of £13,000, the nation’s Olympic boosters acknowledged for the irst time since the inception of the British Olympic Association (BOA) in 1905 that they were giving serious consideration to withdrawing from future Olympic competition. “If at least this amount was not forthcoming, it would be necessary either very greatly to reduce our representation, or withdraw altogether, in which case the BOA would have to ‘put the shutters up,’” the overseers of British Olympism lamented.71 As contributions to the Olympic fund trickled in at an alarmingly slow rate, the various governing bodies of British sport began to initiate their own preparations for Antwerp without the inancial support promised to them by the arbi112 ‘Olympic Games Are an International Farce’ trators of British Olympism. With a view of discovering latent talent, the Amateur Athletic Association (AAA) staged a series of “Olympic Tests” throughout the British Isles and also provided athletic clubs with specially designed medals for hosting “scratch Olympic events.” Plans for an oicial AAA championship were also inalized for July 2 and 3, 1920, at Stamford Bridge in London, whereby an Olympic squad would be selected from the outcome of these contests. Similarly, the Amateur Boxing Association (ABA) announced that they would be selecting an oicial Olympic team on the outcome of an amateur and public school championship event. he Amateur Swimming Association took a less formal route, asking clubs to forward a list of their best swimmers, times and performances from which a inal Olympic trial team would be chosen. Meanwhile, the Amateur Wrestling Association (AWA), the National Cyclists’ Union (NCU) and the Amateur Gymnastics Association (AGA) revealed their own equally ambitious plans for ensuring the representation of the nation’s leading sportsmen and sportswomen in Antwerp.72 For the nation’s upper-middle class and aristocratic elites, who were irmly wedded both institutionally and ideologically to the chivalrous amateur values espoused within the late nineteenth-century English public-school system, the thought of British athletes undergoing rigorous trials and undertaking specialized athletic training as a necessary prerequisite for Olympic success in Antwerp was met with widespread hostility and discord.73 In fact, the belief that specialization put an athlete on the nefarious path towards professionalism emerged as another prominent reason why the nation’s elites disavowed the Olympic Games. As the Americans had demonstrated with remarkable afect, methodical and scientiic training regimes bred Olympic champions, but in doing so they violated the British notion of ‘sport for sports sake,’ a dictum that traditionally governed amateur and elite sport.74 F. A. M. Webster, founder of the Amateur Field Events Association and a respected Olympic coach, conirmed the conservative fears of the nation’s elites when he noted, “here are many people who in their fear of over-specialization encouraged the belief that it is better to lose, or to abstain from international competition altogether, rather than to risk the stigma of semi-professionalism by the education of our athletes.”75 Rejecting Britain’s indiferent approach to Olympic competition, Arnold Strode Jackson urged the nation to abandon the old adage, “we will be alright on the night.” Strode Jackson contended that “here is nothing professional, unsporting, derogatory, or un-English in applying the same process for organizing ourselves to win at these games as there is in the process of winning an individual race.”76 he London Telegraph corroborated Strode Jackson’s assertion, rhetorically querying, “What is an Olympiad for except for the display of the prowess of the super-athlete?”77 he rejection of a “business-like” American model of athletic specialization reveals a deeper, more pertinent, insight to British views of themselves and their place in the post-war international sporting world.78 Historically, the British 113 Llewellyn were the progenitors and leaders of modern sports, especially soccer, cricket and rugby.79 heir dominance and governance of these sports through bureaucratic agencies, such as the Football Association (FA) and the MCC, reinforced Britain’s leadership claims. Conversely, power is a relative, not absolute force. Over time, as foreign nations gained experience and established sporting institutions and customs of their own, British sporting prowess came under serious threat. In fact, by the early decades of the twentieth century British invincibility in sport appeared to be a mirage as evinced by American dominance at the Olympic Games and the decline of British football primacy.80 Defeat at the hands of rival nations served a humiliating blow to British prestige, particularly during a period of economic upheaval at home and nationalistic challenges abroad. In an attempt to rationalize Britain’s failures on the international stage, the nation’s upper-middle class and aristocratic elites entrenched themselves even deeper within their own amateur ethic.81 Favoring a policy of isolationism, British elites renounced the Olympic Games and ignored the BOC’s eforts to adequately prepare the nation’s athletes for Antwerp in an attempt to safeguard Britain’s sporting reputation against further damage and humiliation. Unlike their upper-middle class and aristocratic peers, members of the BOC believed that the conservation of British hegemony in sport and in national and imperial afairs could best be achieved through internationalism and the nation’s continued participation in Olympic competition. Despite masking their nationalistic ambitions by focusing their rhetoric on the ‘honor’ and ‘pride’ that Britain’s participation in Antwerp would bring to the Belgium people, the BOC clearly viewed the Olympic arena as a platform for the symbolic demonstration of national virility. A well-prepared, adequately-funded and successful Olympic team would send a strong signal to the rest of the world that in the atermath of the Great War British hegemony remained unscathed. As Arnold Strode Jackson, himself recently a co-opted member on the BOC, conirmed, “Losing badly would throw us down in the eyes of the world, which would conclude that, as an athletic nation, we had gone under during the war.”82 Meanwhile, as true Olympic apostles, members of the BOC also saw merit in the humanistic mission of the Olympic Games; the decorated career of Philip Noel-Baker as an athletic paciist would later reairm this truism. he Reverend Courcy Lafan extolled the virtues of Olympism when he