What is a sport, part 2

Breakdancing (or breaking, as it’s officially called) should never have been added as an Olympic sport.

There, I said it.

I also said it 3 years ago during the Tokyo Olympics when I listed my completely objective criteria for what should qualify as an Olympic sport. Clearly it fails the following 2 criteria:

#3. It is a thing that people regularly compete in, and there’s a governing body that agrees on how the sport is judged/scored.
#5. It is not ridiculous.

Let’s take them one by one. First, it’s been widely reported that the World DanceSport Federation (WDSF) somehow swindled the IOC into letting them oversee breaking in the 2018 Youth Olympics, despite the lack of any connection between WDSF and worldwide breaking community. Apparently WDSF is a competitive ballroom dance organization, and pivoted to getting breaking into the Olympics only after “failing to get ballroom dancing accepted into the games.”

With regard to the sport being ridiculous, of course I’m referring to the spectacle that was Rachael “Raygun” Gunn, the now world (in)famous Australian breakdancer that broke the internet this past weekend. Yes, I laughed at all the viral memes (how could you not?) and yes, I hope she’s doing okay, but this is what happens when you haphazardly add random “sports” into the Olympics.

I also have to mention the ridiculous gaslighting from the official Australian Olympics spokeswoman Anna Mears, who insisted that Raygun was the “best breaker the country had to offer.” Anna, we all have eyes, and that is simply not true.

Perhaps the funniest comment came from head judge MGbility — “Breaking is all about originality and bringing something new to the table and representing your country or region. This is exactly what Raygun was doing. She got inspired by her surroundings, which in this case, for example, was a kangaroo.“

In any case, thankfully breaking won’t be included in the 2028 LA Olympics, but there’s always a possibility it’ll reappear at the 2032 Brisbane Olympics. Also, we are still adding the following sports in 2028:

• Flag football
• Squash
• Lacrosse (previously an Olympic sport, in 1908)
• Cricket (previously an Olympic sport, in 1900)

Maybe I can get behind lacrosse and cricket since they were in the Olympics before and I guess people play those sports, but flag football? Does no one else think that is ridiculous? Has the IOC considered the fact that adding these “sports” diminishes what it means to be an Olympic medalist, and only serves to make the Olympics more unwieldy and prone to potential embarrassment, like what happened to breaking? 

Also — where do you draw the line? If squash is a sport, what about racquetball? Or pickleball? Or spikeball? And what about ultimate frisbee? At the rate the IOC is adding “sports,” surely cornhole will be an Olympic sport in a few decades.

Look, here’s the bottom line: the Olympics should be about the pinnacle of athletic achievement. So maybe curling or equestrian doesn’t check that box either, but let’s at least try to preserve the integrity of the Games by making tough decisions about what belongs — and what doesn’t.