The Future of The Olympics

[Commodore]

Do the Olympics have a future? I ask because every time the Olympics roll around, the news is filled with stories about how the Olympics end up costing the host nation more than it brings in and about how local businesses are negatively impacted by the Olympics. For example, I just read how ski businesses in South Korea are staging protests over the Olympics right now because they have been forced to close down for the duration of the Olympics and some of them are in danger of going under because of it.

So if the Olympics continue to have a negative economic impact (or are at least perceived to have a negative economic impact) on the host nation, how long will it be before nations stop wanting to host the games and the Olympics just die out altogether?

Also, do you feel it would be good, bad, or "meh" if the Olympics were no longer a thing? Personally, I think it would be a good thing to see them go. Not only because the games are an unnecessary burden on the host nation, but the games are increasingly becoming nothing more than another platform for governments, individuals, and organizations to push their agenda or "make a statement". The games were supposed to be a time when everyone could put all that crap aside and just enjoy some good-natured athletic competition.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, watching the N+S Korea combined hockey team play is sort of the pinnacle of "putting that crap aside," isn't it? Just because Mike Pence did a stick-up-the-butt sneer about it doesn't make it meaningless.

Meanwhile, there may be a perceived negative economic impact, but long term that is not the case, which is no doubt why there is still so much competition over being the hosts. In Bakersfield California there is a junior college that has an awesome stadium. Their football program thrives, along with their other athletic programs, and the stadium is a premium concert venue that is in pretty much constant use. Local high school championship events are played there as well. In thirty years I can't even begin to add up the economic benefits the city, county, and the college have milked out of that stadium.

It was built as an "outer venue" for preliminary track and field events in 1984...for the Olympics.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

So if the Olympics continue to have a negative economic impact (or are at least perceived to have a negative economic impact) on the host nation, how long will it be before nations stop wanting to host the games and the Olympics just die out altogether?

I am asking the same question about waging a war. Clearly there are more variables in equation which makes something desirable or useful in the eyes of human understanding of its necessities then the immediate economic impact (which not need to be always negative).

Also it seems that olympic games have at present more capacity in bringing different kind of people together then say religion can.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Calgary is still using some of the venues built for the 1988 Olympics, and is seriously pursuing a bid for the 2026 Games.

I'm in two minds about that. On the one hand, I'm an Olympics fan. I just watched an event I never heard of before - skiathalon. Norway swept the medals. Yesterday I watched women's hockey - Sweden vs. Japan. The Canadian figure skaters are expected to do well, and I can't help but feel a bit of nostalgia when I see Kurt Browning doing commentary on the figure skating. 1988 was his debut Olympic year, before he became famous for being the first man to land a quadruple jump in competition.

It's a bit difficult watching the Olympics this year, since there's such a huge time zone difference. In order to watch events live, I have to be up in the middle of the night.

The other side of the coin, of course, is that there are things that need provincial funding a hell of a lot more than helping out Calgary. The Olympics is certainly not going to do anything to help put food on my table. I didn't need to consider such things back in 1988, but circumstances are different now.

 

[Hrothbern]

The money is kind of tricky.... but if managed well, there is I think a benefit.
Regarding bringing people together
That was always one of the goals, practical advantages, and it works fine
better than "normal" worldchampionships.

At this games as side note
the chaufinistic Korean feeling could here be stronger than any of the patriotic feelings of the separate nations or the patriotic NK-US issue.
Building up some peace, also if it is only for a short time dominating.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well, watching the N+S Korea combined hockey team play is sort of the pinnacle of "putting that crap aside," isn't it? Just because Mike Pence did a stick-up-the-butt sneer about it doesn't make it meaningless.

Meanwhile, there may be a perceived negative economic impact, but long term that is not the case, which is no doubt why there is still so much competition over being the hosts. In Bakersfield California there is a junior college that has an awesome stadium. Their football program thrives, along with their other athletic programs, and the stadium is a premium concert venue that is in pretty much constant use. Local high school championship events are played there as well. In thirty years I can't even begin to add up the economic benefits the city, county, and the college have milked out of that stadium.

It was built as an "outer venue" for preliminary track and field events in 1984...for the Olympics.

I thought LA was somewhat unique among the Olympic venues for having turned a profit when the city hosts it.

And for many cities that build venues, just keeping them open and safe for use often has a higher cost than they bring in in revenue. Of course, governments are supposed to subsidize services for their people so it's not all wasted money. However, I imagine it's especially annoying if you live in Rio to see so much spent on swimming pools that didn't make money and were swiftly abandoned while you're living in squalor up the mountain.

I don't think Olympic games have ever been cheap but I do believe the costs have spiraled upward. I don't really follow sports so I have no idea overall what sort of value these games bring to the planet in relation to their cost but I kind of feel that they are marginal at best. Granted, I'm very biased on this subject and would like to be shown I'm wrong.

Also I feel that the Olympics have begun a backwards slide where we're not celebrating nations and athletes as much as their corporate sponsors.

 

[Commodore]

Well, watching the N+S Korea combined hockey team play is sort of the pinnacle of "putting that crap aside," isn't it?