remarked that the Olympic Movement existed to achieve “the perfect physical development of a new humanity; the spreading all over the world of a spirit of sport—that is the spirit of the truest chivalry; and the drawing together of all the nations of the earth in the bonds of peace and mutual amity.”83 Such deference helps to explain the BOC’s tireless resolve in trying to proselytize a profoundly apathetic nation towards Olympism. In a fundraising pamphlet published prior to the Antwerp games, the BOC once again urged the public to throw their weight behind the nation’s Olympic campaign. “It is unthinkable that they [British sportsmen] 114 ‘Olympic Games Are an International Farce’ should, from any insular interest or prejudice deliberately step down from joining in this great campaign for a cleaner and fuller humanity by refusing to take part in that Olympic Movement through which, in so large measure, they have inluenced the world.”84 Renewed attempts to propagate the appeal more aggressively continued to fall on deaf ears. By April 29, 1920, only £1,739 of the projected £30,000 had been procured.85 Olympic Propaganda As the Olympic Games fund continued to lounder, on May 13, 1920, Sir heodore Andrea Cook tried to come to the BOC’s rescue by proposing a last gasp propaganda initiative. Serving as the editor of he Field, chief organ of the British Olympic Movement, Cook ofered to launch an aggressive media campaign “for the purpose of raising the money required by the Council.”86 Cook, a prominent member of the BOC despite his resignation from the IOC during the war, estimated that anywhere from £30,000 to £50,000 in subscriptions could still be procured to send a British team to Antwerp. In order for the press campaign to proceed, Cook requested that the BOC raise £5,000 to cover the expenses of publishing the appeal throughout the British press. he proprietors of he Field ofered to pledge at least £500 towards this sum and would aford “free space” in all of its publications. With time of the essence, the BOC eagerly accepted Cook’s proposition and set out to obtain the money needed to guarantee his services. Various members of the BOC ofered generous donations that totaled £1050, including a £100 contribution from the Reverend Courcy Lafan. With the bulk of the money still outstanding, the BOC called upon the House of Commons Committee to guarantee the remaining igure.87 Regrettably, at a weekly meeting of the BOC on May 27, 1920, it was reported that the scheme of propaganda proposed by Sir heodore Andrea Cook had “lapsed.” Given until Wednesday, May 26, to raise the £5,000 needed to ensure the services of he Field, the BOC lamented that the guarantees required to cover that sum were not forthcoming. Incensed by the collapse of his propaganda scheme, Cook immediately announced his resignation from membership to the Council.88 For a man who had dedicated the bulk of his life to the promotion of Olympism throughout Britain, even in the face of widespread public apathy and adversity, Cook’s resignation at this particular juncture highlights the turmoil that shrouded the BOC. Unable to raise funds to send a British team to Antwerp, and worse still, unable to even raise the funds needed to advertise the public appeal suiciently in the press, the BOC was powerless to perform the functions for which it was originally established. In a letter to he Field, a frustrated Cook demanded that the BOC “make an instant and decisive campaign of publicity.” he former captain of the British fencing team at the 1906 Intercalated games in Athens, admonished that the BOC’s “existence as the representative body of 115 Llewellyn every great association controlling sport in this country” would be in jeopardy unless signiicant advances in the appeal for funds were not forthcoming.89 Renowned British athletic coach F. A. M. Webster echoed Cook’s criticism of the BOC in a condemnation issued on the pages of the Badminton Magazine of Sport and Pastime. Claiming to voice the sentiments of the masses, Webster angrily denounced the BOC’s “management of Olympic matters in this country,” and accused the council of elitism by “carrying on their conferences behind locked doors” and “failing to take the public into their conidence until the eleventh hour.” Webster rebuked, “Not only is such secrecy bad policy, but it is bad business, because nothing can be made popular without publicity, and it is the art of advertising which the Olympic Council evidently does not understand.”90 Reairming Webster’s opinions, Arnold Strode Jackson warned that the BOC was “out of touch … with modern conditions and methods.” Demanding an overhaul of the nation’s athletic system, Strode Jackson cautioned, “he Olympic Council must change it, or the Olympic Council must be changed.”91 Such criticisms relected a growing chorus of condemnation aimed at the BOC’s leadership in Olympic afairs. Desperately trying to maintain its position as the overseers of British Olympism, the BOC established an emergency sub-committee to “consider matters in connection with the appeal.”92 Former Liberal M.P. Sir Arthur Herbert chaired the nascent committee and set out to personally drum up support for the Olympic Games fund. Ater consulting with various publicity agents and the management of the Daily Mail, Herbert reported that none “were able to give any deinite decisions to helping to raise the money.”93 Fortuitously, another propaganda scheme materialized in the form of London-based press agent Sydney Colston. For the seemingly modest fee of £1,500, Colston ofered to serve as the “Propaganda Agent of the Council,” promising to drum up support for the Olympic appeal throughout the British Isles. Although enthused by Colston’s assurances of garnering much needed publicity, the BOC decided to let the proposal “stand over” as the amount was “too high for the Council to risk.”94 he BOC’s reticence is certainly understandable given the lack of funds it had at its disposal. By June 7, 1920, an anonymous benefactor with an interest in international sport mysteriously referred to as “Mr. X,” ofered to put down the irst £1,000 necessary to secure Mr. Colston’s services. Without hesitation the BOC voted to accept the ofer, contributing inancially to cover the outstanding £500.95 It appeared that the BOC was ofered a inal reprieve. Meanwhile, as Sidney Colston began traveling the United Kingdom trumpeting the appeal in cities such as Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham, the BOC staged a public luncheon with members of the British press corps in