Some Winter Olympics are not like the others

Calgary would be nothing like Sochi, Graeme Menzies writes

As one of only seven cities interested in hosting the 2026 Olympic Winter Games, Calgary has made another significant step forward on its Olympic journey.

There is both excitement, and anxiety, about the possibility the city will beat its competitors. If a decision is made to proceed with a bid, it is sure to generate a lot of discussion and a lot of confusion.

Those against hosting the Games will argue they could cost a fortune and will deliver a low return on investment. Statistics will fly fast and furious, but few — if any — will take care to weed out the irrelevant data from the relevant.

A sensible and far more useful discussion on the merits and risks of hosting the Olympics must be based on a thorough review of Games most like those being proposed. That means, fundamentally, two things: the discussion must be framed around the experience of Winter Games (not Summer) and about Games held in a North American context (not Japan, not Italy, not Russia, not Korea).

It is an understandable and common error to talk about “the Olympics.” But talk of hosting the Olympics is rather like talk of landing a Boeing jet — it makes no sense until you get into the specifics about which one.

When talking about Calgary’s 2026 bid, it’s important to focus specifically on Winter Games, because the infrastructure and other costs of hosting them is nothing like the Summer ones.

The last Summer Games, for example, hosted more than 11,000 athletes from 207 countries participating in 306 events; whereas the last Winter Games had just under 3,000 athletes from 92 countries competing in 102 events.

Those who talk about the costs and challenges of hosting “the Olympics” need to be challenged to limit their critique to Winter Olympics only.

Failing to distinguish between Games held in North America and those held elsewhere is also a dangerous error. Critics sometimes talk as if every country in the world behaves the same. Those people should know better.

The controls, balances, scrutiny and expectations placed upon organizing committees, municipal, provincial (or state) and federal governments in North America are quite different from those placed upon those hosting Games elsewhere.

The reason Sochi’s Winter Games cost five times more than Vancouver’s has everything to do with the regime in which they were held. In Russia, what Vladimir Putin wants, he gets, and nobody dares say a word about the cost. In North America, and most certainly in Calgary, it simply doesn’t work like that.

If the merits and risks of the proposed Calgary 2016 Games are to be properly and fairly judged, the experiences of Lake Placid (1980), Calgary (1988), Salt Lake (2002) and Vancouver (2010) are the best and most relevant models to evaluate. Not Sochi.

A study of those Games will show Olympic Winter Games held in North American cities have all been successful, leaving positive economic and social benefits to the host community.

No good opportunity ever comes without risks, and success is never guaranteed. But if we are to give the Calgary 2016 scenario proper consideration, we must focus on the data and experiences most relevant to the situation.

If we do that, I believe Calgarians may find a reason to believe Calgary can make the Winter Olympics work.

Talk of hosting the Olympics is rather like talk of landing a Boeing jet — it makes no sense until you get into the specifics about which one.