Olympics?

[observer]

Is it true, that the Government were advised by their experts, that the economic and social benefits of the Olympic bid would be negligable?

[Matty]

Olympics have economic benefits?

 

I thought it was a prestige thing.

[Paul Kennedy]

Seems so Observer, this from the Daily Telegraph:

 

Ministers pressed ahead with the bid, despite being shown a strategy document entitled The Game Plan, which found little evidence that the event would be good for the economy or encourage more people to play sport.

 

Report authors, which included leading economists and civil servants, concluded hosting the Olympics would only be beneficial to the UK by providing a morale-boosting national celebration.

 

But just months after the findings in 2002, the Government backed the bid claiming it would increase sports participation and regenerate East London.

 

Stefan Szymanski, a professor at Cass Business School said: "This was a robust report that showed why we should not bid for the Olympics but it was an inconvenient truth.

 

"The justification for bidding should have been based on evidence placed in the public domain. Instead key evidence was suppressed or ignored."

 

The Game Plan report was the result of nearly 12 months research by a group of ten experts and was meant to provide a framework for sports police in the forthcoming decade.

 

But critics claim it was quietly forgotten by those who did not want opposition to the bid.

 

Chief author John Clark said: "We concluded that countries should host the Olympics only for reasons of national celebration because the economic rationale is weak."

 

The cost of the Games has so far tripled from ?2.4 billion to ?9.3 billion and ?550 million has been diverted from grassroots sports to the Olympics. Arts organisations also claim they are missing out on funding.

 

 

Wonder what would happen if we told the IOC that the UK was skint and that it would all have to be scaled down, using existing venues etc. to come within the original ?2.4 billion budget.

[P J]

"Wonder what would happen if we told the IOC that the UK was skint and that it would all have to be scaled down, using existing venues etc. to come within the original ?2.4 billion budget."

 

I would love this to happen, perhaps people may then get some perspective about the importance of sport when compared to real life problems or indeed successes. The Olympics used to be synonimous with true sporting values as the rings emblem denotes but now, as in all popular sport, it is just seen as an opportunity for a few to make immoral profits. Why should winning 2 races at an Olympics get you a Damehood when many, less high profile, real heroes do great things their whole lives without an iota of recognition from the powers that be?

[observer]

I doubt many places outside London, as with Beijing and Athens will witness any direct economic/social benefits - we can watch it on TV with the rest of the world.

[Paul Kennedy]

Good post PJ. And you are right Observer. Given the dramatic increase in costs, it seems rather than bringing benefits, it will result in important deserving causes being deprived of money. This country is massively in debt, those debts will increase substantially over the next few years, those debts will have to be paid off, the Olympics should not be adding to those debts. But then I guess for some people and organisations debt levels are unimportant when there are egos to be stroked.

[observer]

Perhaps debt will be our legacy?!