Editorial: Why aren't we all off to Olympics?

Have the bugbears of political opportunism, terrorism, creeping professionalism, drug abuse and rampant nationalism finally taken the sheen off the Olympic Games? Or has Sydney 2000 fallen foul of this country's widespread malaise and a perception that medals for New Zealand will be few and far between?

Whatever the reason, ticket sales for Sydney indicate that a nation of fervent sports followers seem prepared to let the opportunity of a lifetime pass them by.

Such fans recognise that few things create a more lasting impression in the memory of a country than the winning of Olympic gold. Yet, incomprehensibly, most seem unprepared to travel to the handiest of locations, perchance to witness such a triumph.

It is perhaps instructive that the corporate sector is taking most of the blame for ticket sales being just a quarter of what was originally expected. That sector splashed out on last year's rugby World Cup and the America's Cup regatta. If it is wary of again lavishing hospitality on clients and staff, that might have more to do with company outlook than the lure of the Olympics. That would be a further symptom of sliding business confidence.

To a degree, the corporate stay-away might also reflect the increasing trend of corporates to shift their headquarters to Australia or form transtasman alliances. In such cases, Olympic ticketing for branch-office New Zealand would, logically, be done in Australia.

It is probably significant that the events favoured by Olympics-bound New Zealanders include rowing and equestrian. Single sculler Rob Waddell is the country's most obvious gold medal prospect, while the equestrian team, individually and collectively, have performed to a consistently high standard since the 1984 Olympics.

It is true, however, that neither rowing nor equestrian offers blue-ribbon events, and that New Zealand enters this Olympics without a Peter Snell or John Walker - the sort of top performers in high-profile events who would have New Zealanders flocking to ticket-sellers. Such, however, is usually the case. As is the fact that few Olympic Games go by without a New Zealander of little repute snatching medal glory.

There was no better example of this than Melbourne in 1956, the last time the Olympics were held in Australia. The nation listened enthralled as Norman Read won the 50km walk. It also gained an early indication of future yachting greatness when Peter Mander and Jack Cropp claimed gold. New Zealanders embraced the Melbourne Games almost as their own. For a country used to dispatching its Olympic athletes to faraway European and North American venues, it was like having the Games in their own backyard.

Subsequent generations of New Zealanders have become more worldly wise and well-travelled and the Olympics are now held in a wider range of locations. Nonetheless, Sydney presents the best opportunity since 1956 for our athletes to perform to their peak - and for the nation to feel involved.

There may be an unreasonable pessimism about New Zealand's prospects. Competition will, for a change, be in tune with our athletes' seasonal norms. And they will compete in a familiar climate and environment, one devoid of language or other barriers. Yet even if such advantages count for nought, spectators will have much to savour. The Olympics always throw up individual feats that transcend nationalistic fervour.

The Games have a resilience reserved only for the most richly established events. The most recent staging, in Atlanta, was blighted by a terrorist bomb and glitches in transport and accommodation. The Olympics, however, have survived far worse. Repeated attacks from several quarters have not diminished their standing as the pinnacle of international sporting achievement.

New Zealanders should seize upon, not spurn, the spectacle of Sydney 2000.