This Saturday at the 2016 Rio Olympics, an intriguing matchup took place: the U.S. women’s volleyball team competed against the Puerto Rico women’s volleyball team. For many, this raises a fundamental question: Why would two teams seemingly representing the same nation, the United States, face off in the Olympic Games, an event designed for international competition between different countries?
The answer, in essence, is that while Puerto Rico is indeed a territory of the United States, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) recognizes it as a distinct “country” for Olympic purposes. This authority rests solely with the IOC, which has the exclusive power to determine which entities qualify as countries within the Olympic framework.
But this immediately leads to further questions. If world governments don’t recognize Puerto Rico as a sovereign nation, why does the IOC? And if Puerto Rico can field its own Olympic team, could other U.S. territories or even regions like Washington D.C., which aren’t states, also compete under their own flags in future Olympic Games?
Let’s delve into the complex relationship between Puerto Rico, the United States, and the Olympic world to understand why Puerto Rico proudly fields its own Olympic team.
Puerto Rico’s Unique Political Status: More Than Just a U.S. Territory
Puerto Rico, a vibrant island in the Caribbean Sea, approximately a thousand miles southeast of Florida, has been under the umbrella of the United States since 1898. This relationship began formally with the Treaty of Paris, signed by the U.S. and Spain after the Spanish-American War. This conflict, triggered by the tragic sinking of the U.S.S. Maine and the loss of 266 American sailors, saw the U.S. military invade and subsequently occupy Spanish-controlled Puerto Rico. The United States has maintained a presence on the island ever since.
Over the past century and more, the legal and political dynamics between the U.S. and Puerto Rico have evolved considerably. The initial period of military governance gradually transitioned towards more nuanced forms of administration. A pivotal moment arrived in 1952 with the U.S. Congress’s approval of the “Constitution for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.” This constitution granted Puerto Rico greater autonomy in local governance and a degree of self-determination, marking a significant shift in their relationship with the mainland United States.
Puerto Rico operates with its own internal governmental structure, featuring an elected governor, a legislative assembly, and a judicial system. This framework empowers Puerto Rico to manage its local laws and shape its educational policies to a significant extent. Culturally rich, Puerto Rico also recognizes two official languages: Spanish and English, with Spanish being the predominant language spoken on the island.
Despite this local autonomy, the U.S. federal government retains considerable influence in Puerto Rico. Key areas such as military defense and foreign policy are managed by the U.S. government. Puerto Rico’s economy is also deeply integrated with the U.S., using the U.S. dollar as its currency and falling under the jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts. Individuals born in Puerto Rico are granted U.S. citizenship. However, a notable difference is that Puerto Ricans do not have voting representation in U.S. Presidential and Congressional elections. Their representation in Washington D.C. is limited to a non-voting “Resident Commissioner” in the U.S. House of Representatives.
While exercising authority over Puerto Rico, the U.S. government officially recognizes Puerto Rico as a self-governing entity under their compact agreement. Interestingly, public sentiment in Puerto Rico has leaned more towards U.S. statehood than complete independence. A 2012 non-binding referendum indicated that a majority of Puerto Rican voters favored either statehood or maintaining their commonwealth status over declaring full independence.
The IOC’s Unique Definition of “Country” and Puerto Rico’s Olympic Recognition
So, how does the IOC justify recognizing Puerto Rico as a separate sporting nation? The answer lies in the IOC’s specific definition of a “country” as outlined in Article 30 of the Olympic Charter. This article defines a “country” as “an independent State recognized by the international community.” Crucially, the IOC’s definition deviates from the traditional, more rigid requirements of statehood in international law. It doesn’t necessitate full sovereignty in all aspects, such as complete governmental independence or clearly defined, internationally recognized borders. The IOC’s criteria hinge on “independence,” a somewhat flexible term, and “recognition” by an undefined “international community.”
For over six decades, the IOC has consistently recognized Puerto Rico’s Olympic Committee as representing a distinct “country.” The IOC has been persuaded that Puerto Rico possesses a sufficient level of autonomy to warrant this recognition. Furthermore, the IOC acknowledges a distinct Puerto Rican national identity, separate from that of the United States. This perspective aligns with many legal scholars who analyze the intricate relationship between Puerto Rico and the U.S., arguing that while legally tied to the U.S., Puerto Rico functions in many ways as a separate, sovereign entity. This recognition of Puerto Rico is also consistent with the IOC’s similar recognition of other U.S. territories like Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands as independent Olympic nations.
