WITH four of Jamaica’s brightest track and field prospects switching allegiance to Türkiye last month, public opinion on the matter has been sharply divided. While some well-wishers have expressed support for the athletes’ new chapters, others, particularly on social media, have responded with vitriol, even going so far as to hope they suffer injuries while competing in Türkiye’s red and white at the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles.

These reactions are largely rooted in the belief that athletes who choose to represent another nation over their country of birth are inherently unpatriotic. For many Jamaicans, hearing the national anthem on a global stage is seen as the pinnacle of an athlete’s career — a moment of national pride that transcends personal gain.

However, this ideal often overlooks the complex and practical realities athletes face. While raw talent may power their ascent, the pursuit of a sporting career is, for many, simply that — a job. Like any professional, athletes must weigh opportunities, evaluate compensation, and consider their long-term well-being. Criticising them for making pragmatic choices ignores the harsh economic and systemic challenges they often
endure.

Shot putter Mr Rajindra Campbell, who made history last summer by securing Jamaica’s first Olympic medal in his discipline, recently shed light on his own decision to represent Türkiye. Speaking on Coach’s Desk TV on YouTube, Mr Campbell claimed that the Jamaica Athletics Administrative Association (JAAA) has consistently failed to prioritise athlete welfare. He cited an alleged eight-year, US$40-million ($6.4-billion) contract with Adidas, reportedly rejected in 2024 when the JAAA renewed its deal with Puma. Mr Campbell said the Adidas proposal included athlete-centred performance incentives which, he believes, could have revolutionised local support structures.

Mr Campbell’s frustration echoes a broader trend. This newspaper has, perhaps daily, frequently reported on athletes in various sporting disciplines airing grievances about what they describe as poor administrative practices. In most professions, dissatisfaction with working conditions or pay would prompt a search for better employment. Why should athletes be judged differently?

Given the chance to double, triple, or even quadruple their earnings, especially in a field with a short career span, many would understandably seize it. For some athletes sport is not solely a passion; it is a livelihood, a means to provide for themselves and their families. Just as some people go to work, not out of love but out of necessity, some athletes may compete because it is what they do best, and what offers them the best future.

This phenomenon is not exclusive to Jamaica. Nigerian-born sprint hurdler Ms Favour Ofili also switched allegiance to Türkiye after a public dispute with the Athletics Federation of Nigeria, citing her controversial exclusion from the Olympic team and other long-standing issues.

While these moves may sting national pride they also highlight the urgent need for reform, transparency, and improved athlete support in local governing bodies. Instead of directing hostility toward the athletes, the focus should be on creating systems that make staying feel like the best choice, not the only one.

In the end, these young men and women are not just flag bearers; they are human beings with goals, responsibilities, and aspirations. Their decisions deserve understanding, not condemnation.