an efort to revitalize interest in the Olympic Games fund.96 Held on June 25, 1920, at a London restaurant, the BOC adopted a marketing gambit used by the AOC by inviting a high proile political leader, 116 ‘Olympic Games Are an International Farce’ Secretary of State for War Winston Churchill, to rally support for the Olympic fund. In view of the continued failure of the appeal for subscriptions, the future British Prime Minister announced that that BOC had reduced its appeal target to £10,000, the absolute minimum sum needed to send a British team to compete in Antwerp. he decision to drastically reduce the initial appeal objective of £30,000 and to recruit an eminent politician to promote the appeal relects the BOC’s attenuated position. Spearheading a late push to arouse public support, Churchill declared: “here was still time to give the United Kingdom a fair chance in the great international competition, but there was only just time let.”97 Churchill’s optimism, however, proved unfounded as the Olympic fund continued to linger at £1,855.98 Not dependent upon voluntary public subscriptions alone, the BOC simultaneously courted the British government for much needed inancial support. On June 30, 1920, the Foreign Oice, despite committing the nation to be represented in Antwerp, maintained their non-interventionist role in international sport by formally rejecting an appeal for “the provision of a government subsidy for the British team.”99 Sir Eyre Crowe, Assistant Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and the person responsible for evaluating the request for support, denied the claim on the grounds that in his opinion the ‘Olympic Games are an international farce.’100 he government’s aversion towards Olympic competition was most virulently captured by Gerald Villiers, a counselor at the Foreign Oice. “At the present moment, when ex-oicers are starving in the streets of London, and men, women and children dying like lies of starvation and typhus in Central Europe, it seems to me somewhat anomalous to raise large sums of money to decide who can run the fastest or jump farthest,” Villiers excoriated.101 As a bastion of aristocratic inluence the Foreign Oice’s disdain for the Olympic Games relects the wider opinions of large sections of the nation’s elites. Acrimony and a fervent dislike of the Olympics aside, the Foreign Oice’s refusal to ofer pecuniary support was also the product of an overburdened governmental budget. High unemployment rates, post-war retributions, and a burgeoning social expenditure program that encompassed old-age pensions, health and unemployment insurance, and a house building subsidy, created immense iscal pressures not conducive to supporting the nation’s athletes in international competition.102 Angered at the parsimony of the British government, he Field groused vehemently: “he Government, as is usual with our Governments, virtually compelled our Olympic Council to send a representative team, and then let it, without the slightest help, to compete against nations which were without exception assisted by subsidies from their respective states.”103 Writing in his memoirs years later, Sir heodore Andrea Cook echoed the sentiments of he Field when he bemoaned the “handicap” enforced upon the nation’s athletes due to the lack of support ofered by the British government.104 Taking a more optimistic tone, 117 Llewellyn the Reverend Courcy Lafan assured the public that despite being “let in the lurch” by the government, the BOC would proceed to “do everything that is possible” to ensure that the nation is adequately represented in Antwerp.105 Despite the Foreign Oice’s oicial position, certain sections of the government were clearly sympathetic to the BOC’s travails. Alongside the members of the House of Commons Committee, a handful of preeminent politic igures, such as the Secretary of State of India, Edwin Montagu, and First Lord of the Admiralty, Walter Long, expressed their unwavering vocal support for the BOC’s appeal for funds.106 As Minister of Agriculture Lord Lee of Fareham, another advocate of British Olympism conirmed, “his is a matter in which our national pride, to say nothing of our international credit, is deeply concerned, and I am unwilling to believe that British sportsmen will tamely acquiesce in the non-representation of their country.”107 As the Foreign Oice maintained their minimalist role in international sport, Britain’s Olympic rivals enjoyed the beneits of lavish governmental subsidies. As the historian Pierre Arnaud has revealed, in France the Ministry of Foreign Afairs appropriated 200,000 francs in an attempt to transform French military success into “invincibility on the sports ield.”108 he governments of Sweden, Italy, and Spain also recognized the importance of the Olympic Games as a tool of national projection by contributing generously to their nation’s preparations for Antwerp.109 Across the Atlantic, Britain’s iercest Olympic rival, the United States, was accruing a formidable amount of money, estimated at a little over $163,000.110 In light of their nation’s impressive Olympic war chest, the Los Angeles Times boasted that while the British were “struggling against overwhelming odds” to secure inancial support, Uncle Sam was making “giant strides.”111 he U.S. government also expressed its support for the nation’s Olympic endeavors, as Congress commissioned the use of an army ship, the Princess Matoika, to transfer American athletes to and from the Olympic Games.112 he seriousness with which rival governments took Olympic competition clearly illuminates how international sporting events such as the Olympics were viewed as a tool for national projection. Unfortunately for the BOC, the Foreign Oice clearly stood alone in failing to recognize the propaganda value of the Olympic Games. Alongside a lagging public appeal and a non-supportive government, the BOC plunged into an even deeper state of despair following the death of its chairman, Lord Downham. Sufering from inluenza and pneumonia, Lord Downham, a member of the BOC since 1906, died of heart failure in his home on July 2, 1920.113 At a weekly meeting of the BOC, members expressed with profound emotion the “serious loss which it had sustained in being deprived of his wise counsel and unlagging energy.”114 With the commencement of the Olympic Games just over a month away and still lacking the necessary funds to send a British team, the BOC endeavored to ind an immediate replacement 118 ‘Olympic Games Are an International Farce’ to ill the vacant chairmanship. Ater