At the Olympic Games, sport beats rationality

CAST your mind back to the Rio de Janeiro Olympics in 2016.

International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Thomas Bach declared Brazilians united behind the games, despite the need to forcibly evict the impoverished residents of the favelas to make way for sporting facilities and accommodation. Venues which were nowhere near capacity.

Rio de Janeiro was the centre of the mosquito borne Zika virus, but the financial imperative to hold the Olympics overrode public safety, and the Olympics went ahead anyway – without improving the lives of ordinary Brazilians as was promised in the hosting bid.

The hosting baton was then handed to Tokyo for 2020. A government debt of over 200 per cent to GDP was no disincentive for the Japanese government to budget over Us$12billion to host the games – the rationale being hosting the Olympics puts a city “on the map.’’ Despite Tokyo already being a major capital city and renowned tourist destination.

Of course, Covid-19 threw the world into disarray last year. The Tokyo 2020 Olympics were postponed for twelve months while the world came to grips with a global pandemic and a halt to international travel.

Still called Tokyo 2020, the Games are now less than a month away from beginning.

But should they be held at all? After an initial swift response to the pandemic – mask wearing, social distancing – Japan has one of the lowest vaccination rates in the OECD, with less than 3 per cent of their population fully vaccinated.

Current polling shows nearly 70 per cent of the population opposes the Games going ahead.

International spectators have been barred from entering the country. A decision by Japanese Olympic officials to bar local spectators from attending is expected soon.

Medical facilities under pressure from local virus outbreaks have prompted towns and cities set to host athletes, training events and entertainment events to express concern to organizers of the spread of the virus by visitors.

Vaccinating of hotel staff to athletes has been given preference over vaccinating ordinary citizens, which has led to local governments being inundated with complaints.

In a major blow to organisers, over 10,000 volunteers have declined to participate in the Games due to concerns about contact with athletes and their entourages.

The one-year postponement is estimated to have added US$2. 8Billion to the cost of hosting the Games.

In light of the obvious health threat in staging the Games, the IOC and the Japanese government are remaining steadfast that the Games will go ahead on July 23. The IOC continues to issue statements stating they are doing their utmost to ensure a safe and secure Games will be “a light of hope for people all over the world” (whatever that means).

In the background are the financial and political pressures for the Games to go ahead.

Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga was expected to call an election after the Games, hoping the goodwill from hosting this international event will translate to an election victory. It has taken mounting public pressure for Suga to now state his government would “not put the Olympics first” – but the decision for the Games to go ahead or not rested with the IOC.

Under the host-city-contract the Olympics are the exclusive property of the IOC, so only the IOC has the right to cancel the Games, not the host city.

If the IOC was to cancel, insurance policies would indemnify it and the Japanese organising committee – in what would likely the largest claim of this type in history.

If Japan cancelled the Games, the costs would fall on the Tokyo organising committee, and ultimately the Japanese government.

The billions of dollars in media rights, sponsorship and advertising go to the IOC, and are of course a huge incentive for the push for the Games to go ahead.

The power balance between the host city and the IOC is always skewed in favour of the IOC, which contributes nothing to the cost of running the Games.

Given the financial, contractual and political burdens placed on the host city, it seems inevitable the Tokyo Games will go ahead in one form or another.

I think the form will be events held in empty venues, devoid of atmosphere and any Japanese uniqueness that justifies the cost and threat to public health.

Given these burdens of hosting the Olympics, is it little wonder the host city selection process has in recent years been marked by cities withdrawing their bids, leaving Los Angeles and Paris to run unopposed for 2024 and 2028.

This brings us to Brisbane hosting the Olympics in 2032, which given there are no rival bidders, will be announced in the next few weeks.

The Brisbane bid was based on Queensland government revenue and attendance projections formulated in 2019. We all know the world has radically changed since then.

Why buy into a prize no one else is fighting for?