Correspondence between Brundage and Officials

Focusing strictly on the rise of the African bloc in opposition to the IOC during the South African race issue, Shane Quick suggested a shift in power away from Brundage and the IOC to African and Third World representation.147 _{As Brundage expressed} continually throughout his tenure on the IOC, politics had no place in the Olympic Movement, while, conversely, the African nations deemed sport, especially the Olympic Games, as an ideal venue to gain leverage and use the power of politics to make statements on an international stage about issues outside sport. Nonetheless,

the African nation-states’ increase of power, in part, was made possible by Eastern bloc support.

At a meeting between the IOC and NOCs in 1959, dialogue ensued between Brundage, the Soviets, and South African representatives about apartheid and sport.148 _{Brundage was well aware of the pressure arising from apartheid in South}

Africa because the IOC had received letters of concern before 1959. In letters to SANOC officials, Brundage suggested a proactive approach to prevent potential political fallout.149 _{The IOC continued to support SANOC’s involvement with the}

Olympic Movement because of its firm stance of separating politics from the Olympic Games. Only after a vote to eliminate South Africa from the IOC was proposed and defeated in 1962, did Brundage issue a formal warning to South Africa to abide by the Olympic Charter by October 1963 in order to avoid suspension from the 1964 Olympic Games.150 _{South Africa’s invitation to the 1964 Tokyo Games was withdrawn as a}

result of SANOC’s non-compliance with the conditions contained in Brundage’s official warning. Quick pointed out that at the meeting where the invitation was withdrawn, the African bloc’s power was extended as NOCs of four African countries were granted full recognition by the IOC.151 _{Brundage continued to pursue communication between}

SANOC and the IOC in order to keep South Africa involved in the Olympic Movement. The report of a commission to assess South African sport indicated that SANOC was still not meeting the minimum standards for participation in the Olympic Movement. The majority of IOC members ignored this when voting to allow South Africa to participate, based on the fact that SANOC ostensibly was doing as well as could be expected under the political conditions existent in South Africa. This IOC decision

triggered the threat of a wide-spread boycott of the 1968 Mexico City Olympics. As a result, the invitation to South Africa was withdrawn once again and South Africa was eventually expelled from the IOC and Olympic Movement in 1970.

Quick’s study clearly displayed the influence that the African bloc had on the expulsion of South Africa from the Olympic Movement. Quick focused on the voices of Brundage and South African officials to provide indication of the pressures on the IOC and SANOC which led to the expulsion of South Africa from the IOC. Quick attributed Brundage’s loss of power to the rise of power in the African bloc. Quick’s examination was helpful because the pressure from African nations was certainly one factor playing a part in the expulsion of South African involvement in the Olympic Movement.

Donald Macintosh, Hart Cantelon, and Lisa McDermott discussed how the IOC, under Brundage’s leadership, acted as a transnational organization when dealing with South Africa in the Olympic Movement during the 1950s and 1960s.152 _{The IOC’s}

mission was to spread Olympism through NOCs without exhibiting much interest in the political ideology expressed by IOC members and hosting countries; thus, the IOC’s decisions were driven by the commitment to Olympism.153 _{Therefore, to have}

SANOC abide by the Olympic Charter was the IOC’s main interest. To provide evidence of the IOC’s attempt to keep the focus on the values of Olympism and the organizational procedures of the IOC, and away from the subject of apartheid in South Africa, ABC was used to highlight the correspondence between SANOC and the IOC officials. Letters between Brundage and SANOC officials discussing strategies to help South Africa comply with IOC rules appeared as early as the late 1950s. Macintosh,

Cantelon, and McDermott suggested that the ideals of Olympism were the main thrust for decision making within the transnational structure of the IOC, not Brundage himself. Brundage represented a brand of Olympism that enforced the non-political nature of the IOC, which ignored the internal policies of South African government, and, in turn, influenced the continual inclusion of South Africa in the IOC. Although the Olympic Movement was the most important factor directing the IOC, the conflict and struggle amongst IOC members regarding apartheid was created by how Olympism should be pursued by the IOC. By the time South Africa’s exclusion became a reality, the ideals of Olympism Brundage once enforced became extinct because of the gravity of the apartheid issue. Brundage felt strongly about his version of Olympism because of the charismatic legacy left by the founder of the modern Olympic Games, Pierre de Coubertin.