Yeah, if that's really what was going on. Just read an article today that this supposed joint North and South Korea Olympic team is still mostly South Korean athletes with the North contributing very little to this supposed joint effort.

Just because Mike Pence did a stick-up-the-butt sneer about it doesn't make it meaningless.

Yeah, Pence was the supreme jerk this time around by acting like a pouting little baby at the opening ceremony. In fact, his little attitude is a prime example of what I'm talking about.

I don't think Olympic games have ever been cheap but I do believe the costs have spiraled upward. I don't really follow sports so I have no idea overall what sort of value these games bring to the planet in relation to their cost but I kind of feel that they are marginal at best. Granted, I'm very biased on this subject and would like to be shown I'm wrong.

I wonder if the games could be made more cost effective by relying more on corporate sponsorship to fund the games rather than having the host nation bear the cost. I would also suggest that perhaps the IOC should have to rent the venues in the host nation to help alleviate some of the financial burden. Where the IOC would get the money for that I don't know since I would not be in favor of them asking participating nations to chip in. Perhaps corporate sponsorship could help with that as well.

 

[Snerk]

Yeah, if that's really what was going on. Just read an article today that this supposed joint North and South Korea Olympic team is still mostly South Korean athletes with the North contributing very little to this supposed joint effort.

Do North Korea have any more athletes they could contribute with? At any rate I don't think the athlete ratio is what is important here. It's that there's a joint something going on between old enemies. And that's kind of a big deal. But that's not to say that North and South are suddenly best friends now, far from it. But it's a step in the right direction.

As for the Olympics becoming too pricey to be relevant for most potential host nations, yes most definitely. Any regional attempts in Norway to apply for the games has been blocked from the top because of this. The infrastructure needed simply isn't sustainable for future use. But if the price tag and infrastructure expectations comes down quite a bit, the prospect might become interesting again.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I wonder if the games could be made more cost effective by relying more on corporate sponsorship to fund the games rather than having the host nation bear the cost. I would also suggest that perhaps the IOC should have to rent the venues in the host nation to help alleviate some of the financial burden. Where the IOC would get the money for that I don't know since I would not be in favor of them asking participating nations to chip in. Perhaps corporate sponsorship could help with that as well.

Don't corporations sponsor a lot of the venues already? I know the US team itself basically lives 100% on corporate funding (we don't state fund our teams for some reason while everyone else does) but I thought the venues themselves were also usually sponsored. I could definitely be wrong about it. And my take on corporations taking over the games is probably heavily skewed by the fact that I live in America. Maybe corporations don't have such a big role in the Olympics in other countries, even beyond just not sponsoring the teams directly.

 

[dutchfire]

The location of the Olympic Games [and big football championships] is determined via a bidding process. This is supposed to result in the Olympic Games being cost neutral for the host (naive economic theory). At the moment though, bidding processes are dominated by autocratic/corrupt states that are willing to overbid to get the positive attention. This makes competitive bids from democratic states that don't want to run a huge loss unlikely.
The FIFA is doing worse than the IOC in that regard.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Events such as the Olympics or the World Cup do bring people together. Those are actually the only positive events I can think of which are followed all accross the world no matter the country, that we're all parts of the same planet.

Yes, some of the investments lack of profitability afterwards. Thinking about the 1992 Winter Olympics which were held in the French Alps, we had to build a bobsleigh track which never became profitable. But on the other hand, the 1992 Winter Olympics rushed the construction of a motorway and TGV connection to the French ski resorts thanks to which they've considerably developped. So overall, the economical impact for the region has been tremendously positive overall. People simply forget it as they consider it now for granted and like better to complain about the bobsleigh track not being profitable.

 

[Commodore]

Don't corporations sponsor a lot of the venues already?

A quick Google search shows that while private funding does account for a large portion of Olympic funding, it doesn't cover nearly enough in my opinion. For example, the 2012 London games cost a total of $14.6 billion (10.5 billion GBP by the current exchange rate), and taxpayers got saddled with $4.4 billion (3.2 billion GBP) of that. That, to me, is an outrageous sum of money to ask taxpayers to pay for something that has dubious economic benefits at best.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Would you really like better to live in a world without events such as the Olympics or World Cups? Really?
Such a world would be so sad to me.

 

[Commodore]

Would you really like better to live in a world without events such as the Olympics or World Cups? Really?
Such a world would be so sad to me.

I'm sure the South Korean business owners who are seeing their livelihoods being threatened by this "celebration of international cooperation and goodwill" sure wouldn't be sad to see the Olympics go.

And I completely sympathize with them. If I were a business owner whose business had to be shut down for the Olympics (which is what's going on in South Korea right now), I'd be pretty upset with my government for hosting the games and caring more about some meaningless sports than the livelihoods of their citizens.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I'm sure the South Korean business owners who are seeing their livelihoods being threatened by this "celebration of international cooperation and goodwill" sure wouldn't be sad to see the Olympics go.

And I completely sympathize with them. If I were a business owner whose business had to be shut down for the Olympics (which is what's going on in South Korea right now), I'd be pretty upset with my government for hosting the games and caring more about some meaningless sports than the livelihoods of their citizens.

