When Britain first held the Olympics back in 1908, the event
was of a more modest sort. White City Stadium was chosen in Shepard’s Bush as
the Franco-British expedition offered to fund the event in return for 75% of
ticket revenues. Needless to say, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not
contacted.
The only people certain to profit from the Olympics, The IOC |
With a government budget of £9.3 billion, the modern day
event bears little resemblance to its humble origins. Prime Minister Cameron
has promised to “turn these games into gold for Britain”. While the games are
likely to bring the spotlight to Britain, it’s not entirely clear they will
bring much else.
Some argue that the velodrome or the aquatic centre will pay
off long term, this looks misguided. While the swimming stadium is impressive,
the people of East London don’t really need an Olympic pool, they’d rather a
couple of splash pools for kids. Those mass stands look equally suspect;
swimming isn’t really a spectator sport, especially not in Stratford. With a
price tag of £269 million, the aquatic centre hardly looks a bargain, indeed it
is emblematic of the whole games: immense and exuberant but ultimately
inefficient and exorbitant.
Still, the payoff to the International Olympic Committee
(IOC) is assured. The emphasis on amateurism allows the committee to get their
main product for free; athletes. Rather than be paid, athletes merely receive a
medal and a bouquet; and that’s the lucky ones, most go back to fairly innocuous
lives, not much bettered by the games.
This amateurism, coupled with distaste for ‘crass
commercialism’ has given the games a hint of exclusivity which has served the
IOC well. Big brands aren’t allowed to blemish the arena, hence they advertise frantically
outside, providing the IOC with a great marketing tool. Yet it is unclear how the
barrage of branding facing the consumer, from washing tablets to fast food, is
entirely related to the Olympics or of any clear benefit to anyone other than
the IOC.
When Mount Vesuvius erupted, Rome was in no position to host
the 1908 Olympics; Lord Desborough, spotting an opportunity, made the offer to
host the Olympics in London. Like his counterpart today, Desborough had some
luck and showed certain ingenuity in getting the Olympics to London.
Desborough saw the games as a place where nations could
compete in place of the battlefield. His legacy was sadly scuppered by the more
tragic events that followed; he became disillusioned with the whole movement.
Lord Coe has shown equal cunning and serendipity in bringing
the games back to London. Yet his hopes for an Olympic rejuvenation of Stratford
looks like another legacy which may not stand the test of time.
Shepherd's Bush, not Shepard's Bush.
ReplyDeleteHow has a mere mortal managed to identify such a glaring error in my piece?
Delete