The False Promise of the Olympic Games
The Olympics might depict the world as it could be, but putting them on reveals the world as it is.
The 2018 Winter Olympics opened in Pyeongchang on Friday in the newly-built Pyeongchang Olympic Stadium, a venue that cost roughly $109 million to build. It will be used precisely four times — twice for these Olympics and twice more for March’s Paralympics — before being torn down. In perilous geopolitical times, with the threat of war looming, these opening ceremonies were focused on the themes of “harmony and convergence, and passion and peace.” They were taken as an opportunity for the nations of the world to come together and showcase an aspirational vision of universal brotherhood to hope and strive for. This is what the International Olympic Committee, and the host cities, hope to offer viewers around the world— not just an athletic spectacle, but a harmonious and pleasing picture of the world. Yet there are contradictions between what we see on our television screens and what is necessary for the games to take place, a gap between the fantasy being sold and the reality underlying it.
The Olympic leadership likes to see the Olympics as a place where sportsmanship and brotherhood amongst nations is the predominant theme, fashioning them as a utopian world apart from the conflict countries find themselves in during the interregnum between the games. General, vague principles are hailed above all else — ideals that are as agreeable as they are meaningless. Even these, though, are still loaded with political weight. Quite simply, the Olympics present a particular worldview, an inherently political one. This fiction is clung to in spite of the fact that the games would not be able to even exist without substantial amounts of political maneuvering. Yet this is ignored in order to present the idea that if nations could just meet one another in all arenas as they do on the field, court, or rink that all other problems would dissolve. It’s transparent nonsense, but it is this idea that the Olympics sell as much as the athletic performances themselves. While the ostensible goal of the Olympics is to spread principles such as these, in practice, they are a way for the IOC to make money and for the world’s richest nations to reassert their own superiority.
Hosting the Olympics is a logistical nightmare, costing host nations billions of dollars as they build new stadiums and other amenities necessary for the influx of athletes, media, and tourists. Yet as much as these cities originally plan to spend on the games, it’s almost never enough. In Sochi, costs went from an initial estimate of twelve billion to over fifty billion while South Korea, more modestly, spent only thirteen billion dollars. While some of this infrastructure — such as a high speed trains — may offer long-term benefits to South Korea’s residents, all too-often these new facilities are constructed with the mentality of ‘build now, figure out what to do with them later’.
In Rio, less than two years after the 2016 Summer Olympics, several facilities were turned over to the Brazilian federal government after no one bid on them at auction. The golf course that took three years to build lies largely unused in a nation where few play the game, and in a city that is unable to afford to maintain it. Already, debate rages in Pyeongchang about what to do with the newly-constructed venues once the world leaves, as if this exact same problem hasn’t afflicted every other host nation before them.
The legacy the Pyeongchang games will leave goes beyond just potentially vacant venues. The construction of a ski slope in Mount Gariwang meant the removal of thousands of trees belonging to ancient or rare species. While the Olympic organizing committee says they‘ll replace some of these trees, it’s preposterous to think this construction won’t cause irrevocable damage to the region. This all happened despite the mountain’s 2008 labeling as a nationally protected forest — a designation that was lifted in order to complete construction for the Games.
So why does the IOC keep insisting on presenting a false vision to the world? Why are nations and cities bidding to host an event that forces them to spend billions, construct venues that are quickly irrelevant, and take on absurd amounts of debt? For the IOC, it’s easy to figure out — there’s tons of money to be made. With host cities funding most of the logistics, the IOC’s expenses are minimal. Due to their massive broadcast deal with NBC, the IOC makes over a billion dollars per Olympics from that alone. Meanwhile, just a shade less than that is made through a variety of sponsorship deals making the games a multi-billion windfall for the committee.
For the host cities, the advantages are less clear. Granted, the Games are a chance to showcase themselves on an international stage and an opportunity to dispel stereotypes and preconceived notions while displaying what makes them unique. But if all they’re gaining is a short-term reputation boost, surely there’s a more fiscally-responsible way to do it.
The Olympics do not solve problems for anybody — unless you consider the question of how to make more money for the IOC a pressing issue. Crushing debt is often the biggest legacy left by the Games in their home nation. To name just two examples, Montreal did not pay off their 1976 Olympic debt until thirty years later, while the 2004 Athens games contributed to the country’s debt crisis as the games ran massively over budget and nearly all the new stadiums built for them lie unused. Meanwhile, the IOC made 985 million dollars from the Athens games alone.
There are certainly benefits to be found in the Olympic games as lesser known countries get a chance to shine, otherwise neglected sports and athletes — especially women — are offered the opportunity to show their prowess to an audience of millions, but one wonders if the growing cost, both literal and metaphorical, is worth it. The Olympics are bound to continue for there is too much money to be made for them to cease, but we as fans should seriously consider what we are willing to accept from the institutions that offer us the games we love watching so much. Is it worth the environmental degradation that is often required to build the stadiums and necessary infrastructure for our events? Is it worth money that could go from underfunded social programs being used to put on a two week event that offers little long term benefit to the host nation? If the Olympics truly care about promoting universal ideals that humanity should collectively strive for, they should abandon their capitalist priorities, look in the mirror, and begin by showcasing these principles themselves.
