THERE is a pernicious myth surrounding the Olympic Games. We have convinced ourselves that it is a gleaming symbol of meritocracy, a place where sportsmen and women achieve through talent rather than privilege. New Labour, for example, has embraced London 2012 as representative of its commitment to “sport for all”.

It is time to wake up and smell the claptrap. Research undertaken by The Times has revealed that 58 per cent of Great Britain’s gold medal-winners at the Games in Athens went to independent schools. We further estimate that across the past three Olympics, about 45 per cent of medal-winners went to the non-state sector. That is a higher proportion than last year’s intake at Cambridge.

Considering that only 7 per cent of the population attend independent schools, and making the not unreasonable assumption that talent is evenly spread, this is a shocking indication of how Olympic success is driven by wealth as much as by ability. Anyway you cut it, the 93 per cent who attend state schools are chronically under-represented.

But this is as nothing when one considers the global imbalance in the allocation of medals. India, for example, a country that boasts almost a fifth of the world’s population, won a paltry 0.12 per cent of the medals in Athens: one out of 826. Africa, a continent supremely rich in sporting talent, won 4 per cent.

It is not difficult to understand why. When Baron Pierre de Coubertin, a French aristocrat, developed the modern Olympic Movement, he demonstrated an almost comical indifference for the economically disadvantaged by packing the supposedly inclusive festival with rich man’s sports.

From: Olympic Games: a rich man's playground? Matthew Syed & Matthew Pinsent, The Times, 25 10 06

More at: Olympics for who ?