unsuccessfully courting the assistance of Lord Ampthill, a founding member of the IOC and a former rower at Oxford, members voted unanimously to appoint the Reverend Courcy Lafan as an interim-chairman until the conclusion of the 1920 Antwerp games.115 In his temporary position, Lafan initiated a inal push to garner the public’s inancial support. Writing to the Daily Telegraph on July 28, 1920, Lafan declared that the BOC had desperately reduced its required sum to only £5,500, a fraction of the £30,000 originally requested. With over £3,000 already subscribed or promised, Lafan announced that the BOC required an additional £2,500 in order to ensure an “appearance in any way worthy of our leading position as a sporting nation.”116 In the weeks leading up to the games public subscriptions slowly gained momentum, a likely result of the various propaganda initiatives being undertaken by press agent Sidney Colston and a generous £500 donation from British businessman Donald Macleod.117 Despite the indefatigable efforts of Lafan and the BOC, the nation’s apathy towards Olympic competition proved unwavering as over £1,500 was still needed to cover the expenses of the nation’s Olympic expedition.118 As British athletes set sail for Antwerp, they did so ill-prepared and signiicantly underfunded. The Games Reborn On August 14, 1920, the Games of the Seventh Olympiad were oicially opened. Ater months of squabbling and internal dissent, a team of two hundred and thirty-one British athletes arrived in the war-torn Olympic city of Antwerp. Despite being crippled in resources, British athletes performed admirably in Antwerp. he British team inished third in the medal standings behind Sweden and the overall champion, the United States. hirty-one year old railway guard Albert Hill, a radio operator in the Royal Flying Corps during the Great War, led the British team by claiming two gold medals following impressive victories in both the 800-and-1500-meter track events. Britain’s team captain, Philip Noel-Baker, also medaled in the 1500-meter event, inishing narrowly behind his compatriot Hill. Despite improving slightly on their performance at the 1912 Stockholm games, Britain’s iteen gold medals paled in signiicance to the remarkable forty-one gold medals claimed by American athletes. If cynics needed further evidence of Britain’s decline in the international sporting world, the overall medal standings served as a damming vindication. Perhaps more alarmingly, a detailed survey of the leading British newspapers of the time reveals that the 1920 Antwerp Games were given very little press coverage, with most publications printing only lists of results. he possibility that most Britons were not even aware, let alone interested that the Antwerp Games were taking place, is certainly plausible.119 119 Llewellyn Under the circumstances, the respectable showing by Britain’s athletes was marred by the alleged unsavory scenes of unsportsmanlike conduct that permeated the Antwerp games. Detractors of British Olympism voiced their disdain for the local Belgian fans who booed as “God Save the King” was being played prior to Britain’s victory in the water polo inal over host nation Belgium. he British press bemoaned the dubious decisions of the judges in the boxing contests.120 Similarly, in the soccer inal between Czechoslovakia and Belgium, critics groused as Czech players stormed of the ield in protestation of some “questionable calls” by the ‘British’ referee.121 To the champions of the nation’s increasingly anachronistic amateur ideal, the athletes of the world did not play the game as the British understood it. As the Daily Express conirmed in an angry polemic: he Olympic Games have ended … in disgusting every real sportsman who has had anything to do with them … he amateur status of the competitors has been as questionable as ever. For the most part they have been nothing better than hired gladiators, specially trained to snatch a particular prize. Once again, there has been no vestige of the true spirit of sport in the proceedings, and our contention that no credit can be got from taking part in them has been fully substantiated. It is to be hoped that British athletes have made their last appearance at this travesty of an Olympic gathering.122 The Field dismissed reports such as that of the Daily Express as erroneous, claiming: “There was no ill-feeling, no unsportsmanlike conduct, no veiled professionalism in the stadium.”123 The nation’s athletes also trumpeted this view, claiming that “ill-informed critics” were purposely spreading the belief that the “Olympic Games are not carried out in a sporting spirit.”124 Unfortunately for the upholders of British Olympism the ire did not die down until months ater the conclusion of the games. On the pages of the Times, former member to both the IOC and BOC Sir heodore Andrea Cook, issued a statement demanding Great Britain’s withdrawal from all future Olympic competition. “his country has made it perfectly clear that the whole movement which resulted in the modern revival by Baron Pierre de Coubertin of the Olympic Games has in its latest phases become entirely alien to English thought and character,” Cook lambasted. he long-time proponent of British Olympism urged the Reverend Courcy Lafan to inform the IOC immediately that Britain “will not compete in the Olympic Games of 1924, or in any subsequent occasion in the oicial Olympic cycle, while the present state of public opinion in England continues as it is to-day.”125 Cook’s position signaled the culmination of a long and diicult career working within the framework of British Olympism, a career that dated back to the 1906 Intercalated Games. While his demand for the nation’s Olympic withdrawal can be read as sour grapes, a man aggrieved by the failure of his proposed 120 ‘Olympic Games Are an International Farce’ propaganda scheme, Cook had simply become disillusioned with the task of trying to spread Olympism amongst an apathetic British public. he continued unsupportive stance of the British government only served to augment his frustrations. Nevertheless, determined to prove his continued reverence for Olympism and the Olympic movement, Cook participated in the 1920 Antwerp games, claiming a silver medal in the literature competition for his Pindaric ode titled “he Antwerp Olympic Games.”126 Rushing to the BOC’s beleaguered defense, chairman and apologist the Reverend Courcy Laffan fervently rejected Cook’s calls for an Olympic withdrawal. While conceding that the BOC had failed in its attempts to raise sufficient funds, Laffan cautioned that “to interpret this as a national repudiation of Olympic Games is deliberately to ignore the difficulties under which appeals of all kinds are labouring at the present time.”127 Post-war austerity clearly hampered the BOC’s efforts, but the failure of a multitude of appeals for national subscriptions demonstrated that the Olympic flame was barely flickering in the hearts of the majority of the British public. In a second letter to the Times, Cook confirmed this truism, arguing that parsimony of the British people and government served as an accurate measure of the “depth and sincerity of the objections felt by this country as a whole to the entire Olympic movement.” 