Olympics Could Enjoy A Touch of Magic, Bird : Pending Rules Changes Would Make Most Professionals Eligible for the Games; If That Happens, the United States Might Never Lose Another Gold Medal in Basketball--Unless, of Course, Magic, Bird and the Others Aren’t Interested; That May Be the Case

SEOUL OLYMPICS, DAY THREE--Wearing a red, white and blue jersey with the letters USA on the front, Patrick Ewing gives China’s 7-foot, 1-inch center, Zhangbao Hu, a head fake and cuts toward the basket in time to catch an alley oop pass for a slam dunk.

Assist: Ron Behagen.

Before you turn the channel to something more competitive, such as “The Big Spin,” it should be noted that Ewing is not likely to play in the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul, South Korea. Gulf & Western, which owns the New York Knicks, does not want to see its $30 million investment play against China any more than Zhangbao Hu does. Neither is it likely that Behagen will play in Seoul, or anywhere else outside of the Atlanta YMCA for that matter.

But the possibility that Ewing, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson and every other National Basketball Assn. player will be eligible for the 1988 Summer Olympics is a result of Behagen’s efforts.

Behagen, probably best known in the United States as an All Big-Ten player for the University of Minnesota in the early ‘70s, is as good an example as anyone of a journeyman pro. He played for four NBA teams in six seasons, went to Italy for one season, returned to the NBA for two weeks in 1980 and then was denied another opportunity to play in Italy because he was a professional. Let’s see if we’ve got this straight. After six years in the NBA, he was still considered an amateur in Italy. But after an additional two weeks in the NBA, he no longer could play in Italy because he was a pro.

This logic having gone over his head, high-minded logic indeed considering that he is 6-10, Behagen decided to tell his story to a jury. Now 35 and an insurance salesman in Atlanta, he has few moves left on the court but plenty in court. His case is scheduled to go to trial late this year.

Behagen’s lawsuit, and the potential for future litigation, is a leading factor in the decision of the Federation Internationale de Basketball Amateur (FIBA), the sport’s international governing body, to reconsider its eligibility rules.

No longer able to defend its distinction between professionals and amateurs, FIBA may decide to surrender.

During its most recent session, FIBA’s Central Board voted, 21-3, to open future international competitions, including the Olympics, to all players, whether their compensation is $25 in laundry money or $25 million.

Opposed to the proposal were the United States, Italy and the Soviet Union, which might be considered an unlikely alliance except for the fact that all three are acting in their own interests. They are expected to remain in the minority when the measure is brought before FIBA’s full membership for a vote this summer in Barcelona.

FIBA’s action, of course, will mean nothing in regard to the Olympics without approval from the International Olympic Committee.

But whereas the IOC of the not too distant past would have rejected such a proposal quicker than you can say Avery Brundage, the IOC under the leadership of Spain’s Juan Antonio Samaranch has encouraged the elimination of rules distinguishing between professionals and amateurs.

A former Spanish ambassador to the Soviet Union, Samaranch revealed no startling information in February, when he pointed out that athletes from the Soviet Union and other socialist countries are state-supported and thus, by any definition other than the IOC’s, are professional. The only thing startling is that someone in power within the IOC finally said it. “For us (IOC’s Executive Board) a professional athlete is the same as a state athlete,” he said.

Thus, he concluded, the Olympic movement should embrace other professionals.

In agreement with Samaranch, the IOC’s Executive Board unanimously endorsed a new Athletes’ Code to replace Rule 26 of the Olympic Charter, which bans from the Olympics those athletes who have “received any financial rewards or material benefit in connection with his or her sports participation.”

According to the liberalized code, athletes would be prohibited from accepting money only during the Olympics. In other words, they could not be paid to participate in the Olympics, although enforcing that would be no easier than enforcing current rules against financial compensation.

This issue no doubt will provide the most debate at the General Assembly of the Assn. of National Olympic Committees this week in Seoul. The only professionals the Soviets and other socialist countries want to allow into the Olympics are their professionals. But if adopted, as expected, at October’s 91st IOC Session in Lausanne, Switzerland, the new rule would enable each sport’s international governing body to decide its own Olympic eligibility rules.

If the Internationale Boxing Assn. wants Marvelous Marvin Hagler in the Olympics, so be it.

The same goes for the International Tennis Federation and John McEnroe, the International Ice Hockey Federation and Wayne Gretzky, the International Skating Union and Dorothy Hamill and the World Wrestling Federation and Hulk Hogan. Well, why not?

If you exclude Soviet Bloc athletes, the idea of allowing professionals into the Olympics goes back no further than the days of, say, Homer.

