Today, the world witnessed one of the most absurd spectacles in sporting history: a pricey, overblown ceremony exuding the usual platitudes about togetherness and international co-operation — delivered to an almost entirely empty stadium, just the use of light to give the illusion of an audience. The Tokyo Olympics has been seriously compromised by the pandemic. But why not seize the opportunity to change the games for good — and build back smaller?
The Olympics is a popular spectacle, to be sure. In the end, a majority of the British public even came to agree that the £8.77 billion cost was worth it (it might be seen as even better value now, when this sum would buy you only a quarter of a test and trace scheme). But it is being squashed beneath its own weight. The idea of a truly global event has been undone by the cost of staging the games — and the cost of competing in many of its sports. That is why the usual contest for the honour of staging the 2032 games was replaced by a non-contest to anoint an invited bidder, Brisbane.
I am sure that Brisbane will put on a good show, but should the Olympics really be allowed to become a cartel of the few, rich countries that can afford it — and which invariably end up top of the medals table? It is not just the cost of hosting the games; it is the cost of competing. Run, and you run against the whole world; cycle, sail or ride a horse and you compete against a small number of rich countries that can afford the kit and the training facilities.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Don't miss out
Join the conversation with other Spectator readers. Subscribe to leave a comment.
UNLOCK ACCESSAlready a subscriber? Log in