Armour: Addition by subtraction won't add up for Olympic gymnastics

Nancy Armour | USA TODAY Sports

It's not often the folks running a sport set out to ruin it, but that's exactly what gymnastics officials seem intent on doing.

Later this week, the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) will vote on a proposal that would cut team size from its current five people to four, with a convoluted process that could allow some teams to bring two additional gymnasts, beginning with the 2020 Olympics. Those 24 extra spots – 12 for the men, 12 for the women -- would be used to increase the number of event specialists at the Olympic Games and ensure that all continents are represented.

In theory, it's a well-intentioned idea. In practice, it's unnecessary and excessive, and the chaos it's likely to cause could hurt the very people it's supposed to help and dilute the quality of the competition for what is only the sport's most prestigious event.

"I think the (FIG) president, in his heart, believes he's doing something good for the sport," said Steve Butcher, president of the FIG's men's technical committee, which is in charge of overseeing men's gymnastics internationally.

"But there's a lot of questions as to whether it would be."

It's true there weren't enough individual spots at the Beijing Olympics, when event medalists from the 2007 world championships, along with a handful of other top gymnasts, were left home. But that's no longer an issue, with the last reduction in team size – from six to five before the 2012 Olympics – taking care of it.

Go ahead, look at the entry list for London. There's not one gymnast you could point to and say, "Oh, he or she should have been there."

If the FIG wants to ensure participation from all continents, change the qualifying structure. It's easily done, without weakening the entire Olympic event.

By adding more individual spots at the expense of the team, as the proposal would do, the FIG risks putting gymnasts on the Olympic floor who don't have the skill level to be there. (Think Eddie the Eagle, but on still rings instead of a ski jump.) That makes for an ugly competition and, with the difficult tricks gymnasts are doing these days, a potentially dangerous one.

And while growing the sport is an admirable goal, one the FIG should definitely champion, it has already made great strides under its existing system.

At the 1976 Olympics, gymnasts from seven countries won medals. By London, the number of countries winning medals had doubled. That's not simply a trickle-down effect of the breakup of the Soviet Union, either. Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, France, Brazil and South Korea were among the countries claiming medals in London.

Last year's world championships saw participation from a record number of countries – 48 in the men's competition, 38 in the women's – including India, Egypt, Singapore and Peru.

"They're doing something right," said Peter Vidmar, chairman of USA Gymnastics and double gold medalist at the 1984 Olympics. "I don't know that we need to keep reducing the team size because the team competition is such a vibrant aspect of this sport and brings so much excitement to the floor at the Olympic Games and world championships.

"I would hate to see it diluted to the point where it loses its appeal."

If it does, gymnastics will pay the price – literally.

Following its success at the London Olympics, gymnastics was given Tier One status for the first time. That means it gets the largest portion of funding from the International Olympic Committee; the only other Tier One sports are track and field and swimming.

But if fans start losing interest, gymnastics – and its IOC funding -- could get bumped back down.

"Over the last few Olympic cycles, we've watched team size go down from seven to six to five and, now with the new proposal, to four," Butcher said. "What type of message are we passing to the IOC? I think the message we're passing is the team competition is not so important."

This isn't the first time FIG president Bruno Grandi has pushed for a complete overhaul of the sport when a tweak or two will do. After several judging controversies tarnished the 2004 Olympics, he could have insisted judges use every decimal of the 10.0 scale, which would have been enough to allow for true distinction between performances.

Instead, he tossed the iconic 10.0 and created an open-ended scoring system that many complain has stripped the sport of its artistry. It also requires an advanced calculus degree to understand, giving it all the appeal of a pet rock. Would Nadia Comaneci be famous the world over if she'd scored a string of 16.1s instead of all those 10.0s? I think not.

Now Grandi is gambling with the future of his sport by championing this proposal. This is one case when addition by subtraction just doesn't add up.