The concept of amateurism did not exist in Ancient Greece. Athletes who had success in the Olympics did not receive prize money, but they were rewarded lavishly by the cities that they represented. According to an editorial by U.S. Olympic Committee President Robert Helmick in the April edition of Olympian magazine, victorious athletes in the Panathenaic Festivals 2,500 years ago in Athens received amphoras, two-handed vases, which were the equivalent of gold medals today. The athletes filled the amphoras with the oil from sacred olive trees and then sold the olive oil to finance their training.

Amateurism was conceived in the 18th Century by the British, who encouraged participation in sport “solely for the love of sport” and thus discouraged the majority of the population that did not have the financial wherewithal to play without pay. That assured those among Britain’s leisure class that they would not have to contend with commoners, who were presumed to have more physical prowess. Helmick told the story of John B. Kelly Sr., the father of Grace Kelly and the late USOC President Jack Kelly, who was not allowed to compete in the Henley Royal Regatta on the Thames in the 1920s because he formerly had been a brick contractor. British authorities ruled that because Kelly had worked with his hands, he had a strength advantage over the “gentlemen athletes.”

When France’s Pierre de Coubertin resurrected the Olympics in 1896, he declared that only amateurs as defined by the British should be eligible. He was, after all, a baron. The Olympic motto sounded egalitarian enough, encouraging those to compete in the Modern Games who were swifter, higher and stronger. In reality, those Games were for those who were wealthy, wealthier and wealthiest.

But in subsequent years, the word amateur has become so meaningless, despite the objections of men such as the late IOC President Avery Brundage, that it is has disappeared from the Olympic Charter.

The operative word today is “eligible athlete.”

Because of a temporary waiver in IOC rules, eligible in 1984 had almost as many definitions as there are sports.

In ice hockey, it meant everyone who had not played 10 or more games in the National Hockey League or the defunct World Hockey Assn.

In soccer, it meant everyone who had not played on a World Cup team in Europe or South America.

In tennis, it meant everyone who had not played professionally and those who had as long as they were under 21.

In track and field, it meant everyone who had not participated in professional track (Brian Oldfield) or professional anything else (Renaldo Nehemiah). Athletes who earned money in track and field, as much as six figures a year in several cases, were eligible, however, because they placed a portion of their earnings into trust funds.

In basketball, it meant everyone who had not competed in professional leagues in the United States, Canada and the Philippines. But anyone who competed in the Italian League and other European leagues was eligible because those are defined by FIBA as amateur leagues, even though some of their players are as well-paid as those in the NBA.

Is it any wonder that Behagen couldn’t figure out whether he was a pro or a con?

The U.S. Olympic Committee has its own pitch regarding this issue, but it comes at you like a Phil Niekro knuckleball. As soon as you think you have it solved, it flutters off in a different direction.

The USOC Executive Board has decided without dissent that it is against an Open Olympics, meaning that it does not want professionals competing alongside amateurs in all sports without regard to any eligibility rules.

But the USOC Executive Board also has decided without dissent that it supports the right of all international governing bodies to determine the eligibility rules in their own sports, meaning that FIBA should be allowed to have professionals in the Olympics if it so desires, even though the USOC would rather that FIBA not so desire.

On the other hand, the USOC Executive Board has decided without dissent that athletes who are professionals in a sport should not be allowed to compete in the Olympics in that sport but that they should be allowed to compete in any other sports. That would enable Nehemiah and others in professional football to compete internationally in track and field.

At the most recent executive board meeting in Los Angeles earlier this month, Helmick wondered out loud about the media’s inability to get the USOC’s position straight.

As it turned out, some executive board members were experiencing the same difficulty.

“This is one of the most serious matters to come before the USOC in the history of the USOC, but there is so much confusion as to where we stand,” former USOC President Robert Kane said in a speech before the executive board. “We have said that we are against the open games. But the USOC gives the international federations the right to make the decision. That is open games. What is going on?

“We can’t say we are against open games and then say it’s up to the federations. Are we going to stand up for amateur athletes or are we not?”

The answer is yes. And no.

As Helmick explained later during a press conference, he is not concerned about the possibility of an Olympics that is open to professionals in all sports because a majority of sports do not have professionals. Those that do have professionals, he said, should have the right to decide what to do with them.

“Hypothetically, our position could lead to open competition,” he said. “Realistically, that possibility doesn’t exist.” But whereas Helmick is not concerned about the substance of the proposed rule change, he is concerned about the public’s perception of it.

