The Olympic Games in the modern age are held in high regard. Every four years, the world watches elite athletes yearn, struggle, and fight for one of the highest honors one can get: an Olympic gold medal. Countries fight for bids to host the event, because the wave of pride of one’s country is contagious. The international sporting event brings to nations across the globe a spirit of unity unparalleled during Olympics off–season.
Yet, even before the opening ceremony at this year’s Olympics in Paris, trouble had already been brewing. Accusations of foul play, player misconduct, controversy surrounding the cleanliness of the Seine River, and even a bomb attack on the French rail network riddled the news before the first medal was even awarded. And this isn’t an isolated incident—come Olympics season, it seems like all the problems of the world of athletics and the host country start to unravel. The 2020 Tokyo Olympics had to deal with bribery allegations amid postponement due to the COVID–19 pandemic. Rio 2016 was plagued with economic concerns and the infamous “Lochtegate.” Beijing 2008 faced controversy over political and human rights concerns within the host country. And of course, multiple allegations of doping, most notably Russia in 2016, led to the the ban of the Russian team at the 2018 Winter Olympics and the 2020 Summer Olympics.
All these issues beg the question: Should we put the Olympics on the pedestal it currently sits on?
Perhaps a good place to start is the athletes themselves. Every Olympic games, the world marvels at their country’s top athletes, placing high expectations on their athletic prowess, and beaming with pride when they win. But what happens after they get off the podium? While many of us say we support our athletes, the cold reality is that unless they are among the biggest names in their sport, many Olympic athletes often don’t make enough money to financially support themselves. Beloved athletes depend on sponsorships and brand deals because training, equipment, and travel all accrue high costs. While medalists often get compensated for their wins, it’s not enough to sustain their day–to–day expenses, much less pay for the training that comes with maintaining peak performance.
And that is assuming one will be at peak performance when the games arrive. The games are held only once every four years, so an unexpected setback on the world stage is soul–crushing. When Simone Biles went to compete at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, she unexpectedly withdrew as she was experiencing the “twisties”—a condition where gymnasts lose spatial awareness and are unable to perform their routines—prompting backlash from people back in the United States. Even if an athlete reaches their maximum potential, there’s always the politics of fairness and equity. Doping allegations riddle the games, prompting many to question the legitimacy of results. This year’s games alone spearheaded arguments about the biological and chemical composition of an athlete’s body, specifically relating to two boxers. While some concerns aren’t entirely unfounded (see: Russia’s infamous case that led to their ban), many of the accusations have xenophobic and misogynistic undertones. Athletes train yearly for competitions and championships in their sports, but the extra emphasis on an infrequent event creates an artificially high–stress environment.
The Olympic dream is so potent that in countries like China, kids with early athletic potential are placed into dedicated training camps for the singular goal of winning gold. Kids as young as elementary school–age are given regimens similar to those of professional athletes, with mountain–high expectations and hopes placed on them by coaches, trainers, and even parents. Coupled with the post–Olympic reality that most athletes will struggle financially without other opportunities, it’s only natural to question the value of a system that disadvantages many and subjects people to accomplish the nearly impossible.
What about the cities that host the games? Surely the cities bearing the Olympic banner enjoy an influx of tourism and international attention. As it turns out, holding the Olympics might actually damage a city’s economy and health. The proposed budget a city makes when it bids to host the games is often far lower than the final costs. New stadiums, housing, and facilities are built to accommodate athletes and attendees. But when the games are over, many of the new stadiums will be abandoned, costing cities millions to maintain what are called “white elephants.” The host cities don’t get an uptick in tourism either, and bearing the Olympic legacy sounds good only on paper.
It’s not just the potential economic downsides; rather, it’s distasteful for a country to spur infrastructural development for only the sake of presenting the good sides of their country. This scenario is most applicable to the 2016 Rio Olympics, where city officials spent billions of dollars creating a new Olympic Village in an area that’s already relatively prosperous. The mayor of Paris spent $1.5 billion to clean up the Seine River, which has been notoriously dirty for decades, in preparation for this year’s games. Governments uncover this disposable budget to revamp their cities and create something brand–new—new buildings, new public transportation, new shops and markets—while being unable to reinvest into the parts of cities that sorely needed it. To make matters worse, the International Olympic Committee, the regulating body of the Olympics, encourages building new stadiums and upgrading facilities through the bidding process, as cities aim to make their proposal as flashy and expensive as possible. Prior to the Olympic season, host countries have even experienced protests against the event.
So, how can we fix some of the problems that plague the institution? For starters, countries can find ways to provide support to athletes who need it the most. Providing substantial financial compensation worth the caliber of a gold medal can decrease hardships for athletes who aren’t regular household names. Ensuring equity in standards and regulations, especially surrounding doping and physical tests, can decrease accusations of unfairness. Creating healthy expectations—as cheesy as it sounds—can mitigate the extreme causes of stress and conflict for both the athletes and the fans.
As for the cities and the bidding process, the IOC should be encouraging host cities to use existing facilities for their games. One of the most successful iterations of the Olympics was the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. Los Angeles, as the only bid for that year’s games, was able to negotiate with the IOC to agree to use existing facilities in the Los Angeles area. In addition, the Los Angeles Olympic Committee didn’t restrict its area to Los Angeles specifically; some of the preliminary games were held in other venues in Southern California, with football preliminaries even hosted in Boston and Maryland. As a result, the 1984 games remain the only financially successful games in the Olympics’ history, gaining $215 million in profit. 1984 proved that it’s possible to host the games—a memorable one, even—without resorting to constructing new buildings. This also demonstrates that instead of relying on one city or its nearby neighbors for the games, more hosts can choose to collaborate with many cities in the host country to create an unforgettable experience for many.
With all of the games’ problems, one cannot deny the sheer power that the Olympics has; perhaps it’s because of its ancient origins, the spirit of athleticism, or the unity it fosters. The Olympics reaches approximately two billion people’s screens during the summer games. At times when conflicts dominate the news (and even the games themselves), and times are rough, for a short 16 days, the world still finds a way to band together to celebrate athletes—it’s why people still enjoy the games. As Paris 2024 nears its completion, we are reminded that the Olympics can still be a beacon of hope.
