Why can't USA compete in Commonwealth Games?

Actually not a half-bad question.

i think it is because the USA declared independence vs being granted it

Countries have to be part of the Commonwealth of Nations, which the United States is not. Yes, the USA has ties to the British empire, but you have to be a Commonwealth of Nations "member" to participate.

1776 happened.

The Brits can't stand losing over and over again...

O beautiful for glory-tale

Of liberating strife

When once and twice,

for man's avail

Men lavished precious life!

America! America!

God shed his grace on thee

Till selfish gain no longer stain

The banner of the free!

we should start an AMERICAS GAMES for non WC years.

Those are called the Pan-American Games

uphill run wrote:

Countries have to be part of the Commonwealth of Nations, which the United States is not. Yes, the USA has ties to the British empire, but you have to be a Commonwealth of Nations "member" to participate.

My Scottish coworker explained this to me. Pretty much all of the former British Empire competes, except for USA and Ireland. Interestingly, other countries have joined the Commonwealth since its inception.

Because of kick ass.

Don't know how this question is asked so often on these boards.

If you're seriously wondering, it's because the USA is not in the Commonwealth.

The Stache wrote:

uphill run wrote:

Countries have to be part of the Commonwealth of Nations, which the United States is not. Yes, the USA has ties to the British empire, but you have to be a Commonwealth of Nations "member" to participate.

My Scottish coworker explained this to me. Pretty much all of the former British Empire competes, except for USA and Ireland. Interestingly, other countries have joined the Commonwealth since its inception.

The USA (and Ireland) would be perfectly eligible to join the Commonwealth if they wanted, but no way it will happen any time soon.

I think the USA should start a NON-Commonwealth games. Just think, the US, Ireland, the rest of mainland Europe, Ethiopia, and whoever else wants to come. We'll even invite Russia to the party.

I think the USA should start a NON-Commonwealth games. Just think, the US, Ireland, the rest of mainland Europe, Ethiopia, and whoever else wants to come. We'll even invite Russia to the party.

RT

Y wrote:

I mean we were a British territory. So why not? Are we too good and big now?

It is a wonderful tribute to the greatest civilising and modernising institution in modern history - the British Empire.

How apt that even after a century of our decline (WW1) our previous colonies can still come together in harmony and friendship to compete in sporting contests.

The US in theory should still be eligible, after all that was paramount about America came from being originally colonised by the British.

We gave you Christianity, our language, our literature, limited government, and a system of rights founded in British common law - the evolution of such things as habeas corpus, trial by jury, due process, the rule of law.

Our antecedents gave you your ‘renowned’ Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Indeed, every American schoolboy should know, but most definitely doesn't, the British colonies of North America were the lightest taxed, most liberally governed (in the classical small government sense), freest, most prosperous, and most equitable portions of the eighteenth century world.

In the light of what’s happening to your freedoms in America right now - you should have stayed in the British Empire/Commonwealth.

And we thought we had handed over our wonderful legacy to the Americans after WW2, but I can hardly visualise an American Empire Games in 2100 with competitors from Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo, Panama and other parts of the world subjugated by US forces 1945-2014.

Y wrote:

I mean we were a British territory. So why not? Are we too good and big now?

Because the USA is not a member of the Commonwealth.

Feel free to apply to join...

The Commonwealth is just a way for the British (of which I am) to feel like that they still have an empire and feel much grander than they are. It’s also for the members to feel more important than they are, as they can align themselves alongside the British. Whooptidoo. Note the head of the commonwealth will always be the monarch of England. The USA does not need to have this unelected overinflated figure associated with them. (I personally don’t see why any country would want to).

The commonwealth games is not a serious sporting event. The organisers will obviously disagree, as they are the organisers. The BBC will not agree as they love all things to do with royalty/ the old empire etc. The athletes competing will disagree as they are so happy to have been picked for the squad ie get paid for their attendance that they would not want to jeopardise further funding/ selection. Also, for many athletes attending it may be a serious event for them as they would not have a chance in hell of being competitive at the Worlds/ Olympics/ Diamond League/ European/ etc meets.

Mo Farah attending is a godsend for the organisers as there would have been even less interest than there will be. Mo is most likely only attending so as to further quash those comments about him being not ‘British’ enough to represent GB. Note, he will be running for England at this meet. He is only using this as a warm up for the European championships. If there were the slightest chance that attending the CW games would affect his Euro performance, he would not attend.

Look at it like this. Mo (or any other athlete) would always rather come in last at the CW and medal at the Euros. They would certainly not want it the other way round.

For the USA to have one year out of every four without a major international championship is just fine.

Joe Binks wrote:

We gave you Christianity, our language, our literature, limited government, and a system of rights founded in British common law - the evolution of such things as habeas corpus, trial by jury, due process, the rule of law.

Our antecedents gave you your ‘renowned’ Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Indeed, every American schoolboy should know, but most definitely doesn't, the British colonies of North America were the lightest taxed, most liberally governed (in the classical small government sense), freest, most prosperous, and most equitable portions of the eighteenth century world.

None of which would have happened had Britain not been part of the Roman Empire.

Y wrote:

I mean we were a British territory. So why not? Are we too good and big now?

Wow, is this for real?