I think this is a piece of learned trolling, satire designed to provoke us into thinking hard about what the IOC really is.
The IOC profits from the selection process as much as it does from the games. The bribes, the payments, everything involved in this horrible “competition” fills their coffers with money.
If the games were held in the same place every year, there would be no bribes to rig bids. There would be no construction companies and other contractors to pony up black bags full of money to ensure their place at the trough.
There would also be no pressure on governments to pretend the games are a success. Every country hosting the games is under enormous pressure to brag about how wonderful the games are. They spend hundreds of millions promoting the games that they spend billions supporting.
All that would go away if the games were held in a permanent facility.
The local politicians in my city that lured the IOC here through bribes were all later parachuted into lucrative foreign service diplomatic posts and various IOC connected director positions after. That's the true legacy of the games, the politicians raise their profile, network with the world's elite and move into international politics while the rest of us pay for their promotions.
Having the winter olympics in Switzerland only would make sense, easy to secure, neutral country, no forced relocation of "undesireables" like when Beijing shipped every Mongolian migrant laborer out of the city, or when my government mass imprisoned as many homeless as they could by picking them all up for unpaid fines.
No country would have an edge with exclusive track access for months before allowing competitor teams in to practice either.
Better yet, do what you can to ignore and shun these corrupt proceedings. The Olympics depends on people treating it as something special. Same for FIFA. Mock people wearing Qatar shirts, just as you would someone promoting homeopathy.
>> people treating it as something special. Same for FIFA
Formula 1 racing had a similar "fraud" scheme where a lot of countries invested in racing circuits which were left unused then[1]. I remember the politics, media manipulating people into believing they earn billions of dollars in PR for their government investing in circuit construction.
> Mock people wearing Qatar shirts, just as you would someone promoting homeopathy.
I don't this ending well. First of all, the athletes should not get involved in any of this politics stuff. Second, it is well known that all the World Cup and Olympic Games tournaments post 1990 (at least) were awarded based on corruption, even the 2006 World Cup hosted in Germany. So, I don't see any reason to single out the Qataris.
Why should an athlete not get involved in "any of this politics stuff"? They are individuals as well and have as much right to political speech, thought, and action as every other individual on the planet.
They may have even been granted a platform where their speech can be more effective because of the respect and attention that many in the world pay those athletes.
Censorship, voluntary or otherwise, should be routinely rejected.
Of course I have. But where do we stop? Should we also ban the USA from organizing a future World Cup tournament because of its disastrous foreign policy which has caused unnecessary deaths numbering more than 1 million people in the last 15-20 years? Should we ban Russia from hosting the 2018 World Cup because of its Ukraine policy? And so on and so on.
I agree with everything you wrote, except for the first 10 words. This isn't a trollish idea. It's a practical solution that solves a real problem. Any time in conversation this topic comes up, I make the same argument that it doesn't make financial sense to move from city to city like a plague.
It’s practical in the sense that it would logically work.
But it’s impractical in the sense that it doesn’t actually satisfy the needs of anybody in the IOC or the bid committees that try to get tax money to enrich themselves, or the needs of politicians who want to bask in the halo of “winning and hosting the games."
When most people think of the olympic games, they don't think about the IOC. They could care less about the IOC. They think about athletes, and sports, and national rivalries.
Most people would not give one fat hoot if the whole IOC got left in the dust to whither and die, while a new organization got set up to host similar events in one location.
If the IOC died, the worldwide championships of each sport would gain importance. Such championships are held in different cities every year, which makes me think that the IOC is just inheriting the behavior of moving cities. Probably 70% of the people just want to watch sports and, being a democracy, it's difficult to outweight their choice of spending public money on Olympics.
>But it’s impractical in the sense that it doesn’t actually satisfy the needs of anybody in the IOC or the bid committees that try to get tax money to enrich themselves, or the needs of politicians who want to bask in the halo of “winning and hosting the games."
In which case almost all anti-corruption drives are impractical.
That's a really excellent point. As I was reading it I thought maybe the author didn't really get why the IOC exists, but your suggestion, that this is mostly satire, makes way more sense.
Yep, let's have everyone compete at who's the best to beat the drug tests in one spot year on year. TV licenses are gonna go through the roof. What a business to partake in.
'How about selling a permanent site in Greece for the Summer Olympics ? An uninhabited island would be ideal, not too far from the coast accessible by ferries as well as planes.'