Cantelon and McDermott made a connection between the decision-making of the IOC and the “charismatic legacy” of Coubertin.154 _{Indicative of this connection was the} correspondence between Brundage and the South African representative to the IOC, Reginald Honey. It showed how Coubertin’s idealist vision of Olympism was ingrained in the IOC organization. In turn, that devotion to Olympism drove the decisions of the IOC on important matters such as dealing with the South African apartheid issue. Brundage expressed Coubertin’s Olympic ideals in his letters to IOC members, such as freedom from domestic and international political pressure. As South Africa’s representative on the IOC from 1948 until his death in 1982, Honey was an influential advocate of Brundage’s concept of Olympism.155 As an ideal IOC member who

in the South African situation and was devoted to Olympic ideals. Honey faced extreme pressure during the years leading to South Africa’s expulsion from the Olympic Movement in 1970. Although he had to defend South Africa’s racial policies, he was favoured enough to be asked to remain on the IOC after South Africa was expelled.156 _{According to the authors, Honey and Brundage shared not only the same}

devotion to the Olympic Movement, but similarities characterizing the membership of the IOC during the 1950s and 1960s: white, male, well-educated, and privileged. All these similarities between Honey, Brundage, and other IOC members added to the IOC’s cohesive strength in continuing the charismatic ideals of Coubertin. Further, and more importantly, Brundage trusted the support from those who shared these characteristics. It was only when opposition arose to Brundage’s and Honey’s version of Olympism that problems ensued with South Africa’s membership in the IOC. Cantelon and McDermott suggest that the correspondence between Brundage and Honey slightly favoured the white regime,157 _{not because Brundage and Honey were}

racists, but because they sought to uphold Coubertin’s vision of Olympism. There was a sense of entitlement given to SANOC to control all-things Olympic within South Africa because of its history with the IOC and commitment to the Olympic Movement since 1908.158 _{Cantelon and McDermott’s study was valuable because it provided}

insight into how those of Brundage’s and Honey’s persuasion made decisions within the IOC, and because it identified Honey as one source of input Brundage had on South Africa’s status. Despite Honey’s history as a representative of South Africa on the IOC, by the mid-1960s, he became more of a diplomatic figure.

Honey, however, was not the only IOC member Brundage confided in with regard to South African politics and sport. Identifying a different IOC member, Maureen Smith focused on Reginald Alexander’s correspondence with the IOC regarding the status of South Africa in the Olympic Movement. Alexander’s written exchanges span more than 25 years and involve three IOC Presidents, one of whom was Brundage, who considered Alexander an ally and trusted confidante.159 _{Elected in 1960,}

Alexander represented Kenya on the IOC. He and Brundage shared the same sentiment about domestic politics not infringing on participation in the Olympic Games. Therefore, not only should South African politics not prevent athletes from participating in the Games, it was, in fact, the athletes who were experiencing discrimination based on a violation of the Olympic Charter.160 _{In his letters, Brundage}

shared his optimism with Alexander about finding the right solution to help the non- white sportsmen in South Africa. Brundage held Alexander in such high regard, he selected Alexander as part of the three man fact-finding commission to investigate South African sport before making a decision on South Africa’s status for the 1968 Mexico City Games.161 _{Although Brundage was one IOC President discussed in Smith’s}

study, her primary focus was Alexander’s contribution to the South African issue, not the three IOC Presidents with whom Alexander communicated. Alexander’s correspondence with Brundage was valuable in providing a better picture of Brundage’s perception of the South African issue, but it was only one piece of the puzzle.

These articles focussed on partial aspects of the topic proposed for this study, and as such are of value in the framing of the research issue. They do not, however,

represent the theme in its completeness, neither in the selection of its time period, nor in the focus of its questioning. The much more detailed investigation of the historical and archival record carried out in this study acknowledges this literature, but provides a more detailed as well as more in-depth investigation of the issue.