The last few Olympics have seen controversies over women in beach volleyball and beach handball having to wear revealing bikinis, because promotors think it increases audiences (though they have since been allowed to wear more). But men have always been able to wear shorts and tank tops.
Do you agree men should have to take their shirts off for Olympic beach sports? This is how they dress for competitions outside the Olympics anyway, and it would be more entertaining for female audiences, so same logic.
Yes, they should have a shirtless uniform
No, they should keep their shirts on
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
Updates
1 y
Quite the gender split on this one so far!
Do you agree male beach volleyball players should have a shirtless uniform at the Olympics?
It's about the audiences and sponsors, not gender.
Male sports is competitive, and audiences are guaranteed. Hence the shirt sales and sponsors fighting to get onto those shirts. They know they will make the cost plus big profits, back.
Female sports is less competitive, and more gimmick prone. Hence less money, sponsors and audiences. Scantily clad bimbo's playing volleyball was an image many pubescent males grew up with. But volleyball has become a more respectable and professional sport these past few years.
Hence the movement to make it more respectable for the players too.
The previous difference in uniform (men in shorts and shirts, women in bikinis) absolutely were sexist. I believe female competitors who wear the bikinis when they say that those uniforms are more practical and comfortable than a one-piece or shorts and shirt. So why weren't the guys allowed briefs like divers and polo players wear? I'm using past tense here because the uniform standards for women aren't as restrictive due to complaints from some female players. Bikinis are optional now, women are allowed shorts and shirts.
Here’s a compromise. T-shirts optional. Men can either go without a shirt or use a T-shirt women can go with whatever they had before or use a T-shirt.
I say T-shirt to optimize comfort and mobility. We could have polo shirts as a third option but you get the point. A loose fitting short sleeve shirt sorta like tennis.
1
3 Reply
Asker
1 y
Perhaps but in most sports everyone wears the same thing so there should probably be a uniform. Shirtless seems to make sense for the guys since that's what most wear outside Olympics anyway
I don't care what they wear, but in the Olympics it must be uniform. Shirts, no shirts, I don't care, but they must all be in the uniform of their country. I hope it is not necessary to explain what uniform means.
It's not the same since men are the biggest sport spectators. Whether or not it's "fair" is a different question since it's about the money these organizations make. Honestly I don't think it matters to the athletes whether or not they wear shirts, guys do it all the time. Ever heard the term "shirts vs. skins"?
It will never happen, Gay people run the media and they are against men having body hair on camera. They want all men to be emasculated prepubescent boys. Olympic athletes are not under any contract and can't be controlled like other professional athletes.
Might as well keep their shirt on if they are all going to look like braless, shirtless women like the ones in the pictures.
Would it really be more entertaining to female audiences though? What if the guys wore muscle shirts, then you could see their muscles without having to see their hairy torsos.
1. They call things "uniforms" because they are uniform - essentially the same across everyone. Uniforms have a number of important purposes, but the most obvious is that you know what someone does based on their uniform. I could show you a picture of a football player or a baseball player or a basketball player in their uniform, and you could tell me which sport they played without knowing who they were or anything else about them.
2. There are very real financial realities that need to be understood. One of those realities is that most women's sports (and there ARE exceptions - women's tennis being a notable one) don't attract very much interest, which severely limits their earnings potential. Even with some government support and a few sponsorships, many women's sports barely survive financially (this is also true of less popular men's sports, to be fair). Promoters may well have figured out that without the bikini uniforms, there simply wouldn't be enough interest in women's volleyball to generate enough revenue to continue the sport - which would mean that the choice becomes: wear the bikini, or dissolve the league and go get a different job. Perhaps an Olympic team could still be fielded from amateur players, but it certainly wouldn't rise to the level of professional players who get paid to play and can devote their full time to the sport.
I have no dog in this fight - I don't care what happens either way - but uniforms are standard in all sports, and so are financial realities. I don't claim to be an expert on this particular situation, but there's almost always more going on than the headlines mention.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