'The original Olympics was held in Olympia, Greece for 800 years. The changing site is a modern phenomenon used to spread support in the early stages of the modern Olympic movement. Why not return the Games to their real roots?'
Good arguments (if ever that would even matter to the people in charge ;-) and great idea.
The original Olympic games were held in honour of Zeus (God) so really the games should be held in the Mount Athos region of Greece an autonomous monastic stare in Greece.
What better place to hold games originally religious in nature from Greece than this region?
> The original Olympic games were held in honour of Zeus (God) so really the games should be held in the Mount Athos region of Greece an autonomous monastic stare in Greece.
I don't follow the "logic" here at all. What makes Mount Athos more appropriate than, say, Olympia, the traditional site of the Olympic games?
User Gys (above) suggested an uninhabited island but the Mount Athos region is pretty sparse 126 sq miles and 1800 people living there, still technically Greece but not Mount Olympus although sort of near it (100 miles away).
I don't mean literally on Mount Athos but in the autonomous region.
Plus being an autonomous region I thought it may more sense financially for taxes.
'Greece has an extremely large number of islands, with estimates ranging from somewhere around 1,200 to 6,000, depending on the minimum size to take into account. The number of inhabited islands is variously cited as between 166 and 227.'
And it would not even have to be uninhabited I guess. Greece is very poor and really needs any investments it can get (as is in the article).
Given the size of Greece (incl the islands) everything is nearby. With a budget of billions it would not be a problem to spend (only once) some money for a new airport (I guess now its spend every four years in some city to modernize their nearest airport).
Most of the uninhabited ones do not have a Wikipedia page, and many of those that have a page have little content. Often, the page doesn't even mention the size of the islands.
I do expect, however, that most of the uninhabitated Greek islands are too small to be useful for this. You would need 10-20 different stadiums, 2 km straight water to hold rowing events, and wouldn't want to have marathon runners, competitors in the 50 km walk, or those taking part in the cycling road race to do 1 km rounds. Let's say 100 square kilometers to host all the courses (except for sailing; there's plenty of sea for that), bare minimum.
Also, it would be a challenge to feed the competitors and the spectators on an island that size. Greece isn't known for its green islands, and looking at that list, I notice that, for example, Tinos and Paros, at around 200 square kilometers, have a population of less than 10,000.
I would think you would need something like Kos to host the Olympics, and even that would be an enormous challenge. The 'normal' population of around 33,000 would increase by 20,000+ competitors, officials and a zillion journalists, and you likely would have to ferry or fly in half a million spectators every day, and all of them would need food and drink, and working 3G.
Well, an island only makes it really expensive for people to visit that place because there can only be so many people in that island. Making it an inland city will at least remove one constraint.
> With a budget of billions it would not be a problem to spend (only once) some money for a new airport (I guess now its spend every four years in some city to modernize their nearest airport).
Look at the BER disaster, it was supposed to open 2007 and most likely won't open until way after 2017.
I believe building a permanent Olympic site in Greece would bring similar delays...
BER is a german project[0], and so is the Elbe Philharmonic Hall[1]. Both are long overdue and over budget. “Putting the Germans in charge” may very well not help to avoid delays.
Not sure if it will attract the kind of sponsors the IOC wants to go public with...
But given the public broadcast censorship of most non-European countries it will probably attract more visitors ;-) Which is better for the local economy anyway !
I'd be all for it. A permanent site can rely on repeat business and a permanent economy can grow around it. A sort of Mecca for sports.
The current process is a shambles. It's basically about telling the world how prosperous the host is, and for the IOC members it's all about milking the process for money. You end up building a ghost town someplace every four years at huge cost.
I suppose the same arguments apply for the winter olympics. They have mountains and snow in Greece too, so how about building twin sites?
Wouldn't having it in the same place every time make it more expensive/difficult for people to go see the games live? When the location changes every time, there will be a different set of people who go watch the games because it's nearby, but who possibly couldn't afford to (or wouldn't want to) travel to the other side of the world for them.
I don't think distance is all that big a deal. Sure, you can't just drive there if it isn't near, but for most people the Olympics is a once-in-a-lifetime experience that they're willing to take a week off to visit. No different from any other trip, eg people will come to Paris from Australia just to see the Eiffel tower and the Notre Dame. Why wouldn't they fly to some other town to see the Olympics?
And let's face it: you have to be from a wealthy country to be able to do this in any case.
Distance doesn't matter that much, as olympics in general are expensive enough to make transportation not the major part of the total price.
