Sport Accord Convention: Youth Club [VIDEO]

The Sport Accord Convention is talked about as the United Nations of Sport, where all Federations come together. This was my second year of being a speaker at the Convention and I chaired a session called the 'Youth Club'. It was the first time ever that the Convention had put together something like this and the average age of panel members was approximately 23 years old. It was a great session and the feedback was awesome.

Social Media in Teaching & Learning [VIDEO]

A video I produced for @UWScreative.

Posthumanism & Sport [VIDEO]

Lecture made at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games, produced for University of Bath

Social Media & Academic Life [VIDEO]

A video talk for Taylor & Francis Group, Australia journal Editors' roundtable event.

Why a broken Ring matters in the Olympic Games Opening Ceremony (2014)

Piece first published in Inside the Games  

The Opening Ceremony of the Sochi 2014 Olympics may go down in history as having been one of the most ambitious and accomplished of all time. The complexity and sophistication puts it on a par with the Lillehammer 1994 Games, which is widely regarded to have been a Winter opening without rival.

But there was one problem that became the focus of attention after the ceremony finished. You might not have noticed it if you were watching on television, as the delay from live to broadcast meant that a rapid replacement of prior footage could wallpaper over what really happened.

In the segment when the Olympic Rings were being spectacularly visualised from gigantic snowflakes, one of them failed to expand and achieve its circular form.

So what? You may say. In the press conference that followed, it was apparent that this was a source of frustration for the organisers, who implored reporters to focus on their achievements instead of this tiny failure. The artistic director even said that this was one of the simplest technical moments in the Ceremony.

However, there is good reason why reporters will focus on it, as the presentation of the Olympic Rings is the second most important symbolic moment in the Ceremony, after the lighting of the Cauldron.

It wasn't always like this. In years gone by, the Rings would have just been erected within the stadium from the start of the show. However, in recent years, this segment has become a moment where the hair will stand up on the back of your neck and that moment was lost, at least for those who were in the stadium, which included Vladimir Putin, who was sitting next to International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Thomas Bach and not far from UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon.

So, the significance of this moment is easy to understand. After all, as much as the Games are about the athletes, they are also significantly about those Rings. The entire economic foundation of the movement relies on their sale to the highest bidder. The success of the Games rises and falls on the basis of who has the right to use the Rings.

Thus, the rings have come to symbolise more than just the Olympic values and so their failure to be properly visualised during the Opening Ceremony is to compromise the integrity of that powerful symbol. It is equivalent to the Olympic Cauldron failing to ignite. This need not mean embarrassment but it does mean that an important moment was lost for Sochi.

It would be unfair for the world to judge the artistic merit of the Ceremony on the basis of this one technical fault. Art may deserve a bit more flexibility in terms of how we evaluate success, compared to sport, where only perfection matters.

However, what took place also means that we cannot award the organisers a perfect 10 for their delivery, even if it was the best Opening Ceremony of all time. But at least that means that the next host city has something to strive for how, beyond Sochi 2014.

Besides, the beauty of television means that it won't be difficult for the Olympic organisers to easily dodge international commentary on what happened. For the majority of viewers - and for the record - it never happened.

Being Gay at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Games (2014)

Piece published in the Huffington Post:

In recent months, there has been a lot of talk about Russian law and homosexuality. Much of it has centered on international outrage at a change in legislation which, for many countries, would be a return to a very dark and depressing era in humanity's history, where non-heterosexual lifestyles were seen as something to hide or feel ashamed about.

Some political leaders are not attending the Sochi 2014 Olympics, it is thought, because of these anxieties about human rights. Yet, the time for debate is now over. As the Games begin, the only question remaining is what will happen to an athlete if they do anything to express their sexuality while at the Games.

The IOC's position on political manifestation at the Games is pretty unambiguous: the Games are apolitical and any action to politicize the Games is likely to be met with disciplinary action by the athlete's National Olympic Committee. This happened in 1968 when Smith and Carlos each raised a black gloves fist on the podium on behalf of African-American civil rights. They were subsequently removed from the team.

Sochi's equivalent to Mexico 1968 is sexuality and the IOC would prefer that athletes just focused on their competition. I have some sympathy for the IOC, which, all along, explains itself as essentially the guardians of a multi-sport mega event, and that the issues around belief systems is not within their purview. It is not realistic to expect the IOC to make a significant intervention in long-term domestic law, beyond what is required to logistically deliver the Games.

Yet, over the years the IOC has nurtured an identity that has made more central its contribution to advancing society in crucial ways and this is actually part of what Coubertin dreamed of when setting up the modern Olympics. For example, the IOC has built close relationships with the United Nations on a range of issues, such as creating global peace and environmental concern. In this sense, it has become a powerful advocacy organization, the value of which is born out of its response to and action around important global concerns.

Furthermore, it is hard to understand how sexual identity should be construed as a political manner, rather than a fundamental human right that the IOC should support. After all, the Olympic Charter compels its members to support non-discrimination. To this end, support for sexual freedom is more adequately understood as a condition of membership to the Olympic movement, not a political choice. Being the host of an Olympic Games should make these commitments even more necessary to uphold.

The IOC's only defence is found in the difference between a fundamental freedom and the advocacy of this freedom in public fora, the latter of which is what authorities seek to avoid. This may be the only way that the IOC can justify its stance. In any case, the IOC should guarantee that GLBT athletes will not face action for taking a stand at the Sochi Olympics. This would be an important message to send the world and the only way that these can really be great Games for everybody and avoid being labelled in history as the homophobic Games.

As the Google doodle today states in its rainbow colours, quoting the Olympic Charter:

The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practicing sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.