I am neither 100% for or against the Olympics. That being said, I am mostly against having it in Tokyo at this time. The way things are, it may not happen anyway, but I think we really need to rethink what the Olympics is and how we want it to be in the future. A lot of you probably don't care at all about the Olympics, but when it happens in your country or in your city, they are using the money they could be using for other maybe more urgent needs like paying people who have lost jobs and businesses due to Covid19.
Maybe having the Olympics didn't used to be as much of an economic burden as it now is, but nowadays only the richest cities can afford it. It is true that Tokyo is such a city, but even then it is a heavy burden and it disrupts everything and isn't necessary welcomed by everyone.
Tokyo previously had the Olympics in 1964 and back then it had more reasons to have it as Japan was still growing and could use the Olympics to boost the economy. I think that is the more appropriate use of the Olympics to help developing nations to grow. For Tokyo and Japan today, it may give some economic boost in the short term, but in the long term, we'll end up with things like the new national stadium which can't be used enough (there just aren't enough events and acts that can draw capacity audience) to even cover its running maintenance costs.
In order not to keep repeating failures like this (whether the Tokyo Olympics does take place or not, the damage has already been done), we need to rethink what the Olympics is. I like to think that the Olympics is not only a sporting event, but a way to help developing nations. Instead of having Olympics in overbuilt cities, I think it would make more sense to have them in nations that could benefit more from having new sporting facilities built. Also, instead of having the Olympics take place in one city, it would be better to have it in the whole country or even numerous countries in the same region. So it could be like instead of having the Nairobi Olympics, it could be the Kenya Olympics or the East Africa Olympics. Building all the necessary facilities just in one city can be a huge burden on that city, but if you spread it around a country or region, it could be much easier done. The Olympic tradition has been to do it around a single city, but I think that is no longer a model that works. That model has had its run, but there is no reason why it can't be changed. The facilities, the way we are building them now don't give any attention to whether they will be useful after the Olympics are done. The New National stadium in Tokyo for sure will be a burden on Tokyo tax payers for years to come. It's all well and good to have strict standards for facilities, but they also need to consider the sustainability and their usefulness after the Olympics.
I think a lot of minor sports depend heavily on the Olympics for their existence. In order for athletes to fully commit their time in those sports, the Olympics has to exist as it is the big stage they need in order to gain financial support. Not all sports depend on the Olympics though. For example, bicycle road racing (it is the sport I'm most familiar with) has many prestigious races throughout the year and some of them equal or even transcends the Olympics in prestige. The Olympics is still very important, but it's not the end of the world if it doesn't take place. Same cannot be said for a lot of other sports if the Olympics no longer existed. It could be devastating for those sports and could end careers of legions of athletes. Those sports need to think about their heavy dependency on the Olympics and how to become more independent. If more sports are less dependent on the Olympics, the Olympics will not have so much power over them. The way things are now, their is so much power and money concentrated on the Olympics and that's not a healthy thing. That concentration of money and power breeds corruption within and wherever the Olympics takes place. Instead of it being about moneymaking only for those few involved, it should be about the people; the athletes, the audience, and the people who will live with the heritage (new facilities & infrastructure) long after the event is over. It's a sporting event with high entertainment value, but it shouldn't negatively affect the people where it takes place. For most of us, it's just something to pass the time once every 4 years. It should be something we can all be positive about if it's going to continue to exist.
In order not to keep repeating failures like this (whether the Tokyo Olympics does take place or not, the damage has already been done), we need to rethink what the Olympics is. I like to think that the Olympics is not only a sporting event, but a way to help developing nations. Instead of having Olympics in overbuilt cities, I think it would make more sense to have them in nations that could benefit more from having new sporting facilities built. Also, instead of having the Olympics take place in one city, it would be better to have it in the whole country or even numerous countries in the same region. So it could be like instead of having the Nairobi Olympics, it could be the Kenya Olympics or the East Africa Olympics. Building all the necessary facilities just in one city can be a huge burden on that city, but if you spread it around a country or region, it could be much easier done. The Olympic tradition has been to do it around a single city, but I think that is no longer a model that works. That model has had its run, but there is no reason why it can't be changed. The facilities, the way we are building them now don't give any attention to whether they will be useful after the Olympics are done. The New National stadium in Tokyo for sure will be a burden on Tokyo tax payers for years to come. It's all well and good to have strict standards for facilities, but they also need to consider the sustainability and their usefulness after the Olympics.
I think a lot of minor sports depend heavily on the Olympics for their existence. In order for athletes to fully commit their time in those sports, the Olympics has to exist as it is the big stage they need in order to gain financial support. Not all sports depend on the Olympics though. For example, bicycle road racing (it is the sport I'm most familiar with) has many prestigious races throughout the year and some of them equal or even transcends the Olympics in prestige. The Olympics is still very important, but it's not the end of the world if it doesn't take place. Same cannot be said for a lot of other sports if the Olympics no longer existed. It could be devastating for those sports and could end careers of legions of athletes. Those sports need to think about their heavy dependency on the Olympics and how to become more independent. If more sports are less dependent on the Olympics, the Olympics will not have so much power over them. The way things are now, their is so much power and money concentrated on the Olympics and that's not a healthy thing. That concentration of money and power breeds corruption within and wherever the Olympics takes place. Instead of it being about moneymaking only for those few involved, it should be about the people; the athletes, the audience, and the people who will live with the heritage (new facilities & infrastructure) long after the event is over. It's a sporting event with high entertainment value, but it shouldn't negatively affect the people where it takes place. For most of us, it's just something to pass the time once every 4 years. It should be something we can all be positive about if it's going to continue to exist.
Comments
Post a Comment