The olympics

The winter Olympics are set to commence in Vancouver but a hop,skip, and a ferry ride away from where I currently sit. This immediacy has moved me to ponder the practicality of the Olympic phenomenon more closely.

The games are magnets for controversy, so it's easy to find good reasons to oppose them. The decision to host the 2010 games has been opposed by many who are concerned about their effect on the homeless; Native rights; the environment; the local economy; and media freedoms (you might be interested to hear of the recent experience of a visiting American journalist if you haven't already). As a counter to these concerns, proponents of the games tend to point to a few key pros. I have attempted to investigate these.

So how do the Olympic games allegedly benefit the human race? Do they increase our average level of physical fitness? Are they good for the economy? Do they help foster international togetherness? More...

FITNESS

The modern Olympic games owe their existence in large part to the actions of a French Baron, who was convinced that his country's catastrophic military defeat by the Prussians in 1871 was in part due to the inadequate physical conditioning of the French troops. Today, the argument that the games contribute to a populations average fitness is predicated on the idea that the Olympic spectacle inspires amateur athletes.

Moreover, a high gold medal tally is seen to reflect positively on a nations dedication to health and sporting excellence. Rich industrialized nations are therefore expected to dominate the standings, and a failure to do so can have political consequences. For instance, after Australia failed to meet it's goals in the Beijing games last year, a great cry went up in support of increased funding of Olympic sports programs. Some even demanded more gold medals from future athletes "at all costs".

The Australian government responded by commissioning a report into the current state of it's national sports programs, and it's findings are proving interesting to people the world over (including here in Canada). Released last month to much shock and horror, the report actually recommends that Australia's quest for Olympic gold be tempered. According to it:

• gold medal tallies should not be the units by which national sporting success is measured.
• rugby and cricket - sports Australians actually enjoy - should be favored over relatively unpopular Olympic sports like water-polo and archery.
• and community and school sports programs should be favored over those for training elite Olympic athletes.

Although all this makes pretty good sense to me, I am unsurprised that the report has been showered in criticism and distain. "So much for excellence!" critics sneer, many of whom see the report as a great insult to Olympic athletes. The 'quest for gold' is seen to be a national obligation in Australia just as it is in many other parts of the world.

But it is precisely for this reason that Olympic success is usually achieved by investing vast resources in a few, select athletes who are then able to dedicate their lives to their sport; receive the best instruction and medical treatment available; train at high altitudes; and obtain the latest in "performance-enhancing" technology (like the seemingly crucial new swimsuits that appeared in Beijing last year).

In considering the winter Olympics, I can't help but wonder if the money spent training world-class biathalon, luge, and speed-skating athletes might not also be much better spent if the goal really is to increase general fitness. And I also think it's reasonable to suspect that the inspirational value of these and many other Olympic events is greatly overshadowed by the couch-potatoing they encourage.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS

Nations also compete intensely for the honor of hosting the games, as evidenced by the bribing of previous  International Olympic Committee (IOC) board members, and the recent unsuccessful but energetic attempt of Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey to secure the 2016 Chicago bid.

This is despite the fact that the only city ever to have actually profit from the experience is Los Angeles - and even they only got it right the second time around. In fact, the Olympics are almost invariably billions of dollars over budget when all is said and done. The quintessential victim of Olympic overspending, Montreal took 30 years to pay off the huge debt it incurred hosting the 1976 summer games. Most of this money was spent on the building of a stadium that is currently badly underused.

Critics argue further that while Olympic infrastructure can see decades of continued use, the creation of it serves to concentrate resources in the cities at the expense of the surrounding countrysides. In any case, it is certainly true that rural folk who might not get to take advantage of the improvements in infrastructure still must help pay for them.

Not everyone tends to lose out at the games of course. Various private interests are well served: television broadcasters expect to make a tidy profit for example, as does the IOC itself. Host cities hope to recoup their expenditures by attracting foreign investment, and corporate sponsors and incumbent politicians stand to cultivate valuable PR.

But it seems to me that economic arguments for the Olympics depend largely on the so-called "trickle-down effect": the idea that the taxpayers and consumers (who are ultimately footing the bill) benefit indirectly from the endeavor. And it is worth noting that "trickle-down economics" is a highly politicized and controversial topic unto itself.


INTERNATIONAL TOGETHERNESS

The games are also supposed to facilitate a greater understanding between cultures, and serve to help foster world peace by uniting all of humanity through the universal "Olympic values" of excellence, sportsmanship, and fun. Here's where I get to sound really cynical.

A major problem with these claims is that politically-inspired Olympic boycotts are far from uncommon: the American boycott of the 1980 games in Moscow and the retaliatory USSR boycott of the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles are only the best such examples. (A boycott of the 2014 games in Sochi, Russia has also been recently called for by the Georgian government.)

Another problem stems from the fact (mentioned above while considering FITNESS) that Olympic success is often considered a matter of national prestige. Because of this, even when the US and USSR did share the Olympic stage their contests were often invested with political significance, as the athletes produced by the capitalist system competed with those produced by the communist system. The euphoria surrounding the 1980 American hockey victory over the Russians (the "Miracle on ice"), was no doubt largely due to this effect.

When there are positive political effects, they tend to be limited and sadly temporary - like the removal of openly anti-semitic signage for the 1936 Berlin Olympics in Nazi Germany, or the greater media freedoms allowed by the Chinese in 2008.

In addition, it should be added that the games have been cancelled 3 times due to global conflicts; and I know of at least one example where an international (albeit non-Olympic) sporting event may have actually contributed directly to armed conflict.

To me, all of this suggests that those who think that the Olympics lead to peace have confused the cause with the effect.

* * *

I don't necessarily mean to suggest that the Olympic games should be terminated; I know that many people enjoy participating in and watching the Olympic games, and that is surely worth something. But it does seem to me that large holes exist in the foundations of many pro-Olympic arguments. And in ignoring them we simultaneously deny ourselves the opportunity to address them. Allow me to leave you with what I feel are the most pressing questions that should be asked of the modern Olympics:

• Is it really necessary that athletes be associated so closely with their respective nationalities?
• Luge??! Really - come on!  What the hell is with the LUGE??
• DOUBLES LUGE?? You've got to be kidding me.