128 Support for Cook’s withdrawal plan would prove ubiquitous. Claiming that the games violated the true spirit of chaste amateurism, Charles M. Pitman, Honorary Secretary of the Amateur Rowing Association (ARA), favored the nation’s retirement from the Olympic arena. “Unless there is a complete reversal of rowing opinion in this country, Great Britain will not take part in any future Olympic regatta,” Pittman warned.129 On November 12, 1920, the BOC woes were compounded even further following the receipt of a defamatory report from the Amateur Athletic Association (AAA) on their experiences in Antwerp. Supporting the view that unsportsmanlike conduct marred the games the AAA issued a scathing attack on the IOC, an organization which they claimed was responsible for such egregious scenes. he AAA called upon the nation’s Olympic boosters to demand that the IOC be “reorganized and composed of men who have a practical knowledge of sport,” and one that has the “absolute control” needed to “enforce their rules and regulations.” he AAA, arguably one of the most powerful of the independent sport governing bodies in Britain, then turned their criticisms towards the BOC, warning that they “must be in possession of ample funds by the end of 1921,” or otherwise the AAA would “consider the question of participation in future Games.” 130 Criticisms, discontent and threats of withdrawal from their own representatives and supporters seemingly plunged the BOC into a state of disrepair. British Olympism had reached its nadir. 121 Llewellyn Conclusion Working against the tide of national apathy, the BOC might have been forgiven for throwing in the towel and declaring the nation’s withdrawal from future Olympic competition. Facing a £985 deicit as a result of sending a team to Antwerp, the BOC was unable to circulate Council minutes and produce an oficial report of the games owing mainly to the cost of paper. he BOC was even forced into canceling the lease agreement on their oices.131 More embarrassingly, future IOC Presiden Count Henri de Baillet-Latour pursued the BOC repeatedly for over a year ater the conclusion of the games for the payment of 21,175 francs owed to the Belgium Olympic Committee for the cost of accommodation in Antwerp.132 Surely, the thought of Olympic abstention had never appeared more enticing. Astonishingly, led by its recently appointed chairman Lord Cadogan, the BOC demonstrated remarkable resolve by pledging their support to the preservation of Olympism in Great Britain. At a meeting held on November 7, 1922, at the Army and Navy Club in Pall Mall, London, members voted unanimously to ensure that “Great Britain should continue to identify herself with the Olympic Games.”133 Unlike the majority of their upper-middle class and aristocratic peers who trivialized and disavowed the Olympic Games as a faked antiquity, a ledging French invention that promoted professionalism and fostered international disharmony, the BOC was composed of self-proclaimed ‘true’ Olympic apostles. his coterie of high-minded gentlemen clearly saw merit in the humanistic mission of the Olympic movement and worked tirelessly to ensure a continued British presence in future Olympic competition. heir determination was also inluenced by a strong belief that a continued British presence was needed to educate foreign athletes on the true spirit of sportsmanship and to ensure that their vision of the ideals of Olympism was being upheld. In fact, this moralizing role became even more pronounced as the nation began a precipitous decline in international sport throughout the inter-war years. At this critical juncture, Council members clearly recognized that the withdrawal of any of the leading governing bodies of sport would have broken up the esprit de corps of British sport and threatened the very existence of the movement they were trying to preserve. Subsequently, in a move to appease the AAA, the BOC revealed that they would lobby the IOC to “authorize the formation of a Committee of experts” to serve as a court of arbitration during the course of the Olympic Games; a measure aimed at eliminating all incidents that were contrary to the British ideal of sport. 134 In fact, at the 1923 IOC Session in Rome, British IOC members Reverend Courcy Lafan and Brigadier General Reginald J. Kentish promulgated this very proposal. Ater some initial hesitation, the British proposition was formally accepted and a “jury d’ honneur” was established.135 Meanwhile, the conciliatory role of the BOC was evidenced further when they urged the AAA to aford them suicient time to raise the money needed to train 122 ‘Olympic Games Are an International Farce’ and prepare the nation’s athletes for the 1924 Olympic Games scheduled for Paris—a site chosen to mark the retirement of IOC president Pierre de Coubertin: he British Olympic Council is of the opinion that if necessary funds, either in the shape of promises or subscriptions, or adequate guarantees, are in hand by Lady Day 1923 [March 25], the views of the Amateur Athletic Association should be satisfactorily met—If this should not be the case, the British Olympic Council would not ask the Amateur Athletic Association to undertake participation in the Olympic Games of 1924.136 Reairming their hard-line approach, the AAA denied the BOC’s request for leniency, and instead declared that they “will make its own arrangements in regard to inancing the Athletic Team, should it be decided to participate in the Games of 1924.”137 Another major antagonist, the ARA, proved equally obstinate, refusing the BOC’s request to retract their decision to withdraw from future Olympic competition.138 Despite the hostility and discord generated by the nation’s representation in Antwerp, British athletes did compete at the Paris games in 1924. In fact, the AAA and the ARA rescinded their threats of