News reports have surfaced that Tian Liang 田亮, a diver who won gold and bronze medals at the Athen’s 2004 Olympics, will not be included on China’s 2008 team. According to China Daily, the government’s English-language mouthpiece, Tian was removed from the national diving team in 2005 “for violating state sport regulations and taking part in too many ‘commercial activities.’” Though media sources evaluate him as having high potential to earn China more golds in 2008, it has now become official that he will not be reinstated to the team.

It is tempting to react to this news as the Western media sources have: the Telegraph (UK), labels Tian a “political victim” and NPR characterizes his fate as “symptomatic of deeper problems”. Certainly, from the perspective of a country like the U.S., where Olympians are competitively selected on their performative merits alone, this is an undue invasion of government into the a non-governmental sphere–a policy all too easily labeled as “fascist”

Or is it? The issue, upon consideration, isn’t so clean cut. Certainly China exerts a great (and, perhaps, stifling) deal of centralized control over athletics, but is that what has really occurred in here? Is this undue government influence?

Perhaps not. Of the reasons given for Tian getting booted from the national team, the biggest seems to be that, after Athens, he over-capitalized on his Olympic success. Tian, praised as a “diving prince”, has sold his fame to advertise everything from seafood snacks to running machines to hardwood floors. Moreover, his high-profile liaisons with other diving stars (or rising stars) have, one way or another, turned him in a major tabloid item. While, by American standards certainly, these don’t seem like very major transgressions, in largely conservative China, where Hong Kong tabloids come about as close as you can get to legalized porn, Tian’s actions can be seen as having rubbed against the grain of values.

If, in the U.S., a basketball team were to boot a player for a season for womanizing or drug-use, there would certainly be a crowd that would praise the decision, especially because noteworthy sports players have long been recognized as social role models. Using another example, it seems very likely that the U.S. would remove an athlete from the Olympic team if s/he made pornographic materials while wearing a U.S. Olympic jersey before the games. At least such actions would engender a great deal of anger and debate in America. Given that Olympians are supposed to be representatives of their countries–and that the Olympics is meant to foster international understanding, cultural exchange, and peace–I fail to see significant differences, except in degree, between these scenarios and Tian’s particular case.

Certainly, there’s no denying that China’s rules for its athletes are draconian and easily manipulated for hidden agendas. But, given that China has announced big hopes to win at least 40 gold medals this year, cutting Tian for the sake of preserving values doesn’t seem to be so obviously authoritarian: it could just as easily be regarded as a respect-worthy act of cultural values promotion in line with the Olympics spirit.

Though there are no clear-cut answers here, it would be nice to see Western media outlets address (if not fully engage) the more textured debate that surrounds the issue.

Money can’t buy him gold.