For centuries, the Olympics has been the World’s biggest sporting event. Since it’s modern day resurrection, the games have followed a similar structure and procedure. Although this has worked for the majority of events, the recent Olympic games have highlighted the problems with the current system.
But what are the issues with the current structure? And how can this be changed?
In this article, we will investigate the failures and successes of the previous system to identify what changes need to be made to make the Olympics a successful phenomenon once more.
Flaws in the Current System
Currently, the hosting process is done through bidding. Multiple cities will generate a bid to host the games in a certain year. Once bids have been collected, the International Olympics Committee (IOC) members will vote for their preferred host city, resulting in one eventual winner.
It is unclear as to whether there is a criteria that IOC members are advised to look for when voting for a host city. It is suggested that modern processes favour cities that have an ability to accommodate new buildings whilst having the existing infrastructure suitable for spectators, athletes, and media.
Other factors suggested to influence bid success are the city’s transport system, connections to the games or certain sports, if the bidders would be a new host city, and any other aspects that makes the city stand-out.
On the surface, this system may seem reasonable. However, there are many flaws that are often ignored, causing lots of issues for some host cities. These flaws include the increasing demand for host cities, the IOC cutting shares in the revenue, and the modern expectations for sport and the Olympics in general.
As the Olympics have grown, the demands for the hosts have grown as well. The modern development of Sport has produced a constant growth of quality which has crates a never-ending demand from participants and fans. As the pinnacle of sport, the Olympics needs to portray itself as a state-of-the-art experience for the world to engage with.
However, the majority of host cities will not be able to meet these high demands without changes or investment. Therefore, these cities will start projects worth billions of pounds in order to match the high demands of the Olympics.
Projects like this are often rushed, not future-proofed, and go over budget. This causes issues for cities after the games because these projects that were specifically designed for the games are no longer required. Host cities can either open the facilities up to the public and/or local teams or abandon them entirely. Both strategies can be considered an unnecessary use of money.
To add insult to injury, the revenue from broadcasting, ticket sales, and sponsorships the Olympics has been reduced drastically. One of the main reasons for this is due to the IOC gradually increasing their shares.
Originally, the host cities would retain up to 99% of the revenues. However, 1984 saw the IOC increase their shares to an estimated 33%. Since then, the percentage intake for the IOC has continued to increase. Decreases in revenue has made profits from hosting the games a fraction of what they were previously, making it even more difficult to justify the cost of hosting.
Finally, sport’s continuous growth in both quality and popularity has ultimately caused the Olympics to grow as well. Year by year, the number of participants are increasing for a variety of sports. As these competitions become more established, they are expected to progress until they are granted an Olympic event.
Because of this, the Olympic catalogue has been gradually expanding. This means that host cities are required to accommodate for more competitions, more athletes, and more spectators. Of course, this also requires more money to be spent.
Impact on Host Cities
The flaws in the current system can have some major consequences for host cities. If a host has not future-proofed their plans, the benefits from the Olympics can immediately switch to major financial punishment as soon as the games finish. On the other hand, a host city can use the games to bolster their city.
Two modern games act as prime examples of a positive impact on the host city and negative impact on the host city. London 2012 shows how the games can transform an area for the better whilst Athens 2004 shows how the event can lead to crisis.
The 2004 Athens Olympics were meant to be a glorious homecoming that restored the values and traditions of the games. Instead, it is now seen by many as a catalyst for Greece’s current economic collapse.
Athens was desperate to host the Olympic games in 1996 for the centenary but they were rejected. It then became a mission to convince the IOC that they could host the 2004 games. Many believed that hosting the games would revitalise Greek tourism and business.
This bid was successful, as the IOC wanted the games to return to a more traditional attitude. However, for the games to be possible, a lot of work needed to be done. Not only did multiple Olympic venues need to be built, huge accommodation and transport facilities were also required. For example, a new airport was constructed worth 2 billion dollars.
The estimated cost of this infrastructure is 11 billion dollars. Initially, the investment seemed worth it, as tourism both during and after the games skyrocketed and the new facilities provided an improved way of life for many Athenians. But as soon as the initial boom died down, the truth of the financial impact of the games was revealed.
The truth was that Athens was struggling financially before the Olympics and the games were a desperate attempt to restore finances. However, the local committees and the IOC ignored the costs of maintaining the infrastructure after the games.