The USOC is a charitable, nonprofit organization that depends, for the most part, on private contributions. Helmick said the public will support amateur athletes, even if some of them, such as Carl Lewis and Edwin Moses, are amateurs in name only. But Helmick said he believes that if the public thinks it is donating money to support Magic Johnson it will find more deserving causes. Hypocritical? Undeniably. True? Probably.

“I have initiated discussions with the president of the IOC and with the heads of international federations,” Helmick said. “I’ve tried to explain to them that fund raising is the heart and soul of the Olympic movement in this country. If interest in the Olympics in this country goes down, viewership goes down and the rights fees they receive from American television goes down. That hits them right in the pocketbook.”

It could be that this is much ado about nothing. At the meeting in Los Angeles, one executive board member said, “We do not like the idea of the Lakers playing Egypt.” All evidence is that the Lakers would not be too fond of the idea, either.

Let’s say Magic Johnson decided to play in the Olympics. He might not finish his NBA season until mid-June. Qualifications for the Olympics are usually held in June or July. The Games are in August or September. Training camp begins in October. He would have to play for 12 months with virtually no break?

And for what?

To prove he is one of the world’s best basketball players?

To bring the gold medal to the United States? Even with predominantly college players, the United States has failed to win the gold medal only once since the sport was introduced to the Olympics in 1936, and that loss to the Soviets in the 1972 final is still disputed.

What if Johnson suffers a career-ending injury while playing in the Olympics? Is Jerry Buss going to honor the remainder of Johnson’s contract? Don’t bet Pickfair on it.

Larry Fleisher, general counsel of the NBA Players’ Assn., said he would advise the pros against participating in the Olympics.

“We have a collective bargaining agreement that states that no off-season participation can take place without approval of the league and the players’ association,” he said. “I’m not sure either side would want it. I’d be surprised if the NBA players would participate. I just don’t see it happening.”

That would satisfy Bill Wall, executive director of the American Basketball Assn. of the United States (ABAUSA). Even though the United States has the most to gain competitively if NBA players are allowed to play in the Olympics, he voted against the proposal at FIBA’s Central Board meeting. That put him in the unusual position of agreeing with the Soviets, although they had different motivations.

“My main concern is that the NBA players are so good that it’s no longer a game,” he said. “The Russians think they can beat 12 NBA clubs. We say, ‘You’re crazy.’ One game out of 100 they might win. If we had the NBA All-Stars playing all over the world, we’d win almost every game by 20 or 30 points. It would become an exhibition, like the Harlem Globetrotters against the Washington Generals. If the world wants that, so be it.”

Why in the world would the world want that?

Wall said that some of the countries feel the rule change would make them more competitive. Even though they still could not challenge the United States for the gold medal, the West Germans believe they could improve their international prospects if three of their players who figure to be in the NBA in 1988, Detlef Schrempf, Uwe Blab and Christian Welp, are allowed to play in Seoul. The same goes for the Canadians with Bill Wennington and Leo Rautins and the Bulgarians with Georgi Glouchkov. Might not the Nigerians be a medal contender with Akeem Olajuwon in the pivot? The Nigerians think so.

Other countries will vote for the proposal if for no other reason than because they believe it will give them an opportunity to see Larry Bird in person.

“We had the Chinese over here last year for 30 days,” Wall said. “These are the champions of Asia. They were down by 40 at halftime to the Cleveland Cavaliers. The Chinese loved it. The NBA players are legends in Peking. The Chinese are for this because they want to be able to go home and say they were on the same floor with Magic and Kareem. They don’t understand that Magic and Kareem might not even play.”

For whatever reasons, FIBA’s secretary general, Boris Stankovic of Yugoslavia, has been able to form a coalition of countries that support open basketball competition.

If it becomes reality, Stankovic figures his biggest headaches in the future will concern the decisions of referees instead of judges.

That brings us back to Behagen.

After playing in the NBA for six seasons, he regained his amateur status from FIBA so that he could sign for the 1979-80 season with Siena of the Italian League. Siena is considered an amateur team even though it paid Behagen almost as much as he made in the NBA. Upon his return to the United States in April of 1980, the Washington Bullets signed him to a 10-day contract and then extended it through the first round of the playoffs. He played 10 games. But when he tried to return to Siena for the 1980-81 season, FIBA said he was ineligible because of a rule that prohibits a player from regaining his amateur status a second time.

When Behagen appealed, FIBA said it would reinstate him if it were recommended by ABAUSA. When ABAUSA refused, Behagen sued both associations and ABAUSA’s executive director, Wall.

FIBA eventually settled out of court.

Litigation against ABAUSA and Wall is pending.

At 35, Behagen no longer expects to play basketball. But he would like to have the money he feels he was deprived of by not being allowed to continue his lucrative career as an amateur.