While I don’t have much interest in sport I’m certainly not against it on principle, however I question whether it is appropriate to run such an event at mostly tax-payers expense when the national economy is struggling and public services are being pared to the bone, it seems to be an extravagance that is difficult to justify.
While I appreciate it will recoup some of the cost I find it difficult to imagine it resulting in a net bonus to the economy, even long term.
I’ve spoke to people about this before and it really seems to polarise opinions and I was wondering what peoples opinions here were.
Every Summer Games ever held has lost money, except, arguably, the 1984 Summer Games. Most of the Winter Games, too.
Every Olympics they ever hold will lose money. Every one. Billions. They will always cost more than the initial estimate and will always leave the host country with a mountain of debt. There was no chance the London Olympics would not be a financial debacle of the first order.
In my opinion, that’s fine if the government’s honest about it. If the public is sold a lie, that’s wrong. If they’re given a straight story and offered a chance to choose, and they choose to spend the money, well, it’s hard to complain about that.
My main concern is that while the Olympics are arguably fine as a prestige event when the national economy is going well I question holding it when the economy is struggling, when we are constantly being told that public services need to be cut back and made more efficient due to lack of funds. It doesn’t really add up.
Yep, they lied. (They are, after all, politicians.)
The cost was given as a maximum of £3 billion. :rolleyes:
Plus the Olympic Stadium would be sold off to a football team, generating ‘loads of money’.
Unfortunately the clowns in charge didn’t realise that keeping the running track (which they promised the IOC they would in the bid) means that no football club wants it.
Just like the Millennium Dome disaster - the public pay for politicians’ grandiose ideas…
I’m against it. As far as I’m concerned, the government has an obligation to use its power responsibly for the good of the populace. If you’re collecting taxes, you shouldn’t be wasting it on crap like this.
They are thinking it’s okay to spend this much because of the crazy amount of exposure that their city/country will get when the event begins. It’s like one huge marketing plot. Or maybe it’s just traditional to spend this much since it only happens once every 4 years and it’s the hugest event in the world.
The money isn’t even “wasted” , it’s used to fund so many jobs on organizing this whole event.
Yes, there’s some marketing benefit. But it’s an expensive way to publicise an already popular tourist destination.
The money is certainly spent. All on jobs? I think not.
There’s payments to the IOC (who only travel first class), plus the stadium:
On 11 October 2011 Britain’s Olympics minister Hugh Robertson confirmed the collapse of the Olympic Park Legacy Company’s agreement with West Ham to take over the stadium after the games. The OPLC announced that negotiations with West Ham, unveiled as the preferred stadium bidder in February 2011, had ended because of growing concerns over delays caused by the ongoing legal dispute with rival club Tottenham Hotspur. West Ham had not signed any contracts, allowing the OPLC to abandon talks with the club. The stadium, which cost an estimated $760 million, will now remain in public ownership and leased out to an anchor tenant following a new tender process.
So now we taxpayers own a $760 million stadium. I wonder what return we’ll get on that?
How was the British economy doing in 2003 when the bid was made?
I agree that the Olympics are a waste of money in most cases (though I can think of a few cases like the 1964 Tokyo Olympics and the 2008 Beijing Olympics where the prestige gain was probably worth it).
The organising body is called LOCOG (London Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games.)
From the National Audit Office (bolding mine):
Progress has been made in firming up the finances of LOCOG. However, as guarantor the Government has always been financially exposed if LOCOG does not break even. As LOCOG’s contingency is unlikely to cover the costs of all potential risks between now and the conclusion of the Games, its risks and contingency will need careful management. If LOCOG did not break even, public funding for LOCOG would be required.
The leader of a parliamentary watchdog committee said she was “staggered” that organisers of this year’s Olympics had managed to so dramatically underestimate the number of security guards needed to admit spectators into venues which could see the Games go way over its £9.3bn budget.
It is the second time this week organisers have been sharply rebuked by lawmakers. On Wednesday, London politicians accused the body responsible for staging the Games, LOCOG, of being “obsessed with secrecy” over its ticketing process.
Kind of hard to know that going in, though, isn’t it? Candidate cities need to start the expensive bidding process about 15 years before the event is about to take place, and the winning city is chosen, and committed to the whole cost of hosting, seven years before.
Tony Blair, in his autobiography A Journey, praised then-Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi for his help in getting the 2012 Olympics for London. Blair knew that Berlusconi was pretty well-connected with the IOC and asked for his assistance behind the scenes. Berlusconi said, “How important is this to you?” Blair said, “Very important.” Berlusconi said, “Hmm. Well, let me see what I can do.” Blair later learned that Berlusconi’s backing had been instrumental in winning over some key IOC votes. For all of his other faults, Blair wrote, Berlusconi is one of the few politicians he knows who underpromise and overdeliver.
We’ll see if the UK comes to regret Berlusconi’s advocacy.
