OK, just read about the PR Basketball team whupping the USA teams butt. Now let me make this clear- I do not care about Professional Sports at all. (And, that’s what the Olympics are - IMHO)
But PR is a wholly owned subsidiary of USAco. Where does it get to have it’s own team? Can CA have it’s own team, too? 
There’s another similar thread about Palestine here. Basically, any territory which the IOC recognises as having a National Olympic Committee can compete under its own banner. And the IOC decides these on a case-by-case method. (FWIW, some British overseas territories compete, but not all)
I don’t have an answer, I just want to say that I was wondering the exact same thing. No fair having to compete against your own territories!
PR? Public Relations?
Countries don’t field teams, National Olympic Committees do. While most NOCs are from nations, the IOC recognizes independent territories, commonwealths, protectorates and geographical areas. Puerto Rico has an Olympic team by virtue of thier having a NOC independent of that of the US. Hong Kong, Taiwan, Palestine, American Samoa, British Virgin Islands, and Guam all have their own teams.
California could probably have its own team if someone bothered to form a NOC and get it recognized by the IOC.
Why is this such a shock now that Puerto Rico has its own Olympic team? Puerto Rico has been sending a separate team to the Olympics since 1948.
No gets as worked up though about the Virgin Islands, who has had separate teams since 1968 and American Samoa which has done so since 1988.
In 1976 Puerto Rico almost beat the US in men’s basketball. The US won 95-94 as Butch Lee scored 35 points for Puerto Rico.
British territories can compete separately (such as the British Virgin Islands) and Hong Kong is competing separately from China.
My guess is that’d be easier to get recognition for a Washington DC NOC 
By CA, he’s obviously referring to Canada, and no, there’s nothing stopping Canada from sending its own team.
That’s a very nice site about bar-billards, not about PR. 
In many ways Palestine- like it or not- is at least a 'semi-autonomous nation".
PR however, is owned lock stock & barrel by the USofA, and the residents thereupon are US Citizens.
Dammit!! Ah well, publicity never hurt
But it also has a large amount of self-determination and self-governance, more akin to other non-national territories which are also represented.
I’m still not understanding why this is a big issue.
The decision on who competes in the Olympics is ultimately the decision of the International Olympic Committee. And the IOC has seen fit to allow Puerto Rico to compete as a separate entity for the last 56 years. The IOC doesn’t really care ultimately what kind of passports the athletes are using. If the Puerto Rican NOC deems someone to be qualified to compete for the Commonwealth, so be it.
According to the website of the Puerto Rican Olympic Committee http://www.olimpur.com , the Puerto Rican government asked back in 1933 to send a separate team to the Central American Games in El Salvador.
I think after World War II, the IOC became much more sensitive to the desires of certain parts of the world to compete separately. Prior to World War II when Korea was occupied by Japan, Korean athletes had to compete under the Japanese flag and with Japanese names.
Australia and New Zealand used to have joint teams under the banner of Australasia.
And what of the British territories? Was it unfair for the UK to have to compete against Hong Kong in the past and is it unfair to make China do it now?
I also forgot to add that India competed separately from the UK prior to its independence.
As mentioned before, it’s the IOC who picks who it accredits as an independent olympic committee. (Besides, in theory, and in many free-market jurisdictions for real, the IOC/NOC are NGOs, private organizations, not government ministries).
Through half the exitence of the Modern Olympics, better than half the whole world was a colony, protectorate, dominion, mandate or unincorporated territory of a handful of metropolitan powers. The IOC started long ago recognizing separate olympic status to different “countries”, in the sense that is conveyed by the term pays in the IOC’s official French – a place with a distinct geographical space and culture, not necessarily a sovereign nation-state. The tradition is this is purely a matter between the IOC and the NOCs, as long as the Metropolitan Power’s NOC (or government) did not object AND have the means to make an objection hurt. What they generally do NOT do is recognize NOCs from fully integral components of a sovereign state. Thus, the Olympics do not have England/Scotland/Wales teams, as in Euro Football, but one UK team. California would have a hard time getting its own NOC since they are a state in the Congress that passed the U.S. Amateur Sports Act, that grants USOC a protected monopoly in the US of A.
In the specific case of those of us in the US Overseas Territories, the legal fact is that politically, it was the USA’s own Supreme Court (Downes v. Bidwell), that decreed that PR, Samoa, Guam, the Phillippines pre-WW2, etc. were/are “Non-incorporated Territories, belonging to, but not an integral part of the United States” (simplified paraphrase) (IOW, we are “a nation, divisible”) . Yes, we are US Sovereign territory and US citizens, but since we’re not legally a fully integral part of the “USA” polity, we’re eligible for separate NOC status.
This of course raises the possibility that if PR became a state, we may at least transitionally do a Hong Kong and retain the separate NOCs until the systems integrate completely (wouldn’t you want Carlos Arroyo, Larry Ayuso and Eddie Casiano in Team-USA?)
Well, honestly- until they just made a big deal over it- I had no idea PR had it’s own teams in the Olympics. As I said, I am not a big fan of professional sports. You have to admit, that until yesterday- altho I am sure your island was very proud of it’s Olympians- PR hasn’t made much of a splash Olympics-wise. 
Someday, you should start a thread on why PR hasn’t voted to leave the Union. I have always been interested in that.
I think there have been a lot of threads on PR’s status. And JRDelirious is the man who knows everything about our favorite Commonwealth.
PR has won six medals, all bronze ones in boxing. Daniel Santos is the most recent medalist back in 1996.
I think the basketball team is a longshot for a medal despite their win over the US.
Why would they? They enjoy the protection and citizenship rights of the strongest nation in the world, they don’t have to pay federal taxes, and they govern themselves. Can’t beat it.
Airman- that’s about what I’d think- but JRDelirious appears to be a resident thereof, and thus he can say what he thinks.
[sidebar]
As of the last time a reliable 3-way vote was taken, the voters said:
48.5% to leave things as they are or improve the arrangement but just stopping short of either incorporation or separation; basicaly for the arguments Airman Doors so succintly stated. This also includes a large proportion of supporters of eventual independence or statehood who just feel the time isn’t yet right.
46.5% to join the Union all the way as a state. Arguments: Our economy is already beyond integrated to the US, it’s completely fused; half our ethnocultural volk IS already lifelong residents of the 50+DC; we already bleed and die in the US military; we already pay taxes other-than-income; 6 Congressmen, 2 Senators and 8 Electoral Votes, plus full parity in funds transfers (currently we get them capped) is a fair trade for all that plus paying those federal income taxes, which in any case are lower than PR income tax for working/middle class income brackets; those Congresspeople and EVs would make us the top spokesmen for Latinos nationwide (I’ve got my doubts on this one, solidarity ain’t our strong suit).
5% to go out on our own as full independents, because… well, because it’s what you do, it’s national, it’s pride… but make sure we get a good Free Trade agreement in the deal.
There is no evidence of any kind that there has been a fundamental change in this position over the last 10 years, if anything it’s more firmly entrenched, and the environment in Congress is not favourable to changing things (nevermind Right-Wing fundraisers who keep saying PR statehood is an imminent threat) . The 1998 “none of the above” 51% vote was a protest vote against an unwanted referendum by an administration that had pissed off too many people so it’s not reliable status-wise (it did keep statehood at 46%).
[/sidebar]