Credit: Thanassis Stavrakis , https://www.theguardian.com/sport/gallery/2014/aug/13/abandoned-athens-olympic-2004-venues-10-years-on-in-pictures
As a result, the declining tourism and underlying economic struggles meant that many of the structures could not be maintained and were therefore abandoned. A few years after the games, Greece entered an economic depression that the country is still struggling with today.
Many Athenians pinpoint the games as the catalyst for this crisis. They believe that the Olympics caused unnecessary spending that Greece could not afford which led to a huge waste of money that could have used more wisely. It is apparent that both the local authorities and IOC were incorrect to allow Athens to host the games.
In contrast, London 2012 was considered a successful Olympic programme. Compared to Athens, London was in a much better financial situation when making a bid. In addition, the city already possessed a lot of the required infrastructure for the games.
Although more was spent on buildings for the London games, roughly 18 billion dollars, this investment was affordable for the city and the planning was a lot more detailed. After seeing previous fallout from the games, planning for 2012 seemed to be more focused on ensuring that the structures built would have long-term purposes.
One of the main methods used during the 2012 games was temporary structures and seating. By making some facilities temporary, it reduced building costs during the event as well as the maintenance costs after the event.
The majority of structures are also multi-functional, allowing for the venues to be used for multiple events and purposes. The Copper Box Arena may be the best example of this due to it’s retractable seating. This makes the venue ideal for concerts, sporting events, and conferences. Moreover, the public has access to the state-of-the-art gyms.
The sporting venues were not the only facilities that were future-proofed. The Athlete’s villages and media centres were converted into affordable housing and business studios after the games. Though housing in the area has struggled to stay affordable, the structures are well-maintained, and many businesses have thrived in the new space.
Overall, the impact of the London Olympics continues to transform East London into one of the fastest developing districts in the world. The tactics applied by the committees have been rightfully praised and should be used as a good example moving forward.
The stark contrast between these two games shows where the current Olympic structure both fails and succeeds, emphasising the distinctions between the successful and unsuccessful host cities.
How Should the Games be Restructured?
Now that the problems with the current system have been identified, the question for many is what methods can be used to change the games for the better?
There have been a few suggestions as to how the IOC can ensure that the economic impacts are reduced, and the longevity of the games are secured. The main suggestions include using cities that have pre-established venues, hosting in multiple locations, and changes to the requirements.
One recommended change is to scrap the bidding process and have all future games take place in one location, giving the Olympics a permanent home. This idea has been suggested because it would remove unnecessary expenses and would provide the IOC with a permanent facility that can be utilised to its full potential.
This idea seems to be a quite divisive one as many believe that this would cause problems internationally. By having a set location for each games, it makes it more difficult for some spectators, and in some cases athletes, to experience the great spectacle the Olympics provide. Moreover, that one location would benefit greatly from an event that is considered to be a worldwide asset.
A safer option is keeping the bidding system but only allowing bids from countries that have already hosted and kept the infrastructure. The main examples of this would be Los Angeles and London. This would reduce the costs whilst still providing the games to be showcased in a variety of locations.
Alternatively, many want to see the Olympics take on a brand new format. Many have suggested adopting a format similar to this year’s European Football Championship. This structure would see events take place in locations all over the globe.
This idea is certainly more of a longshot compared to the others, as it is thought that the IOC prefer to have the atmosphere of all the events in one locations. The interactions between athletes and fans of different sports and cohesiveness this provides is one of the most unique characteristics of the games, something that the IOC don’t want to lose.
A combination of these changes may be the most suitable approach. The suggested compromise is for the games to take place in a select few host cities located across the globe. The Olympics will alternate between these locations, allowing everyone with a chance to experience a nearby games whilst reducing costs.
Out of all the approaches, I believe that the latter is the best solution for the Olympics.
Your Views
On my Instagram, I put up some polls up asking for your views on the Olympics.
The first poll results shows that 80% of those who voted were not excited for the Olympics.
Also, 100% of people thought that the Olympics were not worth hosting with the current financial demands.
Be sure to follow my Instagram for more questions in the future: https://www.instagram.com/theallstargameral/
Links
For more articles and videos, check these out:
Articles
Videos
Comentarios