withdrawal, and a British team achieved an admirable fourth place inish in the overall medal standings; a showing best encapsulated by Harold Abrahams’ and Eric Liddell’s gold medal performances in the 100-meter and 400-meter events, respectively.139 Even more remarkable, given the BOC travails in procuring public subscriptions, over £30,000 was raised, thanks largely to generous contributions from the proprietors of the Daily Mail, to train and prepare the nation’s athletes for Paris.140 To Britain’s Olympic boosters, it must have appeared that the Olympic lame was burning brighter than cynics had claimed. Nevertheless, hope quickly turned to despair for the BOC as the Paris games were marred, at least from the British perspective, by scenes of lagrantly unsportsmanlike behavior. As the Times revealed, “Miscellaneous turbulence, shameful disorder, storms of abuse, free ights, and the drowning of the National Anthems of friendly nations” became a salient feature of the Paris games.141 he Times captured the nation’s sense of outrage when its headlines proclaimed, “Olympic Games Doomed: Failure of the Ideal” and “No More Olympic Games.”142 British Olympism had received another debilitating blow from which it might have never have recovered. As one of only ive nations to have competed in every Olympic Games since their inception in 1896, history reveals that the BOC continued to persevere, even in an environment far from conducive to Olympic competition. As the 1920 Antwerp Games elucidated, the British public was clearly apathetic towards the Olympic movement. While the working classes were largely excluded from Olympic participation and more drawn towards domestic professional sporting events, many of the nation’s upper-middle class and aristocratic elites, as well, viewed the Olympic Games in less than positive terms. Without the de123 Llewellyn termined eforts of a small group of Olympic apostles, Great Britain would have withdrawn its membership from the IOC and abstained from future Olympic competition. It is to them that the organizers of the 2012 London games and the British public owe their appreciation. Endnotes 1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/front_page,4655555.stm, accessed 13 February 2008. 2 http://www.cnn.com/2005/SPORT/07/06/singapore.olympics/index.html, accessed 15 February 2008. 3 he term Olympism is sometimes confusing to the reader. To North Americans it usually connotes a philosophy that expresses a code of Olympic values, such as fair play, sportsmanship, tolerance for diferences, etc. To Europeans, in particular, the term Olympism isone that is placed in much broader context, that is, a relection of Olympic matters or Olympic afairs as a whole, i.e., all that has to do with the Modern Olympic Movement. For the purposes of this article, the latter understanding is used. 4 Roland Renson, he Games Reborn: he VIIth Olympiad Antwerp 1920 (Pandora, Ghent: Snoeck-Ducaju & Zoon, 1996). 5 Ibid. 6 Steve Bailey. “A Noble Ally and Olympic Discipline: he Reverend Robert S. de Courcy Lafan, Coubertin’s ‘Man’ in England,” Olympika: he International Journal of Olympic Studies 6 (1997): 51-64. 7 “he Olympic Games in Antwerp,” he Times, April 14, 1919. 8 David Reynolds, Britannia Overruled: British Policy and World Power in the Twentieth Century (London: Longman, 1991). 9 Peter Dewey, War and Progress: Britain 1914-1945 (London: Longman, 1997). 10 he British Olympic Council (BOC) was a small group composed of members of the British Olympic Association (BOA). Members consisted of the chief founders of the BOA, combined with one representative from each of the nation’s leading sport governing associations. It was the aim of the BOC to establish the best methods of securing the inluence and representation of Great Britain at the Olympic Games. See, heodore Andrea Cook, International Sport: A short History of the Olympic Movement from 1896 to the Present Day (London: Archibald Constable, 1909), 144-160. 11 British Olympic Association, Report of the Council for the Year 1915, January 1916, British Olympic Foundation, 1 Wandsworth Plain, London, England (Hereater cited as BOF Archives) 124 ‘Olympic Games Are an International Farce’ 12 Report of the Council for the Year 1914 of the British Olympic Association, BOF Archives. 13 Don Anthony, Man of Sport, Man of Peace: Collected Speeches and Essays of Philip Noel-Baker Olympic Statesman, 1889-1982 (London: Sports Editions Limited, 1991), 28. 14 “he Olympic Games: Athletic Clubs and Next Year’s Meeting,” he Times, May 28. 15 Reynolds, Britannia Overruled. 16 Herbert Albert Laurens Fisher, British Universities and the War: A Record and Its Meaning (Boston: Houghton Milin Company, 1917). 17 “he Olympic Games: I.—National Efort Needed,” he Times, September 26, 1919. 18 Cited in Martin Polley, “’No business of ours’?: he Foreign Oice and the Olympic Games, 1896-1914,” International Journal of the History of Sport 13 (August, 1996): 110. 19 “Roping in the Old Blues,” he Field, June 5, 1920. 20 “he Olympic Games: An Appeal from Belgium,” he Times, June 11, 1919. 21 “he Olympic Games,” he Times, June 14, 1919. 22 Mark Dyreson, “Selling American Civilization: he Olympic Games of 1920 and American Culture,” Olympika: he International Journal of Olympic Studies VIII (1999): 5. 23 Major George Wuthe, Captain Joseph Mills Hanson, and Captain Carl V. Burger, eds., he Inter-Allied Games (New York: Games Committee, 1919), 25, 499. 24 Ibid., 49. 25 “Why Britain Should Compete: From the Director of the Department of Physical Education, Y.M.C.A.,” he Field, May 22, 1920. 26 heodore Andrea Cook to the Duke of Somerset and Reverend Robert S. de Courcy Lafan, April 15, 1915, Membre G-Bretagne Corespondance, 1909-1917, Le Comite International Olympique Archives (hereater IOC Archives), Lausanne, Switzerland. 27 For a collection of Cook’s war-time writings see, heodore Andrea Cook, Kaiser, Krupp and Kultur (London: Scribner’s and Sons, 1915). 28 heodore Andrea Cook to the Duke of Somerset and Reverend Robert S. de Courcy Lafan, April 15, 1915, Membre G-Bretagne Corespondance, 1909-1917, IOC Archives. 29 Duke of Somerset to heodore Andrea Cook, April 18, 1915, International Olympic Committee, Membre G-Bretagne Corespondance, 1909-1917, IOC Archives. 