Chessic-Adventures

The Sydney Olympic games for Australia was a disaster for taxpayers and the Commonwealth games was a big white elephant costing tax payers an estimated 750 million dollars. So who made the money from it? Apart from all of the Government consultant parasites and potato heads getting their cut, to this day nobody really knows and politicians just answer this question using generalisations rather than facts.

What perturbss me about this is how our politicans squirm at having to fork out money to fix problems with railway crossings and motorways, but have no trouble finding hundreds of millions needed to fund these non sporting events which don't make any money.

I would never visit the Chinese Olympics. For a start it is full of pollution thanks to the fossil fuel industries. Secondly China has a bad track record when it comes to human rights abuses and displacing people, confiscating land from its own people, et cetera.

Firegoat7

Hi Chessic,

You question the relevance of elite sports to everyday society. A very worthy and admirable consideration in my opinion.

I would suggest that elite sport is a necessary spectacle designed to distract people from reality. Let me begin by making a quick list of what a country/government gets out of elite sport.

1. Builds Nationalism
2. Pacification of the viewer
3. Networks and connects global elites
4. Celebrates the culture of individual excellence
5. Confirms the ideological myth that competition brings out the best in people
6. Creates celebrity status and cults
7. Distracts the masses
8. Sells product for companies
9. Reinforces hard work and best ideology
10. Provides space for advertising

Now of course, I like most people really do enjoy the odd sporting spectacle. My only defence is that like most Westerners I have been conditioned to appreciate its value. But when you really examine it properly, why do people devote so much time to observing institutionalised sport?

All I can suggest is that somehow collectively we imagine that they are achieving for us, even though we know this is not really the truth.

Let me just add this fact as a side point. On May the 2nd 1919, Sir Walter Baldwin Spencer was elected President of The Victorian football league. A world famous anthropologist, and biologist, the appointment of Spencer historically reflected a different time.

Nowdays anybody who wants to be a President of the AFL needs to either have a business, marketing or management degree or be an ex player who subscribes to the theories of industry.

My point is that elite sport is an industry and as such it internalises and reflects the values of industry much more then the values of sport.

cheers Fg7

Gumshoe Mystery

I disagree with this. In terms of the Olympics, the World Cup and other big multi-national sports events, the citizens of each respective country are being represented by those elite few who are capable enough to compete at such a high level. Therefore, we usually give our wholehearted support behind them in the hope that they might achieve something.

In regards to the OP's post about the lack of money brought in by hosting big sports events; they bring in lots of money through advertising, tourism, transport, the press, TV deals... Hosting a big sports event boosts the economy exponentially as for a period of time you have the entire focus of the world on your country.

Iconoclast

LOL There you have it - it is all about money. Maybe it is a money earner for the host - for the host! For everyone else must be a money pit. Since the Olympics, World Cup et cetera, are only good for ONE host at a time, the whole exercise must be a net loss for the world.

I don't have a TV, but do occasionally get to see some big sports on one. I must say that I enjoyed watching the Matildas (amateurs) recently, much more than the Socceroos (professionals), in the World Cup. Money ruins sport.

__________________
The individual is hopeless without the group.
The group is hopeless without its individuals.

Gumshoe Mystery

A loss for the world yes, but not much of one. Just the cost of sending the athletes and coaches to the host nation and paying for accommodation. On a national budget, it's nothing

I wouldn't say money ruins sport because if there was no interest in the sport then there would be no money in it. Take the English Premier League for example, when they started to get the big TV deals in the 90s, it was because there was a growing public interest in the league. As a result, more money was pumped in to the game as companies knew their advertisements would be seen on a national and international scale. Of course there will always be problems when money is involved but I feel that overall, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages for this example.