This page breaks down who pays for what. Whatever you think about the IOC, the costs are enormous.
Which is part of why the competition to host Olympic Games is now close to non-existent: very few cities or countries can afford to stage them any longer. A week or two ago, it was announced that France would be hosting the 2030 Winter Olympics, and the U.S. (Salt Lake City) would be hosting the 2034 Winter Olympics; as far as I can tell, there were no other countries/cities which had been in the running.
A few years ago, Sweden and Norway were in the running to host one of the upcoming Winter Games but backed out due to costs, for one reason. Considering how central many winter sports are to the Nordic countries, that should tell you something.
1.) Athletes hustle for donations or fund training themselves.
2.) They compete and win the opportunity to represent our nation on the world stage.
3.) American TV execs “Hold on, why can’t we wet our beak?”
4.) SDMB: This is all perfectly natural, I don’t know why you have a problem with profit.
I’d say “This is all a known thing, and you, @Sitnam, started this thread with some mistaken ideas about how the Olympics, funding for the US Olympic Team, and the TV contract, work.”
Personally, I do have an issue with how everything related to sports is now purely profit-driven, but that’s a ship that sailed a long time ago.
And the TV broadcast coverage is as extensive as it’s ever been. So that’s no worse, at least, than any Olympics coverage we’ve had in the past. Arguably better in some respects, since NBC can be held more accountable by people keeping track via the internet.
Cable TV coverage is roughly comparable to what it’s been.
Free public access to all events online? Somebody has to pay for that and ads won’t cover it. Comcast isn’t going to do that just for giggles. There’s an argument it’s in the public interest and perhaps tax money could go to that, even if time delayed, but that’s a separate debate.
So when a city bids to be a venue, they’re not bidding with taxpayer money?
Dan
They used to be. And the fact that so many host cities/nations lost their shirts killed interest in hosting.
By the 1970s the Olympics were an expensive burden. The whole “peace/brotherhood” theme had taken a beating from the 1972 terrorism in Munich, and the U.S. and USSR staying home in 1980 and 1984 respectively. In 1984, Newsweek asked “Are the Games Dead?” on its cover.
This Washington Post article (which I am unfortunately not able to find the ‘gift’ link for) tells how Peter Ueberroth turned a profit on the 1984 Olympics by getting corporate sponsorship for things which had previously been funded by government. For example, I had forgotten that 1984 was the first Olympiad that sold exclusive rights to corporations (Coca-Cola and Budweiser being the “Official” soft drink and beer of the 1984 Olympics).
The Olympics are a business. But they wouldn’t be profitable without corporate funding. And presumably, paid admission and TV viewing rights.
Hosting the Olympics is a different animal; it has nothing to do with how the U.S. Olympic Team itself is funded.
I have no numbers to back this up, but considering all the people, all the equipment, all the travel, all the technical setup, all the everything that goes into broadcasting the Olympics, not even counting the cost of obtaining the rights, I doubt if NBC makes a significant profit on it. It’s more of a prestige thing. Local affiliates, however, can turn a nice profit by selling local spots inside or adjacent to the games at a premium price.
Just as an aside: I worked for an NBC affiliate during several Olympics. Guaranteed, every weekday at 1pm, the phones would ring of the hook with people demanding to know why we were not broadcasting “Days of Our Lives.” We would patiently explain that we are an NBC affiliate and NBC is broadcasting the Olympics, and that “DOOL” will return in two weeks. To which the response would always be, “Well how am I supposed to know what happens in my story if it’s off for two weeks?”
It also gives them a very visible venue for advertising their other programming and services.
If you planned in advance you could have signed up for Peacock during it’s annual Black Friday sale and got an entire year for $19.99. That’s just $1.66 per month.
And now Days of Our Lives is only available on Peacock.
The real question is if we wanted to require all Olympic events to be shown free, who would pay for that coverage? In some countries the government pays, but that brings it right back to U.S. taxpayers. At least this way, those who have a strong interest in certain events can pay for the ability to watch them, and everyone, including the poorest, can watch the extensive coverage being provided on NBC.
In many countries other than the U.S., one or more of the main television networks are government-funded and/or government-run.
The Olympics are free to view. They are broadcast over the air. Anyone with a TV can watch them for free. All you need is to hook up an antenna to your TV. There are many hours shown during the day and a multi-hour primetime episode at night. They don’t broadcast extensive coverage of the lesser-known sports, but they show a lot of the popular sports. Watch on your TV and you’ll be able to participate in the shared experience of watching the games with everyone else.
This isn’t directed at you, but I think a lot of people have forgotten or don’t realize that you can watch TV with an antenna. A lot of people have shifted to viewing over cable and streaming, but there is still a lot that is being broadcast. With an antenna (and good reception), you can get the major networks and a bunch of minor channels. You can get a lot to watch without having to pay for any services.
The one thing has nothing to do with the other thing.
Or, if you only want to watch the Olympics you can sign up for Peacock for one month for $7.99 plus tax, if applicable.
Yeah…I get the feeling this point is getting lost in the shuffle.
To the extent Americans can have a “shared” Olympics TV experience, that already exists for free - the over the air NBC broadcast. It’s probably the one that has the highest ratings anyway and the way the Olympics have been shown in this country for decades already.
Having “everything” available over the air is just plain unrealistic and would be of no interest to the vast majority of people. There are multiple events happening simultaneously across France (and even in Tahiti), many of which are qualifying events for not especially popular sports.
I am aware of how the SDMB works. Keep beating me with an early misunderstanding that in no way changes the taste of the crap we are all eating.
I’m with the Boomers on this and if I look like I’m shaking my fist at clouds to other folks that’s fine.
I won’t ask why you have a problem with profit. But I will ask a different question - there are all sorts of sporting events that aren’t televised at all. How do you propose to get the networks (or any other station) to broadcast anything if there isn’t any money in it for them? There’s a reason the cornhole national championship isn’t on NBC.