30 heodore Andrea Cook to Baron Pierre de Coubertin, July 8, 1915, International Olympic Committee, Membre G-Bretagne Corespondance, 125 Llewellyn 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 126 1909-1917, IOC Archives. Ater submitting his oicial letter of resignation, Cook learned that Coubertin had latly denied making the comments apportioned to him in La Stampa. Subsequently, on October 25, 1916, Cook wrote again to Coubertin expressing his desire to withdraw his initial letter of resignation from IOC, an ofer which Coubertin rejected. Pierre de Coubertin, Olympic Memoirs (Lausanne: International Olympic Committee, 1979). Allen Guttmann, he Olympics: A History of the Modern Games (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2002), 38. Peter J. Beck, Scoring for Britain: International Football and International Politics 1900-1939 (London: Frank Cass, 1999). Martin Polley, “Olympic Diplomacy: he British Government and the Projected 1940 Olympic Games,” International Journal of the History of Sport 9 (August 1992): 169-187; Peter J. Beck, Scoring for Britain: International Football and International Politics 1900-1939 (London: Frank Cass, 1999). Harold M. Abrahams, “he Oicial Report of the IXth Olympiad Amsterdam 1928” (British Olympic Association, 1929), 47, BOF Archives. British Olympic Association, Finance and General Purposes Committee Minutes, November 23, 1919, BOF Archives. “he Olympic Games: I.—National Efort Needed,” he Times, September 26, 1919; “he Olympic Games: II.—Great Britain’s Position,” he Times, September 27, 1919; “he Olympic Games: III.—British Need of Organization,” he Times, September 29, 1919. “he Olympic Games: he Need for Organization,” he Times, November 20, 1919. “he Olympic Games: British Position,” he Times, January 31, 1920. Rev. R. S. de Courcy Lafan, “Olympic Games of Antwerp,” British Olympic Association (1920): 4, BOF Archives. “he Olympic Games,” he Field, February 7, 1920. heodore Andrea Cook, he Sunlit Hours: A Record of Sport and Life. New York: George H. Doran, 1925., 246. British Olympic Association, General Council Minutes, February 13, 1913, 5, BOF Archives. Full amount spent totaled £4,148 10s 5d. Llewellyn, “A Nation Divided.” Polley, “‘No Business of Ours’?” John W. Young, Britain and the World in the Twentieth Century (London: Arnold, 1997). Mike Huggins and Jack Williams, Sport and the English, 1918-1939 (London: Routledge, 2006). K. S. Duncan, “Great Britain and Olympism,” Olympic Review 99-100 (January-February, 1976): 54-91. ‘Olympic Games Are an International Farce’ 49 Martin Polley, “Great Britain and the Olympic Games, 1896-1908,” in Empire, Politics and Popular Culture: Essays in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Popular Culture, ed. C. C. Eldridge (Lampeter: Turvium, 1989), 111-112. 50 “College Athletes ready for Olympic Games,” New York Times, May 17, 1912. 51 “Ill Training and Snobbery in British Athletics,” he Literary Digest 45 (August 31, 1912): 30. 52 Report of the American Olympic Committee: Seventh Olympic Games, Antwerp, Belgium 1920. A detailed list of the inancial contributors to the AOC’s Antwerp appeal reveals that anyone from wealthy industrialists and politicians to working-class urban sports club members were ofering donations ranging from $1-$1,000+. 53 “he Olympic Games: Belgian Preparations and British Apathy,” he Field, June 19, 1920. 54 Cook, he Sunlit Hours. 55 “he Olympic Games Fund: Letter from Mr. Frederick Harrison,” he Times, October 14, 1913. 56 Bill Murray, he World’s Game: A History of Soccer (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1998), 37. 57 Cook, he Sunlit Hours, 245. 58 “he Olympic Games: Olympic Challenge Cups,” he Field, July 31, 1920. 59 Charles Ware, “American Athletes Meet the World and Win,” World-To-Day 15 (September, 1908): 902. 60 Mark Dyreson, “‘his Flag Dips for No Earthly King’: he Mysterious Origins of an Olympic Myth,” he International Journal of the History of Sport 25 (February 15, 2008): 142-162. 61 heodore Andrea Cook to heodore Roosevelt, September 8, 1908, heodore Roosevelt Papers, reel 84; heodore Roosevelt to heodore Andrea Cook, October 20, 1908, heodore Roosevelt Papers, reel 351. heodore Roosevelt Papers. Washington, DC: Library of Congress microilm reproductions, 1969. Originals in the US Library of Congress, Washington, DC. 62 Brigadier General Reginald J. Kentish, “he Past, the Present, and the Future of the Olympic Movement,” he British Olympic Journal 1, no. 1 (Spring, 1926): 4. 63 “King George’s Fund,” Daily Telegraph, August 10, 1920; “Appeal for £1,000,000,” Daily Telegraph, May 22, 1919. 64 Robin Prior and Trevor Wilson, “Haig, Douglas, irst Earl Haig (1861-1928),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, September 2004; online edition, Jan 2008; http://www.oxforddnb.com/view.article/33633. 127 Llewellyn 65 “he Olympic Games: Royal Appeal to Sportsmen,” he Times, June 25, 1920. 66 British Olympic Association, General Council Minutes, April 22, 1920, BOF Archives. 67 British Olympic Association, Finance and General Purposes Committee Minutes, March 31, 1920, BOF Archives. House of Commons Committee was comprised of Right. Hon. Walter Long; Right Hon. Sir Donald Maclean; Hon. F. S. Jackson; Mr. Kennedy Jones; Mr. Charles Palmer; Sir Park Gof. 68 British Olympic Association, Finance and General Purposes Committee Minutes, April 29, 1920, BOF Archives. 69 British Olympic Association, Finance and General Purposes Committee Minutes, April 15, 1920, BOF Archives. 70 Lafan, “Olympic Games of Antwerp,” 13, BOF Archives. 71 British Olympic Association, General Council Minutes, April 26, 1920, BOF Archives. 72 Lafan, “Olympic Games of Antwerp,” 7-8, BOF Archives. 73 Norman Baker, “Whose Hegemony? he Origins of the Amateur Ethos in Nineteenth Century English Society,” Sport in History 24 (Summer, 2004): Lincoln Allison, Amateurism in Sport: An Analysis and a Defence (London: Frank Cass, 2001). 74 Richard Holt, Sport and the British: A Modern History (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989); On American specialization in Athletics see, Mark Dyreson, Making the American Team: Sport, Culture and the Olympic Experience (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1998). 75 F. A. M. Webster, “Scientiic Application of Brains to Sport,” Baily’s Magazine of Sport and Pastimes 710 (October 1919): 163. 76 “he Olympic Games: I.—National Efort Needed,” he Times, September 26, 1919. 77 “British Preparations for the Olympiad,” Literary Digest 64 (March 20, 1920): 120. 78 On American specialization in Athletics see, Dyreson, Making the American Team; S. W. Pope, Patriotic Games: Sporting Traditions in the American Imagination, 1876-1926 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). 79 James A. Mangan, he Games Ethic and Imperialism: Aspect of the Difusion of an Ideal (New York: Viking, 1986). 