If they were held in my home town, that would be significantly cheaper because I wouldn't have to pay for accomodation; but if they were held in a city in a few hours driving distance, then it might as well be in a different continent, the tickets+hotel+food+driving will be just a bit cheaper than tikcets+hotel+food+planes.
What if we hosted it on a ginormous floating barge? If it was that big it could possibly be stable and not be subject to the movement of the ocean. Then to solve the issue of equal average location you just float it around the world. Heck, you could road trip it around the coasts.
Winter Olympics in Greece? Nonsense. Chamonix vs Greece -- there is just no comparison. Very few people plan world class ski vacations in Greece. That's like having surfing competitions in New Jersey. Sure there's an ocean, but that doesn't make it good.
- Olympic construction could only be a real benefit to a permanent location
- Greece is the only logical location
- Greece could use the stimulus
I spend a lot of time in Tokyo but plan to avoid the city during the 2020 Olympics. High prices and crowds, a mess. And presently the upcoming Olympics completely distorts the market for construction, for facilities that will hardly be used after 2020.
And its a great idea to develop tourism in Greece. Assuming the Greeks like it, I'm all in favor.
Or alternatively, why must the Olympics be held in one place at all? The infrastructural burdens of large events are massive. The World Cup distributes this burden throughout cities and even regions.
The WC is a waste as well. It's even more egregious actually, because there are more than enough existing stadiums to play the world's most popular sport. Yet FIFA still insists on new stadiums being built for just a few matches.
FIFA doesn't insist on building new stadiums so much as they award bids to countries that don't already have sufficient stadium capacity. Brazil and Qatar need/needed to construct stadiums, and so does Russia probably, but had they accepted the England and USA bids for 2018 and 2022, respectively, no stadium construction would have been required (at most, perhaps some renovation). In fact, either country could host a World Cup with only a few months' notice.
For most European countries this is not a problem. Each club which plays in its countries top division already has a big enough dedicated football stadium.
It becomes a problem when you let FIFA bribe BRIC or even third world country politicians (or vice versa). Then you get stadiums located in deserts or rainforests without a club nearby that is even remotely capable of filling it on a weekly basis.
I like what the UEFA (Europe's FIFA) is doing here: Bigger countries get to host the European Championship on their own, smaller countries share it, lately Poland + Ukraine and Switzerland + Austria. From 2020 on the Cup will not take place in a single country anymore, instead cities will apply on their own, which is of course impractical for the World Cup or even continental cups on bigger continents.
> For most European countries this is not a problem. Each club which plays in its countries top division already has a big enough dedicated football stadium.
Most in this case is maybe 5-6. Even in rich football countries like Germany, not every 1st tier club has a 40k+ stadium.
For best performance, natural grass needs to rest at least 4 or 5 days after a real game takes place. Artificial grass is not comparable, its almost a different game.
I'm glad Boston too a stand and bowed out. I'm just hopeful SF can withstand the temptation. LA, well, it's a lost cause anyway.
My hope is Boston's decision gets people to scrutinize the Olympics because as claimed, it seems the benefits are outweighed by the opportunity loss of the diverted funds, etc.
For an example of the waste produced by hosting these large sporting events one only needs to look at the past world cup in Brazil --stadiums in the middle of very low population density. A total waste of capital and labor.
Barcelona '92 was handled pretty well. The facilities are still used, the built housing was sold after the games, and tourism augmented significantly. It could be the exception to the rule.
This article is about the costs involved. How do you mean 'handled pretty well' ?! I think you have no idea what you are talking about and did not bother to spend a few seconds to look for facts ?
'The cost of the Barcelona Summer Olympics was USD11.4 billion (in 2009 dollars). The cost overrun was 417 percent in real terms. This compares with an average cost of USD5.7 billion (in 2009 dollars) for other summer Olympics over the past 50 years for which data are available and an average cost overrun for these Games of 252 per cent. Cost here includes only sports-related costs and thus does not include other public costs, such as road, rail, or airport infrastructure, or private costs, such as hotel upgrades or other business investments incurred in preparation of the Games, which are typically substantial but which vary drastically from city to city and are difficult to compare consistently.'
The Olympics are more than the direct cost of infrastructure or tickets sold.
Barcelona was hugely changed by the 1992 Games and was transformed into one of the richest cities in Europe and one of the most visited spots on Earth. It's significance, quality of life and wealth grew because of the event.
