Faced with the imminent end of its magical Michael Phelps-Usain Bolt era, imploding bidder interest, a nervous Rio outlook, and disquiet about its privileged business model, the Olympics could not be in better shape, thank you very much.
After all, in the race for the global brand-worth gold medal, it often shares a podium finish with Apple and Google.
Not bad for having its product on the shelves for just a month or so every four years, compared to its above-mentioned podium pals whose hardware barely ever leaves our gaze.
RIO EVENTS SCHEDULE
2016 RIO OLYMPICS BASKETBALL SCHEDULE
And that’s part of the problem, if there is one, because the Olympics is essentially a circus whose every act can decide its future. A drunk clown here, an incompetent juggler there, a tent collapse, and suddenly the cheers become jeers and you’re run out of town. The minutae of its choreography must be staggering.
So it seems obvious the recent signs of incompetence from Rio are by far the most pressing of the IOC’s looming concerns. From the Zika virus to dengue fever, presidential impeachment, polluted venues and structural collapses, this may be the toughest Olympic juggling act ever.
One wonders whether the decision to embrace Latin America into the Olympic family wasn’t one based on a kind of ideological promiscuity married with corporate speculation, based on Brazil having charged into eighth place in world GDP rankings at the time of bidding.
“The preparations are now worse than Athens,” lamented an exasperated IOC vice president John Coates recently.
You could also question the wisdom of expecting even the most sport crazy populace to support the planet’s two biggest sporting shows within two years (after Rio’s hosting of the Football world cup in 2014). Surely public fatigue or complacency was anticipated.
Several months out, the delivery of a safe but lacklustre Rio Olympics might be all IOC leaders dare hope for. In any case, a comforting lurch back to mother Europe is almost assured for the next host city, with the 2024 Games to be decided next year from a record low of four candidates: Rome, Paris, Los Angeles and Budapest.
The recent decline in bid nominations (11 for 2004, ten for 2008, nine for 2012, seven for 2016, six for 2020, four for 2024) may be seen as a worrying trend, or rationalised as a maturing of the bid process, given the monopoly money implications of even modelling a bid.
No more submissions based on a dictator’s impulse to gift his sports minister son a birthday present – or some over zealous tourism minister’s logo pipe-dream, e.g., anyone for a Dublin O’lympics?
What sort of hole the inevitable absence of the Phelps-Bolt lustre will leave is anyone’s guess. To contemplate the departure of a man regarded by some as the fastest of our kind ever to stride the earth is not an easy concept to process.
For a species often maligned as being the poor cousins of animal athleticism, Bolt’s measured 40kph speed almost made us look Serengetti-proof. And will the legacy of Phelps’ almost imponderable gold medal tally induce a kind of lingering defeatism?
Finally, as a corporate entity, the Olympics enjoys an enviable near immunity against financial failure,often leaving host cities to tidy the bottom line. Of all brands, the Olympics alone can oblige nations to legislate to protect its trading interests.
From a modest $1 million profit in 1960 at Rome, its broadcasting and endorsement spin-offs by London had grown to several billion. Seemingly, the vestigial goodwill of a charter drawn up more than a century ago, and based on amateurism, is still enough to perpetuate such license.
To counter growing bidder aversion and fellow corporate cynicism, it may be time to consider greater host incentive. Perhaps a standard two-Olympics tenure might allow deserved economies- of- scale benefits from infrastructure investment the second time around.
It might also be a good time to reflect on the enormous good fortune of having acquired a brand name with millennia of goodwill without having handed over a cent.
Johnno
Guest
Olympics will still go for a while yet, and the Com games it seems. But the Olympics biggest problem is the rise of professionalism in so many of it's sport, and many sports now haveing world cups/championships that are more important. Athletics/Swimming have there own world cups/titles, but for now they still seem to be 2nd. Basketball in men's is going to 32-teams for it's world cup, Olympic mens basketball only offers 12. Under-23's soccer at the Olympics to me is a joke, even though it rates highly. Each under 23 side can have 3 senior players, but under-23's isn't really a youth age any more. You have guys who go to olympics in soccer age 23, who have already played in 2 senior world cups, the whole thing is a farce with soccer.
spruce moose
Guest
Except they are also avid volleyball, basketball and motor racing fans. But it's ok, you can stick to crude stereotypes.
Scott Pryde
Expert
On your point of the GC hosting the Com Games - biggest positive for them is that it is a tourist location - people will travel there for a holiday and pump money back into the local economy through theme parks for example - they won't just be going there for the sporting spectacle... In all honesty, it is locations like these that will save both sets of Games. Not Brazil, no offence which is a shambles.
BrainsTrust
Guest
The Olympics is the second worst sporting event to host from a financial viewpoint, the worst is the Commonwealth games. A lot of that is from hosting the event in one city, hosting it in the one country and using the best available infrastructure across the country for different events would make it heaps better economically. Yet Australia keeps trying to host the Commowealth, and I think for the Gold COast they also copied the Sydney Olympics of paying for other countries air fares , wasting billions, and the best athletes will give it a skip. The Olympics attract a lot of interest worldwide at least, , the Commonwealth games the reality that the Australian media hide is its a minor event except in Australia and New Zealand, and would attract hardly anyone from overseas to travel to watch it.Australia has a lot of spare cash so the money thrown down the drain on the Commowealth games by being the one to host it most often isn't really noticed. The problem with Brazil is its relatively poor, full of corruption, and bid for the World Cup and Olympic games during the mining boom where they thought they were on a continous upward economic trajectory. If you look at Russia they managed to turn the Sochi winter Olympics into the biggest overblown white elephant spendfest while oil was high in price and Brazil has done the same to a lesser extent on the World Cup and Olympics. Having both events actually allows some sharing of costs, except Brazil concentrated on spreading out the world cup ,even into the smaller inland cities, and spent heaps of money on airport upgrades and its not relevant to the Olympics in Rio De Janeiro. With FIFA Brazil manages to draw some money out of them, as South Africa did as well. The Olympics however thats a one way street, the IOC is there to take the revenue while the host bears the cost, so things might be even less ready. IF you look at what happened with Greece the economic crisis was a direct consequence of the spending boom and debt from the Olympics but Greece was a smaller country. With the Qatar world cup there you have a country that is totally dependent on oil and gas for revenue so if oil and gas don't rebound, things are already being scaled back and even if built Its going to be a worse white elephant than even Sochi.
Hugo
Guest
But Brazil is not sports mad. It's merely soccer mad. Brazil participated in 23 Summer Olympics and earned just 21 gold medals. By contrast, Australia have won 138 gold medals.