80 Beck, Scoring for Britain. 81 Ross McKibbin, Class and Cultures: England 1918-1951 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 379. 82 “he Olympic Games: I.—National Efort Needed,” he Times, September 26, 1919. 83 Bailey, “A Noble Ally and Olympic Discipline,” 80. 128 ‘Olympic Games Are an International Farce’ 84 Lafan, “Olympic Games of Antwerp,” 1-15, BOF Archives. 85 British Olympic Association, Finance and General Purposes Committee Minutes, April 29, 1920, BOF Archives. 86 British Olympic Association, General Council Minutes, May 13, 1920, BOF Archives. 87 British Olympic Association, General Council Minutes, May 20, 1920, BOF Archives. 88 British Olympic Association, General Council Minutes, May 27, 1920, BOF Archives. 89 “he Olympic Games: Belgian Preparations and British Apathy,” he Field, June 19, 1920. 90 F. A. M. Webster, “he Olympic Games,” Badminton Magazine of Sport and Pastimes 301 (August 1920): 328-332. 91 “he Olympic Games: I.—National Efort Needed,” he Times, September 26, 1919; “he Olympic Games: II.—Great Britain’s Position,” he Times, September 27, 1919; “he Olympic Games: III.—British Need of Organization,” he Times, September 29, 1919. 92 British Olympic Association, General Council Minutes, June 7, 1920, BOF Archives. 93 British Olympic Association, Finance and General Purposes Committee Minutes, June 7, 1920, BOF Archives. 94 British Olympic Association, General Council Minutes, June 7, 1920, BOF Archives. 95 Ibid. 96 British Olympic Association, General Council Minutes, June 29, 1920, BOF Archives. 97 “he Olympic Games: Royal Appeal to Sportsmen,” he Times, June 25, 1920. 98 Abrahams, “he Oicial Report of the IXth Olympiad.” 99 Beck, Scoring for Britain, 85. 100 Richard Holt. “Interwar Sport and Interwar Relations: Some Conclusions,” in Sport and International Politics: he Impact of Fascism and Communism on Sport, eds. P. Arnaud and J. Riordan (London: Spon, 1998), 212. 101 Beck, Scoring for Britain, 85. 102 Peter Dewey, War and Progress: Britain 1914-1945 (London: Longman, 1997). 103 “he Olympic Games,” he Field, May 15, 1920. 104 Cook, he Sunlit Hours, 243. 105 Lafan, “Olympic Games of Antwerp,” 1-15, BOF Archives. 106 Ibid. 129 Llewellyn 107 “he Olympic Games,” he Field, May 29, 1920. 108 Pierre Arnaud, “French Sport and the Emergence of Authoritarian Regimes, 1919-1939” in Sport and International Politics, 117. 109 “he British Olympic Association,” he Field, March 20, 1920; “Spain Finances Olympic Team,” New York Times, March 13, 1920. 110 Dyreson, “Selling American Civilization,” 11. 111 “Drive on for Olympic Funds,” Los Angeles Times, May 10, 1920, 16. 112 Dyreson, “Selling American Civilization”; John Lucas, “American Preparations for the First Post World War Olympic Games, 1919-1920,” Journal of Sport History 10 (Summer, 1983): 30-44. 113 Martin Pugh, “Fisher, William Hayes, Baron Downham (1853-1920),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, September 2004; online edition, Jan 2008; http://www.oxforddnb.com/view.article/53101. 114 British Olympic Association, General Council Minutes, July 13, 1920, BOF Archives. 115 Ibid. 116 “Olympic Games,” Daily Telegraph, July 28, 1920. 117 British Olympic Association, Finance and General Purposes Committee Minutes, August 5, 1920, BOF Archives. By August 5, 1920, the BOC reported that £3,537 had been subscribed to date. Exactly how Sydney Colston was inspiring public beneicence is unknown since no record of his propaganda activities are discussed in BOC archival minutes and there was not an upsurge in newspaper coverage of the appeal. 118 “Olympic Games: Cost to the British Association,” Daily Telegraph, August 11, 1920. 119 his assertion is based upon detailed reviews of the following leading British newspapers: he Times, Daily Express, Daily Mail, Manchester Guardian, Observer, Daily Telegraph and the Daily Herald. 120 “Britain Insulted: Hisses at the Olympic Games Final,” Daily Express, August 28, 1920; “Olympic Boxing: Farce and Tragedy,” Daily Telegraph, August 26, 1920. 121 Guttmann, he Olympics, 39. 122 “Worse han Ever,” Daily Express, August 30, 1920. 123 “he Seventh Olympiad: Final Relections,” he Field, September 18, 1920. 124 “he Olympic Games: British Team’s Protest,” he Times, August 27, 1920. 125 “he Olympic Games: A Question of Withdrawal,” he Times, August 14, 1920. 126 Richard Stanton, he Forgotten Olympic Art Competitions: he Story of the Olympic Art Competitions of the 20th Century (Victoria, B.C.: Traford, 2001), 61-62. Nevertheless, Cook’s later writings reveal a sense of antagonism and 130 ‘Olympic Games Are an International Farce’ cynicism towards the IOC for their inadequate governance of the Olympic movement. 127 “he Olympic Games,” he Times, August 19, 1920. 128 “he Olympic Games: he Case of Withdrawal,” he Times, August 23, 1920. 129 “he Olympic Games,” he Times, August 18, 1920. 130 Letter from the Honorary Secretary of the Amateur Athletic Association cited in: British Olympic Association, General Council Minutes, November 12, 1921, BOF Archives. 131 British Olympic Association, Finance and General Purposes Committee Minutes, October 22, 1920, BOF Archives. 132 British Olympic Association, Finance and General Purposes Committee Minutes, July 26, 1921, BOF Archives. 133 F. G. L. Fairlie, “he Oicial Report of the VIIIth Olympiad Paris 1924” (British Olympic Association, 1925), BOF Archives. 134 British Olympic Association, Finance and General Purposes Committee Minutes, December 20, 1920, BOF Archives. 135 Reverend Robert S. de Courcy Lafan and Brigadier General Reginald J. Kentish to Baron Pierre de Coubertin, March 22, 1923, IOC Archives; Report of the IOC Session, Rome, April 9-10, 1923, IOC Archives. 136 British Olympic Association, Finance and General Purposes Committee Minutes, December 20, 1920, BOF Archives. 137 Letter from the Amateur Athletic Association cited in: British Olympic Association, Finance and General Purposes Committee Minutes, May 18, 1922, BOF Archives. 138 “Amateur Rowing Association,” he Times, July 25, 1921. 139 Historian Stephen Wagg has postulated that the ARA rescinded their threat of withdrawal because they were always favored to be competitive and win medals. See Stephen Wagg, “‘Base Mechanic Arms’? British Rowing, Some Ducks and the Shiting Politics of Amateurism,” Sport In History 26 (December 2006): 520-539. 140 Cook, he Sunlit Hours, 237. 141 “No More Olympic Games,” he Times, July 22, 1924. 142 “Olympic Games Doomed: Failure of the Ideal,” he Times, July 22, 1924; “No More Olympic Games,” he Times, July 22, 1924. 131