A lot of my posts this week will be catching up on some topics I've seen in recent weeks but haven't gotten the chance to talk about yet. And today's post is one of them. It's my reaction to an article I saw about a week ago regarding the walking contradiction that is the IOC. And, I've gotta say, I agree with many of the points that were made in the article.
The basic argument made was that the IOC keeps telling host cities that they need to find ways to save money in various ways, while at the same time doing things themselves that make hosting the Games inherently more expensive. And for an organization that's having such an image problem, mainly because potential hosts are balking at the ever-expanding costs, it really is silly that they keep expanding the program and increasing the number of athletes.
How are cities supposed to save money when you're making them spend more? For example, Tokyo's budget has skyrocketed from the original projections, for a number of reasons. And one cost-cutting measure that the IOC has suggested is reducing the services available at the Olympic Village. Now, I've never stayed at the Olympic Village. But, from the experiences I've heard from those who have, it definitely does sound like there are some features of the Village that could be scaled back.
Their other money-saving suggestion about the Olympic Village made absolutely no sense though. Instead of reducing the services for the athletes, they want NOC's to ask people not to stay in the Village. They're even willing to pay for alternative accommodations for coaches, support staff, etc., all in the name of reducing the number of beds needed in the Village.
What NOC would be stupid enough to accept this deal? The Olympic Charter explicitly requires the organizing committee to provide lodging, transportation, etc., for all accredited personnel at the Games. Yes, some athletes or teams (USA Basketball being the most notable example) may choose not to stay in the Village on their own, but it's asinine to ask nations to separate the athletes from teh staff (or leave some staff home altogether) just so the organizers can save a few bucks.
Meanwhile, the Games keep expanding for no apparent reason. The Olympic Charter states that the Summer Games should feature right around 10,500 athletes, 5,000 coaches and support personnel and 310 events. There were more than 11,000 athletes in Rio. Yet for Tokyo, they've added five sports, 18 events and nearly 500 more athletes. You do this while you're simultaneously telling the organizing committee to find ways to reduce costs?
In order to make room for those 500 athletes, the IOC has reduced the number of places in other sports and made team sizes smaller in some team sports. Which is another contradiction. You claim the Games are getting too big, yet add more sports for no apparent reason. Sorry, your reason is to "appeal to youth," and those sports are left to the discretion of the host committee.
That might be my biggest problem with this whole idea. When the sport program is consistent, you at least have a better shot of coming near those ideal numbers. Golf and rugby alone don't explain why there were 700 more athletes in Rio than in London, but that number would've been significantly higher had they arbitrarily added sports the way Tokyo did. And, frankly, the sports added for the Tokyo Games don't really seem to have a place in the Olympic program anyway.
When golf and rugby were added, they went through a rigorous selection process before determining those were the two best fits. And they were. The golf and rugby tournaments in Rio were spectacular, and I think they're part of the Olympics to stay. That's the way sports should be added. It should be a difficult process that's more rigorous than just "is it popular in the host country?"
Anyway, I digress. Additional sports mean additional athletes. Even if you reduce the number of athletes in other sports or cut down on support staff, the athletes in these new sports will still need coaches and support personnel specific to their sport. In other words, you're "selling" something that's impossible to sell. You can't reduce the costs associated with housing so many people in the Olympic Village when you're making it so that the number of people who'll be staying in the Village will actually increase!
My solution here is a very simple one. You stop the arbitrary addition of sports and go back to the old process. That way your numbers are far easier to control. Because if you leave the program up to the host organizers, who's to say where it stops? Maybe Paris does decide to bring in video games for 2024 (don't get me started on that). Maybe LA wants to add football for 2028. As we all know, football teams aren't small, and football staffs are nearly as large.
I do think they're serious about wanting to reduce the costs of running an Olympic Games. If they aren't, they're going to continue to have the same problems with cities refusing to bid. That's why they have to practice what they preach. If you don't want the Olympics to cost so much, stop making them bigger! Especially when you have no reason to do so.
Seriously, does your life suddenly have meaning now that there's Olympic surfing? Are you dying to watch that Olympic karate tournament? I didn't think so.
No comments:
Post a Comment