Discussions of the
legacy of the London 2012 Olympics have been an ever-presented theme of
commentary since Sebastian Coe first made it a distinguishing feature of the
UK's bid to host the Games.
Coe said:
We can no longer take it for granted that young people will choose sport. Some may lack the facilities. Or the coaches and role models to teach them. Others, in an age of 24-hour entertainment and instant fame, may simply lack the desire. We are determined that a London Games will address that challenge. So London's vision is to reach young people all around the world. To connect them with the inspirational power of the Games. (Singapore, 6 July 2005)
Ever since these
stirring claims were first made, advocates have turned to the L-word every time
a shot-in-the-arm of enthusiasm has been needed.
It is not difficult to imagine why such support is
needed. Increasing numbers of commentators are questioning why London, a
city with no obvious problem attracting tourists or business would, is to align
itself with "the Olympic movement, a juggernaut controlled by an
unaccountable sporting elite".
The original London costing was a little over £3
billion, and this grow exponentially up to £9 billion, before a
new government insisted on a more suitably austere budget by changing virtually
nothing (and actually doubly the funding for the 'Slumdog' opening ceremony).
The figures usually cited for the 2012 Games are
misleading, as they do not include the substantial investment needed to
transform the UK's elite framework to its current position as one of the
leading half dozen sporting nations in the world. In the four years prior
to the Athens Games (2000) the UK government invested £70.1 million. With a haul of 30 medals (9 Gold
medals), which means that each medal cost the tax-payer about £2.3 million
each. For
the Beijing Games investment increased to £75 million, and the total medals won
increased to 47 (£1.6 million per medal).
The pattern of spending is revealing: the more money
invested, the more medals Britain wins. This has been likened to a type
of ‘sporting arms race’, as
governments in pursuit of more medals invest further into elite sport because
rival nations do, which in turn ratchets up further investment. So it was
that UK Sport, the government agency responsible for distributing elite
sport funding, was allocated £304.4 million for the Olympic funding cycle
2008-2012.
This figure is unprecedented, and signals a remarkable
commitment to the cause of elite sport.
Why?
Even outside of difficult times, we might expect the
case for such expenditure to be clear and compelling. We sports nuts are
often mocked for losing our sense of proportion, but even we would hesitate
from ranking a few medals about hospitals and schools.
Well, some of us would. There are others whose
uncritical love of all things Olympic reminds of Alan Partridge's justification of the outrageous cost of building a model of his own
house in BBC Television Centre by betting:
"If the British public were asked whether they would prefer an Alan Partridge Christmas special to 14 kidney dialysis machines, the response would be unanimous."
The clearest statement of justification for
investment in elite sport in the UK comes from a document called Game Plan, which was
published in 2002. In
fact, its defence is the only one I have been able to find from central
government. Perhaps no further statement is necessary, as Game Plan's
claims continue to be made and - with a few exceptions - repeated by the media.
It is claimed that elite sport produces a number
of benefits to the wider population:
1. a ‘feelgood factor’ (among the population)
and a positive ‘national image’ abroad;
2. economic benefits (from spending after
events and so on);
3. as a driver for grass-roots participation.
As for the claim that Olympic Games make financial
sense, for the moment I will simply cite the New
York Times:
- The 1992 Barcelona Games left Spain
with a $6.1 billion debt;
- Athens estimated that the 2004 Games would
cost $1.6 billion, but in the end it was $16 billion;
- It took Montreal nearly 30 years to pay off the
$2.7 billion it owed after the 1976 Summer Games.
It doesn't follow that London will suffer a similar
fate. But it's worth bearing in mind, isn't it?
So, what about the other claims? Will the
Olympics develop positive feelings across the nation and around the world?
If it does, do these feelings balance the significant financial
investment?
And will the Games drive up mass participation?
I will discuss these two vital questions in subsequent
blog entries. In the meantime, it would be fascinating to hear your
thoughts.
Comments very welcome!
