The $14 Billion Spectacle

The Summer Olympics are about to begin and that raises the usual question when the Olympics are about to begin: are they really worth the hassle? The Olympics have been growing in cost and hassle for decades now. They've become commercialized, corporatized and, though I hate to risk the wrath of basketball fans everywhere, after professional athletes were allowed to compete, the whole 'amateurs only' thing seems a bit faded and worn as well.

At a cost of $14 billion, you have to ask, what's in it for London? A lot of cities approach the Olympics in different ways with mixed results. Beijing still has venues it's trying to find a use for, Athens ran up a load of debt but took away improvements to it's infrastructure and it took Montreal decades to pay off it's Olympic date. (And it saddled Major League Baseball with a largely mediocre team that had the misfortune of having it's best year ever the year Major League Baseball went on strike.)

Some host cities do it for prestige but lately it seems as if a lot of host cities are using the opportunity to engage in large scale urban renewal projects- that's what London is trying to do anyway with a large chunk of East London. It's an opportunity to engage in urban renewal on a massive scale and quickly in a way that's not normally possible. London seems to have been especially sensitive to the legacy of the game, planning to move some venues to places in the country where they're needed and some venues (like Beach Volleyball) are temporary and will vanish after the games. The Stadium is set to downsized and handed over to the football club West Ham (who promptly found themselves relegated to the Championship League.) All in all, it looks like London has a good chance of bringing their lofty dreams of transformation to fruition. But at a staggering cost.

Sure, you can drench yourself in the NBC-sports clichés (cue the sappy human interesting music) and talk about how inspiring it is to bring athletes from all over the world to compete in these games. And it is inspiring, I'll give it that- I just think hosts and the Olympics need to be mindful of getting too caught up in shiny venues and lofty goals of urban renewal. Make them too expensive and you risk turning them into a showcase for the rich and powerful and undermining the spirit of what the Olympics are supposed to be about.

(Someday, the Olympics will make it back to our fair shores- Atlanta is generally hailed as one of the most commercially successful and commercialized Summer Games. It's just a question of which City will host them next... Chicago will be in the running, New York City, San Francisco always pop up as candidate cities. I've seen Houston and Philadelphia mentioned in that discussion as well. I think the Twin Cities, with it's existing sports facilities would also be a good candidate but then again, I've biased. I enjoy the Twin Cities way too much.)