That's the point of most Olympic events, as former London mayor Ken Livingstone said it: It's not about three weeks of sports, it's about getting funds to rebuild your city. A lot of them don't pull it off, but Barcelona for one did it fine.
> The Olympics are more than the direct cost of infrastructure or tickets sold...
I don't think that anyone would argue that Barcelona was a success relative to other Olympics, but it still left much to be desired.
Gys is taking issue with the claim that Barcelona was handled "pretty well" in an absolute sense considering the fact that the sports-related infrastructure went WAY over budget.
Maybe things worked out overall for the economy, but I submit that incremental value from investments in public infrastructure and what sounds like capable governance made the difference. You have to wonder if these changes could've happened without the burden of financing the sports side or hosting the olympics.
The timing in Barcelona was very special. Spain had only recently become a democracy again when they were awarded the game. There was a lot of political capital available to be spent and a real need to turn a page.
The games in this case were a catalyst but not the reason for most of the expenses. Same as the Expo in Seville which was also in '92.
Indeed. Many didn't (and still don't) realize how fractured the Spanish state was, going into recent times (i.e. post Franco ~1975).
Somewhat related...it was interesting to learn how Spain's triumph at the 2010 World Cup became a unifying, transcendent event for the country, politically.
There are a lot of cities that handled it well. Los Angeles, Munich, just to name a few. And I fully expect that if Hamburg gets 2024 (which would mean the sailing events would be in the same place for the third time) it would be effective, too.
So much waste would be reduced no null. Instead of being left with unmaintained and useless infrastructure similar to case of Beijing: http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/ghosts-of-olympics-past?..., facilities could be renovated continuously for fraction of price, that could eventually be covered solely by cash inflow of hotels and advertising.
having the olympics costs a country X amount, and earns a country Y amount.
for some reason I think most people put Y at 0, and say that the country has wasted X (talking only about the 'price tag' of hosting). I can't tell whether people doing that are being dishonest to support a narrative, or whether they actually think that hosting an olympics earns a country nothing.
you can argue that Y is often or always less than X, but I rarely see Y even acknowledged.
I think in this case the author is well-aware of Y:
"Though Olympic boosters say the Summer Games allow a city to showcase itself to a global audience, only two Games, both in Los Angeles, have ever made a real profit"
I'm sure you could construct a list that shows no profits ever, and a list that shows massive profits every time (using the same level of evidence for both sides).
the primary issue is that it's extremely difficult to measure costs/profits for something as massive as an olympics. the secondary issue is that people tend to support their 'sides' narrative (keynesian or otherwise).
Actually that's probably based on lists of Olympic budgets, and actual costs which gets cited pretty often. Very often olympic cities spend more than they budgeted for, and that's considered a loss.
That however has everything to do with X (how much is budgeted, and how much was spent. i.e. what was the cost), and still absolutely nothing with Y (actual revenues/benefits). That was his entire point.
We have to remember that the budgets aren't necessarily meaningful because politicians have to sell their own taxpayers the idea of applying for an olympic bid with a budget. Obviously that budget will be severely underestimated to create as little resistance as possible, despite the possibility that the true budget which is higher, would still be worth it. This isn't always the case but my point here is that the politics are set up such that there are good reasons to underestimate the true budget even when the true budget is worthwhile for the city, and thereby end up registering a net loss because you ended up going over budget.
For example, Brazil could very well benefit from these olympics (although it's too early to tell). Yet their projected budget was less than $2.5 billion, despite the fact last two olympics averaging $25 billion in one country richer and one country poorer than Brazil. Obviously budgeting $2.5 billion is a complete and utter joke, and everyone knows, everyone, that it'd be way higher. But it doesn't mean it's a loss to the city.
Meanwhile when China spent close to $50 billion, but early reports showed it was a tiny bit cheaper than its budget, it didn't mean that this in and of itself constituted a profit, either.
I think we should use the Olympics as a honey pot for politicians who care more about their own egos than their constituencies. Anyone who applies for it faces life in prison because it will just cost their city huge amounts of money and ruin most people's everyday lives.
Would people care less about the Olympics if it was in the same place each time? One of the things I actually like about the Olympics is that you get to see these countries.
"According to a 2007 report from
the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), it was estimated that Beijing might see up
to 1.5 million local residents displaced due to the preparation for the Olympic Games. "
paraphrased to
"1.25 million people lost their homes during the Beijing Games. "
Western media are really seizing every chance to bash Chinese govt.
The investment in infrastructure will usually benefit the locals for years.