It’s important to understand that the IOC’s authority to define what constitutes a “country” in the Olympic context is independent of governmental or political approvals. The IOC operates as a private, non-profit organization, making decisions based on its own charter and principles. Therefore, the IOC’s classifications don’t necessarily mirror the definitions used by governments or international political bodies.
Historically, the IOC has made decisions regarding country recognition that have been considered controversial. In 1965, for instance, the IOC recognized Rhodesia as a country, even though it was then a territory in the midst of seeking independence from Great Britain (later becoming Zimbabwe fifteen years later). Similarly, the IOC’s 1993 recognition of Palestine as a country was also contentious, as international recognition of Palestine’s statehood remains divided among nations. These examples highlight the IOC’s autonomous and sometimes politically nuanced approach to defining Olympic nations.
Washington D.C. Olympic Team? Why It’s Unlikely
If U.S. territories like Puerto Rico can compete in the Olympics, what about Washington D.C., the capital of the United States and a unique non-state entity?
The notion of Washington D.C. competing against the United States in the Olympics might seem almost paradoxical, even unpatriotic to some. While the IOC has shown it isn’t afraid of controversy, recognizing D.C. as a separate Olympic “country” would be a highly provocative step, even by their standards.
However, within Washington D.C., where license plates famously declare “Taxation Without Representation” and the issue of statehood is a persistent point of contention, some residents might actually welcome the idea of having their own Olympic team.
Washington D.C.’s origins date back to the Residence Act of 1790, which designated land ceded by Maryland and Virginia to establish a federal capital district. A decade later, Congress convened its first session in the newly built capital city. The very existence of a federal district is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, granting Congress exclusive jurisdiction over a district not part of any state – Washington D.C.
Throughout its history, D.C. has faced various challenges, including significant damage during the War of 1812 and the Civil War’s Battle of Fort Stevens. The rights of D.C. residents have also been a long-standing issue. For much of the past two centuries, Congress has largely controlled D.C.’s governance, sometimes relegating local officials to limited roles.
More recently, there have been some advancements in D.C.’s autonomy. In 1961, the Twenty-third Amendment granted D.C. citizens the right to vote in presidential elections. In 1973, the Home Rule Act allowed for an elected local legislature. However, Congress retains veto power over D.C.’s local affairs and budget. Furthermore, the U.S. President appoints judges to D.C.’s local courts. A proposed “Washington D.C. Voting Rights Amendment” to grant D.C. representation in Congress failed in 1985. Similar to Puerto Rico, D.C. residents are represented in the House by a non-voting Delegate.
While residents of both D.C. and Puerto Rico experience a degree of autonomy alongside limited federal representation, key differences exist. D.C. residents can vote in presidential elections, unlike Puerto Ricans. D.C. residents also pay federal income taxes, which is not the case for most Puerto Rico residents. Conceptually, D.C. is also distinct; it’s a federal district designed to house the U.S. government. U.S. territories, conversely, are geographic areas under U.S. control but not incorporated as states and without a direct governmental function.
Therefore, the legal argument for D.C. having its own Olympic team is considerably weaker than that for U.S. territories like Puerto Rico.
Practical considerations also weigh against a D.C. Olympic team. Puerto Rico boasts a population of around 3.7 million, while D.C.’s population is significantly smaller at approximately 660,000, limiting the potential talent pool.
Despite the unlikelihood, imagining a D.C. Olympic team is an intriguing thought experiment. Imagine if eligibility for a D.C. team required birth in D.C. or substantial time spent there, perhaps through work or education at institutions like Georgetown or Howard University.
Would basketball superstar Kevin Durant, a D.C. native, choose to represent a D.C. team over the U.S.? What about swimmer Katie Ledecky or ice skater Lorraine McNamara? A fascinating competition for athletes would emerge. And with baseball in the Olympics, a D.C. team led by someone like Bryce Harper could be a medal contender. Consider also D.C. athletes just below the U.S. national team level – would someone like John Wall become a star for a D.C. Olympic team? Perhaps even Allen Iverson could consider a comeback for “The District.”
Ultimately, while entertaining to contemplate, focusing on the actual competition between the U.S. and Puerto Rico seems more grounded in reality. The question remains: which “country” will advance in the Olympic tournament?
