This article is based on the premise that there is no such thing as Olympic sport per se. In addition, Olympic sport not only influences the period of history and sports-cultural life of which it forms part, but is always shaped by them in turn.
Further, the Olympic Ideal determines, to a large extent, the image of modern sport, especially high-performance, competitive sport. In this article it is argued that, since the beginning of the Olympic era, this image has its roots in pedagogy. This claim is based on the classical understanding that the Olympic Ideal was initially pedagogically motivated.

The pedagogical nature of Olympism was advocated by Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the modern Olympic Ideal. Support for this is evident in the Olympic Charter. In addition, a number of the statements contained in the 1996 Olympic centenary celebrations held in Paris, stressed the pedagogical objective of Olympism. Notwithstanding this support, there is still much debate about the pedagogical nature of this Olympic Ideal.

Differences in the interpretations of the concept “pedagogy”, are at the heart of this debate. For example, some understand an action as pedagogical, while others view it as a measure. With this in mind, a strong argument can be made for the pedagogical nature of Olympic sport because of its potential to impact pedagogically on the actions, behavior and dispositions of athletes. The assumption that pedagogy is purely theoretical, moralistic or educational in nature, conceals the fact that the effects of pedagogy can be desired or undesired. For example, coaching of athletes indisputably constitutes a pedagogical relationship. However, the social environment in which this coaching takes place is also viewed as being pedagogical insofar as it influences the development of the athletes. There are negative consequences if either is neglected whether intentionally done or not. In addition, the structures of sport are also pedagogical in the sense that they recommend certain ways of behavior, but prevent or exclude others.

What does it mean to refer to the Olympic Games as being pedagogical?
It is well known that de Coubertin borrowed the term “Olympic Games” from ancient Olympia and incorporated several ritual and cultural elements from the Olympic history of the ancient Greeks. What is less known is the fact that de Coubertin intended that the nature of the modern Olympic Games should reflect a particular philosophy of sport which linked it to pedagogy. His inspiration for the modern Olympics can be traced to his appreciation of the way the dominant model of English sport at the time was used in character formation, especially in males. In this way de Coubertin saw the potential of the modern Olympic sports as a means to an (pedagogical) end and not merely an end in itself. He envisaged the use ofthe modern Olympic Games to spread new educational ideas, especially with regard to addressing the problems of the modern world at that time and also in the future.

De Coubertin created his vision for the modern Olympics by combining principles and aims that he considered to be unique to the modern Olympic Games, with the English sport’s model that focused on utility and pleasure. It was his intention that within the framework of general pedagogical and ethical principles, the Olympic Ideals should motivate athletes to strive for the improvement of and excellence in performance, as well as internationalism, equal opportunities and fairness. In this way emphasis was not only on “athletic victories”, but also on the pedagogical intent of modern Olympism. In addition, de Coubertin believed that the Olympic-pedagogy relationship should incorporate the dissemination of information about the Olympic Games itself, as well as the way it both mirrors and shapes the events and challenges of modern societies.

To this end, de Coubertin identified five principles that were to guide the modern Olympic Games. These included: (a) the principle of the „unity of body and soul“ and of the harmonious development of man; (b) the aim of self-perfection; (c) the ideal of amateurism; (d) the commitment of sport to ethical issues and principles captured in the notion of ”fairness”; and (d) the idea of peace. It was particularly the latter three guidelines that de Coubertin felt should set the Olympic Games apart from other global sports organizations.

It was de Coubertin’s conviction that without its pedagogical nature, Olympic sport would be reduced to something similar to the gladiatorial games and circuses of Ancient Rome. He felt strongly that it was not enough to talk about the morals and values of Olympism – they had to be experienced through involvement in the Olympic Games.

The Olympic Ideal and related pedagogical principles that de Coubertin so conscientiously and enthusiastically constructed, appears to have been ignored. In the first decades of the 20th century, possible reasons included: a lack of awareness or outright rejection and a lack of co-ordination or poor organization characterized by creative improvisation. Thereafter, the marginalization of the Olympic-pedagogy relationship has been blamed on a combination of politics and commerce. Many claim that these have also created the controversies surrounding the Olympic Games in more recent times. Some are of the opinion that the uncontrolled commercialisation and other developments, such as doping and corruption, have contributed to a view that any pedagogical ideals associated with Olympism, are naïve.

Admittedly, nowadays Olympism does not represent a convincing pedagogical model. This raises two questions: (a) Can the Olympic-pedagogy relationship ever be realized? and (b) Is the term Olympism, as defined by de Coubertin, still relevant in this new millennium?

The Olympic Games, with their colorfulness, variety, exciting competitions, excellent performances, great athletes of all skin colors, and their connection to art, music, literature, science and folklore, constitute a special part of Olympism. The prime aim of the modern Olympics is athletic performance. This was also the intention of de Coubertin’s pedagogically based Olympism. The difference is that in our world with its omnipresence of the media, the top athletes are supposed to be representatives of the Olympic Ideal. Yet, de Coubertin intended that Olympism should contribute to the education and moral formation of all sportspeople, especially the youth, not only elite athletes. In addition, he envisaged that Olympic education would be holistic in its approach, thus connecting body and soul within the realm of sport.

Firstly, athletic activities per se do not have a positive pedagogical significance. The pedagogical significance of an educationally-based Olympics would be diminished if specific requirements and standards were ignored. The aim is always to do and be the best that one can be. This requires dedication, hard work and practice. In this lies one of the pedagogical qualities of the Olympic Ideal because it gives rise to an attitude that is directed towards long-term efforts. Thus, it constitutes an alternative to the „fun sports“ and „adventure sports“ propagated frequently nowadays.

Secondly, sport, as a product of society, cannot cure its maladies. In the same way, it would be a misconception to see Olympism as a pedagogy to improve the world. It has its limitations and should not substitute other educational concepts. Nevertheless, Olympic education can enrichment the realm of sporting endeavours.

Thirdly, in order to fully realize the ideal of Olympic-pedagogy relationship, commitment and dedication will be required. This should, however, not discourage people.

Fourthly, Olympic-education does not happen by itself. Athletes themselves, as well as sporting institutions, organisations and the International Olympic Committee should all be responsible for upholding the Olympic ideas of fairness, equal opportunities, peacefulness and tolerance.These are captured in special moments like shaking hands, comforting each other and fair competitions, not in the great declarations and speeches of politicians and officials.

Fifthly, Olympism must neither be seen as a substitute for religion nor for politics or education. Nevertheless, it offers orientation for the life in a complex world. In addition, Olympism and Olympic-education are more than the Olympic Games. What de Coubertin brought into the domain of Olympic sport when he created his pedagically-based Olympic Ideal, was the image and dream of “a better sport in a better world”.

In conclusion, if the world of Olympic sport is not as we would wish it to be, then we should strive to transform it. The current sporting culture, marked by a lack of commitment, hedonism and randomness, is not an ideal sporting model. It is certainly not an appropriate alternative to the Olympic Games and the Olympic Ideal as envisaged by de Coubertin.