Doing the math on infrastructure is not that simple. Ex: How much would it be worth, if one million people saved 30 minutes every day? Or that you live in a city where you can practice virtually any sport on the highest level!?
It's not the location, but the permanent corporation that is the problem. There needs to be change in the personnel who run the IOC after every olympics.
Why not have all medal winners vote in a new board after every olympics? Gold gets 3 votes, silver 2, bronze 1. Secret ballot.
Greece hosted the Olympic games at Athens on 2004, so the vast majority of the facilities already exist. They would probably need some renovation, but there should be no need to build new ones.
How about doing the exact opposite? How about having very poor/small countries organise the Olympics but with the entire cost covered by the world's most wealthy ones?
Is "Olympic Games" copyrighted? Even if so, what's to stop the Greeks from claiming prior art, and establishing an Olympic Island themselves, sans-IOC?
A phrase/name can't be copyrighted and prior art is irrelevant to copyright. Nothing stops them from claiming it, but it's a non-sequitur so there is really no reason to claim it.
I don't think any individual or organization is stopping Greeks from establishing their own Olympic Island.
Hosting the Olympics also many side effects:
- improved infrastructure
- increased tourism
- stadiums, hotels, training grounds
- good way to get people into doing sports
just to name a few. Hosting Olympics on a small ireland would mean we give up all of these benefits. While hosting the Olympics costs a lot of money, income from tourism and media attention surely makes up for it (correct me if I'm wrong).
> Hosting the Olympics also many side effects: - improved infrastructure - increased tourism - stadiums, hotels, training grounds - good way to get people into doing sports
I would I imagine that sinking £9.3 billion into road or public-transport improvements would have a bunch of favourable side effects too. The magnitude of those effects compared to what else could be done with the money matters.
> While hosting the Olympics costs a lot of money, income from tourism and media attention surely makes up for it (correct me if I'm wrong).
You're not quoting a profit or loss. You're quoting a budget and actual expenses.
If Apple decides on a $1b budget to create the iPhone and it turns out it ended up costing $2b, that's not a 'loss' of $1b, and if it turned out to cost $500m that's not a 'profit'. It's merely going over budget or under budget.
Profit would require you to actually look at the revenues of the iPhone, too. You're basically quoting R&D / Investment budgets+costs, and not looking at all at the outcomes, e.g. the effects it has on a city's infrastructure and standing in the world. (and how that affects everything from tourism, improved diplomatic relations, export of national products & culture, cheaper access to finance etc)
Not that I don't agree with your larger points. Studies have been done to measure those outcomes, too, and very often the costs of the Olympics are still not worth it. Although a lot of these things are really tricky to measure, and some are intangible and possible to measure but difficult to express in financial terms. (what pride for example must the Chinese have felt in 2008, I'm all too familiar with the many human rights issues but this was an absolutely spectacular event that must have inspired hundreds of millions of Chinese on some level.)
In the case of Vancouver, the city got a massive and much needed upgrade to the light rail system that might never have happened without the Olympic budget.
Why not? It's a net loss for most places but it could be a net gain for them. They invented the stupid Olympics in the first place. It's a nice place for a summer holiday. Might as well.
Frankly, the benefit to Greece, whatever it may be, would be a mere side effect in my opinion. The point of moving it to a permanent location is to prevent damage everywhere else. It's an interesting game-theory-ish problem where on one hand, you think, "why should they benefit?" but on the other hand, under the existing system, it's possible that nobody benefits (other than the people directly involved in the corruption).
The thought of the Olympics coming to my town makes me want to start threatening politicians with recall referenda and/or thinking about selling my house and leaving. Most likely I'd just leave town for the duration and rent my house out for an ungodly monthly sum.
Sure dude, get a job in International finance and push that agenda. Until then the powers that be are going to try to work things out as if we all have to live together on a tiny little speck of dirt in space.
And the push the analogy further, they would force the uncle into rehab and get him arrested if needed.
The IOC profits from the selection process as much as it does from the games. The bribes, the payments, everything involved in this horrible “competition” fills their coffers with money.
If the games were held in the same place every year, there would be no bribes to rig bids. There would be no construction companies and other contractors to pony up black bags full of money to ensure their place at the trough.
There would also be no pressure on governments to pretend the games are a success. Every country hosting the games is under enormous pressure to brag about how wonderful the games are. They spend hundreds of millions promoting the games that they spend billions supporting.
All that would go away if the games were held in a permanent facility.