As the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio draws near, I want to ask a question. Will this year’s Olympics be a scintillating, wonderful Olympics for the ages, a typical Olympics, or a disaster?
There are a number of factors that suggest that the most we can hope for is an Olympics that isn’t a complete fiasco. Among these factors are Russia’s doping penalty, the athletes avoiding the Olympics out of fear of the Zika virus, that Brazil is in the midst of the gravest political corruption scandal in generations, and that Rio does not appear to be ready for the Olympics. Heavens forfend a terrorist attack like or graver than that at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.
Writing at City Journal, Steve Malanga says that Chicago dodged a bullet when the International Olympic Committee passed Chicago over in favor of Rio for the 2016 Olympics:
When Chicago bid in 2009 to host this year’s summer Olympics, President Obama supported the effort and dismissed critics. “I mean, who’s against the Olympics?†he asked. As it turned out, plenty of people were—including, ultimately, the International Olympic Committee—and nearly seven years later, Chicagoans should be glad about it. While the games that start this week in Rio de Janeiro are already turning out to be a financial and public relations calamity for the Brazilian city, Chicago’s own woes have multiplied since 2009. The Olympics would have been an unimaginable burden to the hard-pressed Windy City.
Politicians like Obama and former Chicago mayor Richard Daley, who lobbied heavily for the games, have a naïve faith in the power of big spectacles. Daley chased the Olympics in the hope that they would help revitalize Chicago’s South Side and boost tourism, but the Olympics don’t work that way anymore, if they ever did. London won the 2012 games, beating out New York in bidding that took place in 2005, and Londoners celebrated with a party in Trafalgar Square, while a crestfallen Gotham mayor Michael Bloomberg apologized to America for losing the games. But once the 2012 games rolled around, the world had changed enormously.
The London games, projected at $8 billion, wound up costing $18 billion—a familiar pattern with the Olympics. Preparing for the games, meanwhile, put a strain on public resources in the wake of long-term economic problems following the 2008 financial markets meltdown. “This country’s bankrupt,†complained London mayor Boris Johnson just before the games. Meanwhile, a sharp increase in terrorism and disorder in England—including four days of rioting in August 2011, after police killed a man they said was planning to attack them—forced the city to devote enormous resources to security. Rather than boost tourism, the games simply shifted it, as tourists who might have normally visited London didn’t show up in the Olympic summer. West End theaters reported as much as a 30 percent drop in ticket sales, and a Moody’s report found no discernible economic benefit from the games.
I think it’s time again (long past time, actually) to consider giving the Summer Olympics a permanent home and what better place than its birthplace in Greece? Permanent infrastructure for hosting it could be built with funds from many countries and many private businesses. The greatest argument I can see against such a move would be that it provides fewer opportunities for graft, presumably the reason the IOC hasn’t supported the idea.
Permanent sites for both the summer and winter Olympics are the ideal solution. Once the initial investment was made, the only real costs would be maintenance and upkeep. The sites could be made available for other uses, if that would not diminish the value of the games. They used to be sacred, after all.
Athens is the perfect site for the summer games, and Greece could use the quadrennial infusion of money.
The winter game site should be in a Nordic country, who, after all, invented many of the winter games. I would propose Norway, site to be determined.
Politicians like Obama and former Chicago mayor Richard Daley, who lobbied heavily for the games, have a naïve faith in the power of big spectacles.
Hmm, seems a familiar pattern….
My single hope for this Olympiad is that a major terror attack or some other disaster doesn’t happen while I’m watching with my daughter. She’s six now, and these are the first Games she’s old enough to really get anything out of, and the first she will likely remember anything about. I’d be happier if she doesn’t see some towel head driving over dozens of babies on live TV, or have one of the stadia collapse during an event.
These are the kinds of things we used to take for granted, not seeing children run over with trucks on live TV, or seeing buildings full of people collapse on live TV, but the times have changed considerably since I was six.