Then blame South Korea's government, not the Olympics.

Seriously, don't you believe it's a bit over-stretched to ask for the end of the Olympics just because some South Korean business retailers have been asked by their government to close their retail during 2 weeks? Is that really your only reason to want the end of the Olympics?

It's perfectly fine if you don't care of the Olympics, no one forces you to follow them if you don't want. On the other side, why do you want to remove them from people who do care? They didn't do anything against you as far as I know.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I can imagine that some fair compensation between the government and the small local business of the hosting country is in order where due. Itsnt happening? - Still not a fault of the Olympic games.

 

[Kozmos]

Would you really like better to live in a world without events such as the Olympics or World Cups? Really?
Such a world would be so sad to me.

You mean pay for people who are grossly overpaid doing certain physical tasks really really well and showering them with attention and money? Yeah, I could do without that, plenty of other interesting things in the world. If corporations want to entirely fund that, I don't mind but I certainly don't care to sponsor that with my own money. IOC, FIFA, UEFA they are basically a merchandise selling racket under the thin veneer of sports and excellence.

 

[Marla_Singer]

You mean pay for people who are grossly overpaid doing certain physical tasks really really well and showering them with attention and money? Yeah, I could do without that, plenty of other interesting things in the world. If corporations want to entirely fund that, I don't mind but I certainly don't care to sponsor that with my own money.

For the matter, most athletes competing in the Olympics aren't overpaid to begin with. As for those being overpaid, they actually are by private business owners who find their own interests in overpaying them. That's not done with "your" money at all.

So what are you complaining about? Your post just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Commodore]

Then blame South Korea's government, not the Olympics.

Why shouldn't the IOC be blamed? If the Olympics didn't exist, then the South Korean government wouldn't have this opportunity to screw over small business owners.

Seriously, don't you believe it's a bit over-stretched to ask for the end of the Olympics just because some South Korean business retailers have been asked by their government to close their retail during 2 weeks? Is that really your only reason to wish to put an end to the Olympics?

These are small businesses that can't afford to close down for 2 weeks. That's the whole reason they are upset. I'm really trying not to get angry at your attitude towards this right now, but it is really bothering me that you seem to think it is okay to ruin people's lives just so you can have your "feel good" moment with the Olympic games. If I were these business owners, I would be organizing full-scale riots outside every Olympic venue in order to shut the games down.

Have you not been paying attention to what else has been said in this thread? The Olympics provide no tangible benefit to the cities that host them (LA being the exception to the rule) and usually leaves those cities saddled with debt they struggle to pay back, which causes economic problems for years to come, especially in cities that were economically depressed to begin with. Just look at what happened to Rio. There's also the extreme wastefulness that occurs in the construction of most Olympic facilities. Aside from a few cities, most facilities built for the Olympics go unused and slowly fall into ruin once the games are over. That sounds like a huge waste of resources to me. Resources that could have been better used elsewhere.

And I never said I want the Olympics gone, I just said I wouldn't mind it if they did go away because they don't provide any tangible benefit. I also wouldn't have any problems with the Olympics if the IOC covered 100% of the cost themselves instead of forcing the host nations to shell out billions in tax dollars so some people can run around and play games for two weeks. Especially since the Olympics gives no tangible benefit back to the host in return. I also find it more than a little selfish of the IOC to demand host governments pay anything at all. The host nation is providing you with the land to build your facilities and hold your games, and then you want them to help pay for it too? That would be like staying at a hotel and then when it comes time to pay your bill demanding the hotel cover half of it.

And if you are wondering why I'm so invested in this, it's because I've seen what wasting public funds on sports can do first hand. Here in Cincinnati, the city government used taxpayer funds to build a new stadium for the Cincinnati Bengals on the promise from Mike Brown (the owner of the Bengals) that the new stadium would help revitalize Cincinnati's economy by bringing in tourism and helping spur new business growth in the downtown area near the stadium. Not only did taxpayers have tofund the building of the stadium, but the deal Brown got with the city was that the city would have to pay all of the maintenance costs for the stadium as well. Years later, taxpayers are still trying to payoff the stadium and the city hasn't seen any of the promised benefits. Our economy didn't get revitalized until Ohio legalized gambling and they built a big casino in downtown Cincinnati. So it was a casino that brought in the benefits that our sports teams were supposed to. And the casino didn't ask for any public funds either. It was 100% privately financed.

My point in all that being, sports are nothing but a cancer on a city. They cause more harm than good to a local economy, and the fact that we keep wasting public funds on them is simply outrageous. The Olympics is no different. And again, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with the Olympics if they either A) didn't suck up public funds, or B) actually provided some tangible, lasting benefit to cities that host them.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Why shouldn't the IOC be blamed? If the Olympics didn't exist, then the South Korean government wouldn't have this opportunity to screw over small business owners.

This is so deliciously ignorant that I absolutely have to have a piece of it: you know if the world didnt exist there would have been no suffering - and I hear that the US and Russia have more then enough nukes to end all the suffereing on this planet...