Olympics

That is not the Olympics, but Eddy Merckx and Raymond Poulidor in the 1974 Tour de France. I use it to illustrate sport in days gone by; so much more basic, fresh, free, raw and exciting I think. I am struggling to watch the Olympics and it is far from solely to do with the drugs issue and the impotence of the IOC in the matter. The BBC coverage is awful; over-hyped, many of the non-sporting commentators seem ignorant of the facts, and this idea they seem to have that medals are a given are just three things that make me dislike it.

It has more to do with the vulgarity of it. The sportsman just want to compete and I am sure win (fairly) if they can and that is great. The majority in the Olympics are not there for the money; there isn't much for them anyway. The relatively few superstars are highly paid and we could argue whether that is right or wrong (just market forces, many would say).

However, the multi-millions of pounds, which will have, and are changing hands as a part of the process is not sport. It is capitalism and capitalism at it's worst I should add, and in a city where the poor are living in squalor with no welfare state to help them. They will see none of the money.

At least when it was held in London it was in a country that hopefully whatever our political persuasion, we can agree generally looks after the less fortunate. Yes, I know there are exceptions.

So I will watch a little, mainly my favorites: Jessica Ennis-Hill, Mo Farah, Chris Froome, Nicola Adams, Bradley Wiggins and the track cycling, Adam Peaty, a bit of the rowing and that is about it. Oh Usain Bolt of course; a fantastic showman.

So to sign off; £89 million for a footballer. That disgusts me, as would a half, or a quarter, or less of that amount.