The Olympic Shames

Around 18 months ago, I wrote a piece on this blog about the London Olympics, and the laughably extravagant sum of money that was invested in what one commentator described as “the world’s biggest sports day”[i]. Today I wonder, once again, whether the £9bn expenditure was worth it. Sure, London became the centre of the world for 3 weeks, but one could argue that London has been the centre of the world for the past 50 years. Today, as the British government scurries to plug gaping holes in the country’s disaster response system, wouldn’t David Cameron or George Osborne love to be able to pull an extra £9bn out of their pockets?

As I write this, one of the most expensive sporting events in history is in progress – the Winter Olympics in Sochi. This is estimated to have cost US$50bn, though (in a rare exhibition of informed journalism) an article in the Washington Post challenges this figure[ii]. Regardless of whether it is THE most expensive or not, it is unarguable that it is very expensive. Before I actually move on to the point I have to make, here are some more figures to satisfy the analytical reader.

           

• ·      Cost of Beijing 2008: US$40bn[iii]
• ·      Cost of 2010 FIFA WC: US$5bn[iv]
• ·      Cost of Vancouver 2010: US$6.5bn[v]
• ·      Cost of 2014 FIFA WC: US$14.5bn[vi]
• ·      (Forecast) Cost of Rio 2016: US$3bn[vii]
• ·      (Forecast) Cost of 2022 FIFA WC: US$230bn (yes, you read that right)[viii]

The justification for this expenditure is almost as overused as the “dog ate my homework” excuse – the events will lead to high tourist and sponsorship revenue, and leave a lasting sporting legacy. Beijing 2008, for example, leaves behind the unenviable legacy of unused and neglected venues, falling into a state of disrepair. What was the baseball stadium is now an expanse of unhealthy foliage. The volleyball stadium resembles a ghost of its former self, covered in torn posters from six years ago. This problem extends to current and future events too. Sochi’s future rests on the quicksand that is Formula One, which as illustrated by South Korea and Turkey is often an unwelcome, parasitic guest. The Arena da Amazonia in Manaus (which is being constructed from scratch for the 2014 FIFA World Cup) will be a 45000-seater, multi-million dollar football stadium in a city with no major football club.

If the 2014 World Cup teaches us a story – and it does (remarkable, considering it hasn’t even happened yet) – it is that sport no longer resembles the great unifier it once was. Consider, on one hand, the incredible story of how Nelson Mandela endeared himself to South Africa through the 1995 Rugby World Cup. Compare this example with what is happening in Brazil right now. Here we have perhaps the most football-crazed nation in the world, with a record 5 world cups; yet riots and dissent abound on the streets. A generation that idolises Ronaldo, Ronaldinho and Romario (to name a few) would rather have the most popular event in the world taking place somewhere other than in their own backyard.  

The conclusion is saddening, yet inescapable. Sport is rapidly turning into just another driving force for inequality. Those who stand to profit from sporting events are the governments, who service their own expenses through tourism revenue. Broadcasting companies, motivated by a mixture of FIFA’s greed and their own self-interest, extort hefty pounds of flesh from subscribers – nowhere is this more evident than Singapore, where it is highly likely that TV subscribers will end up paying close to $100 each to watch the World Cup. Large corporations enjoy sponsorship monopoly – think Coca-Cola, Visa and Sony (FIFA’s official partners) – granting them a month’s worth of unlimited advertising all around the globe. Meanwhile, it is the proletariat whose money is used to set the dominoes in motion. And for what? In the end, precious few locals stand to benefit from sports infrastructure. Perhaps, most damningly, the vast majority of Brazil’s football-loving public will never be able to afford a ticket to enter the very stadia they paid for.

- Chap.

