So after four years the Olympics have returned, on this
occasion to one of the most iconic cities in the world. London 2012 has been
hyped to a degree previously achieved only by the Tim Henmans (Henmen?) and
Andy Murrays of this world (it’s British. Go figure). Prior to the opening
ceremony, details were minimal and bitter debates raged over issues such as who
would light the flame. Now that the Olympics have begun, however, most of its
audience have been suspended in a state of awe. Therefore I believe that a
reality check is in order.
Considering the fact that London has hosted other sporting events before, why build a new stadium in the first place? Crystal Palace may not be particularly glitzy, but since when has track and field been about the glamour? As for the opening and closing ceremonies, Wembley? Lord’s? The Oval? The Emirates? Twickenham? White Hart Lane? There are enough sporting venues in London to host the Olympics without needing a separate arena. And with regards to those who would argue that the stadium is the centrepiece of the Olympics, can I just say its appearance makes it as much of a national icon as Basingstoke. The Beijing Olympic stadium, as a comparable venue, certainly makes a more substantial visual impact, thereby fulfilling the role of a showpiece. This renders the £1.244 billion expenditure rather unnecessary. The wardrobe for that kind of shopping spree would be as large as the Olympic Stadium itself, which would therefore require a further investment. £1.244 billion of storage space to go with £1.244 billion of shopping.
Sources:
First, a harsh truism. Regardless of the sentiments of
romantics, the Olympics are just another sporting event. One journalist aptly
described them as “the world’s largest sports day”. And since they are a
sporting event, they should be treated as such. Extricating outrageous sums of
money from the taxpayer merely to fund a bunch of running races seems a bit
preposterous. Danny Boyle’s opening ceremony cost £27 million. It included a very
brief history lesson, some nurses, music and dancing. None of these have any
sort of direct connection with sport. So why waste the cash? Ironic, isn’t it,
that the first nation to make an entrance was Greece (oh how they could use £27
million).
In terms of sporting events only one realistically compares
with the Olympics – the FIFA World Cup. The pride associated with hosting both these events is similar. When was the last time all national
squads marched on to the pitch before the first match? Never. Has a love story
ever been re-enacted at a world cup? Not on the pitch, in any case. This is
where the Olympic organisers could learn a lesson. Despite both the World Cup
and the Olympics being on the same scale, FIFA are generally not likely to
splurge on an opening ceremony. Or get the queen to skydive into the stadium.
Second, some facts. Between 2005 and 2011, the British GDP
increased by about 7%. In the same period, the USA saw a 20% increase in GDP.
India’s GDP doubled. China’s tripled. Possibly sufficient evidence to highlight
the UK’s lack of economic growth. Co-incidence or not, 2005 was also the year
in which London was chosen as the host city for the 2012 Olympics. £11,000,000,000
(that’s nine zeros) spent on some sporting events is generally not beneficial
to a national economy. In 2005, the Labour Government estimated the cost of
hosting the Olympics to be £2.4 billion. Spending four and a half
times that isn’t a bad start. The Public Accounts Committee estimates that the
Olympics will cost a grand total of £11 billion, after all costs are
factored in. That is a significant amount considering it comes from the working
class.
Enough with the bloated numbers that are beyond
comprehension. Consider this instead. At the opening ceremony of London 2012,
countries like Tuvalu, Kiribati, Sao Tome, Palau, Micronesia, Tonga, Samoa, St.
Kitts et cetera achieved a common unique feat. The annual GDP of each of these
countries – that’s how much money EVERYBODY put together makes – is lower than
the £478
million that it cost to build the Olympic Stadium. Add the approximate £766
million cost of buying back the stadium and the total cost amounts to £1.244
billion, causing the list of countries that achieve this feat to expand
significantly. Lots of other things can be done with £1.244 billion. Half of
Africa could be fed. Cancer could be cured. Billions of people could be
vaccinated against disease. Minor public debts could be paid off. London could
be painted yellow to celebrate Bradley Wiggins’ victory in the Tour de France. Considering the fact that London has hosted other sporting events before, why build a new stadium in the first place? Crystal Palace may not be particularly glitzy, but since when has track and field been about the glamour? As for the opening and closing ceremonies, Wembley? Lord’s? The Oval? The Emirates? Twickenham? White Hart Lane? There are enough sporting venues in London to host the Olympics without needing a separate arena. And with regards to those who would argue that the stadium is the centrepiece of the Olympics, can I just say its appearance makes it as much of a national icon as Basingstoke. The Beijing Olympic stadium, as a comparable venue, certainly makes a more substantial visual impact, thereby fulfilling the role of a showpiece. This renders the £1.244 billion expenditure rather unnecessary. The wardrobe for that kind of shopping spree would be as large as the Olympic Stadium itself, which would therefore require a further investment. £1.244 billion of storage space to go with £1.244 billion of shopping.
In conclusion then, the Olympics have gone from being a celebration
of sport to being one of the best ways to waste public funds. Agreed that a
certain level of expenditure is required to organise the games, but if they
were organised as what they are – games – and not as a matter of national
pride/symbol of power/way to show off, then the economic impact would not be as
much and therefore the British public would finally have a reason to rejoice.
-
ChapSources:
good work!!!
ReplyDelete