Most of us here appear to agree that the Olympics have become problematic and that the IOC have frequently been shown to be corrupt douchebags, but I don’t think that requiring governments to stay totally out of them is the right way to go, for several important reasons.
If you’re going to demand that hosting governments not provide any direct or indirect funding to Olympic events, then you must also demand that governments never provide any tax breaks or other incentives for private industry to attract things like major manufacturing plants or research centers. The fact is that such incentives, when well thought out, create a win-win situation with economic benefits to the community that greatly exceed the public cost. The problem with the Olympics isn’t the government involvement, it’s that the costs have become so exorbitant and the demands of the IOC so extravagant, and moreover that there is often little regard for community benefit as opposed to just creating a global spectacle.
Another important aspect of government support in my view is not just the host nation support, but the support of the governments of all participating nations for their national teams. I view this as important arts and culture spending that contributes to national identity and national pride. For that reason, I also disagree with you about Olympic teams not being nation-based. This is central to the Olympics being an international competitive event.
No, if I am going to demand that government support be withdrawn from the Olympics, there is no logical, moral, ethical, policy, or any other kind of obligation for me to demand withdrawal of government support from any of those other things.
And my position is that there are no likely benefits that derive from the Olympics, even if you deduct the corruption of the IOC. It has been proven over and over again for more than a century that the Olympics simply aren’t worth any of the costs for host countries.
This is generally true of big-time sports, and I would support withdrawal of all direct and indirect government subsidies for professional sports (including big-time college sports) of all kinds. But even if we didn’t do that, it wouldn’t require us to continue supporting the Olympics.
If there is enough public demand for world-level sporting events, then it can support itself, without concessions from governments, and without exceptions from local laws. If they can manage that, let them have it.
I do not believe that national pride needs to be or should be encouraged, especially in literal competition against each other. Public efforts should not be used to bolster our unfortunate tribal instincts.
If so, then I’m fine with them being consigned to the dustbin of history.
As for supporting arts and culture—sporting competitions are popular entertainment, but unlike many other forms of popular entertainment, they produce no work of artistic expression that can be preserved and admired in the future. It’s mere competition. So if people want it, let them pay for it.
I understand that the claims about government subsidies of sports having long-term economic benefits have been debunked. I also understand that sports is a very lucrative business. And that means that people who enjoy it are willing to pay out of pocket. So that’s what they should do. It’s a business, and should be treated as such.
I also understand the the tribal nature of sporting competition stokes undesirable group-based rivalries. To the extant that this can be separated from actual nationalities and ethnic characteristics to something more commercial and tribally neutral—like the NFL—the better. Granted, there’s some degree of regional feeling in support of commercial clubs but it is considerably diffused, given that players, owners, and managers—and to an increasing extent fan base—are significantly detached from regional loyalties.
Your cite does not support your claim. It says the 1984 LA Olympics were not “Federally sponsored”, not that they received no government funds.
According to a report from the GAO, the 1984 LA Olympics received about $75M in federal funds. That would still leave those Olympics as profitable if you subtract out those funds, but the report does not cover any possible spending by state and local agencies.
The report does note that spending for the 1996 Atlanta and (expected) 2002 SLC was a lot higher. However, it also says that most of that spending was for infrastructure projects that were going to be funded anyway, and were simply moved up to be completed before the games, while in the case of the LA Olympics it was all extra spending. So it’s hard to compare directly.
To be fair, that GAO report says that, of the $75 million spent on the 1984 Games, “the majority of this funding was used to help provide safety- and security-related services during the Games.” That seems reasonable, given that it’s a major international event.
But that spending isn’t some sort of “handout” to the Olympics. I’d expect that amount of spending for any international event of similar scope and length occurring on US soil. (Examples include things like the Pope’s recent visit to Philadelphia or the UN General Assembly meeting.)
Then I would say that those events cost money too.
But I’m fine looking at it either way. The main point is that that type of spending was a much bigger part of the SLC Olympics, and if you’re going to write it off for LA then you need to write it off for SLC too.
I am a newbie to SDMB and was wondering about language rules, Guess I just got a bit of an answer, think I’ll lurk about a bit more before deciding for sure
The operative word there was “shit-hole”. More in reference to the countries than the specific cities, though in the case of Beijing it applies equally to both.