---

[i] http://democrazies.blogspot.sg/2012/08/the-cost-of-pride.html

[ii] http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/did-the-winter-olympics-in-sochi-really-cost-50-billion-a-closer-look-at-that-figure/2014/02/10/a29e37b4-9260-11e3-b46a-5a3d0d2130da_story.html

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/leisure/8192484/South-Africa-recoups-just-a-tenth-of-the-3bn-cost-of-staging-World-Cup-2010.html

[v] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/vancouver-olympics-worth-the-7-billion-price-tag-study-says/article15036916/

[vi] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-29/brazil-world-cup-kick-starts-billionaire-boon-as-farmers-lose.html

[vii] http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/23/us-olympics-brazil-budget-idUSBREA0M1XG20140123

[viii] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/8749931/Qatar-World-Cup-in-2022-could-cost-138-billion-according-to-financial-analyst.html

Sometimes, a state needs Mary Poppins

The term "nanny state" is loosely thrown around to define a society in which personal freedoms are curtailed by an over-protective government. Singapore is occasionally cited as an example of a nanny state, given that eating on public transport carries a fine of SG$500. More recently, a young girl was charged in court and fined SG$400 for using a power outlet at a train station to charge her phone. Ignoring the arguments involved in that particular case, it becomes clear that the term "nanny state" has barely any positive connotations, and is used when a populace feels - often correctly - hemmed in by authoritarian measures.

And yet, there exists a glimmer of hope for the nannies. This beacon of hope lies in the House of Lords, in London, where a 222-197 vote backed an amendment to fine parents who smoked in cars with children in them. Response to this decision has been ambivalent - the deputy PM, Nick Clegg, was quoted by The Telegraph as saying, "You can't sub-contract responsible parenting to the State". On the other hand, The Mirror's Paul Routledge wrote a column entitled, "A triumph of common sense over the vested interests of the tobacco industry." The debate, from what I understand, is largely based on two contrasting perspectives. In favour of the ban, the view that cigarette smoke poses a serious health hazard to passive smokers. Against the ban, the view of Charlotte Gore in the Guardian, who believes "A ban on smoking in cars with children is an authoritarian step too far".

My personal opinion on this issue is a combination of all the perspectives mentioned above. I agree with Mr. Clegg in that the responsibilities of individual adults cannot and should not be the affairs of the state. I agree with Ms. Gore when she considers this ban totalitarian in nature. I also agree with Mr. Routledge regarding the health hazards of this issue. The conclusion, to me, is simple. A government should not pass such legislation. Why? Because it should not be obliged to consider such an issue in the first place. People should be responsible enough to recognise the dangers of smoking in confined spaces. Yet, the main reason why this amendment is being passed is because obviously there has been an alarming number of cases of children being forced to inhale the toxic fumes of their parents' cigarettes on long journeys. Simply put, action to control this issue makes the government appear totalitarian. Inaction, resulting in hundreds of cases of lung cancer in 45 years' time, would make the government appear incompetent. In this case, authoritarianism is certainly the lesser of two evils.

If there's anything the above example proves, it is that a nanny state is sometimes essential if the legislature is to be effective. There exist sufficient tabloid newspapers for us to know that some parents, for example, do not take adequate care when it comes to raising their children responsibly; instead, the aroma of baby oil is replaced by methamphetamine fumes. It is common sense that one does not eat food with a rich aroma in a confined space, but there are those who treat rationality like a scab. And yes, the decision to fine the girl in the above example was contentious; who's to say that putting up signs will stop people from using power sockets at train stations? All it takes is one individual with a grossly misplaced sense of rebellion to plug an appliance into the socket, and voila. The MRT network shuts down because of a voltage fluctuation.

The conclusion this article tries to reach is simple. We need a nanny state more often than we think. This is simply because a government cannot risk trusting that all its citizens spend their entire lives acting rationally. And when irrational actions affect those other than the perpetrators, who's responsibility is it to tie up the loose ends? The answer is obvious - Mary Poppins, the wonderful nanny. 

- Chap

Links to articles:

1. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/30/ban-smoking-cars-children-authoritarian-step-too-far?commentpage=1

2. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paul-routledge-ban-smoking-cars-3095327#.UusecfmSzLk

3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/10606598/Why-not-ban-TV-too-Clegg-opposes-car-smoke-clampdown.html