Who benefits?
The Rio Olympics came to an end on 21 August. They went on with a lot of fanfare and excitement. Many games were played and for the seventeen or so days that it lasted the world was engaged in watching sports that were healthy as opposed to concerning itself with refugee crises, drone strikes and Donald Trump. The world got to take a much needed break from itself and that’s a good thing.
However these games came at a cost, a cost that was borne by the people of Brazil both financially and politically. The Olympics took place under serious corruption scandals in the awarding of contracts for the games. These scandals almost toppled the government two years back with massive protests as impeachment proceedings started against President Rouseff. This, coupled with Brazil suffering from its worst economic recession since the 1990s, did not bode well for them as a nation.
Beyond the much needed break from real life politics, which in the best of times is quite morbid, the Olympics is an international event that brings the world together. With 207 nations and 11,000 athletes participating an event like this is nothing short of a show of a united presence of the world in something that is purely positive.
The cost on the other hand may make one question the practicality of such an event every four years and if the practicality cannot be questioned then atleast the desire of a city to hold the Olympics can.
Any city that decides to host the Olympics incurs a very serious cost in the arena of infrastructure; which includes and is not limited to massive sports stadiums, airports and accommodation to name just a few. And the flip side of the story is that the infrastructure created just for a two weeks event will go to waste, as there is no practical utility, similar sports events are unlikely to be held in the same venue and the same influx of tourists is not likely to be expected.
It’s true that cities that have held the Olympics in the past have been able to make money out of it through advertisements and marketing but more often than not cities have incurred massive losses and at times bankruptcy.
The Montreal Olympics of 1976 cost almost one billion dollars and it took decades for the city to balance its books again. The Sydney Olympics of 2000 left the city two billion dollars in the red and the latest Rio Olympics have already cost a staggering 11.6 billion US dollars. Considering that there have already been major corruption scandals with regard to the games chances are matters were not managed transparently and Rio will not be able to recover the financial cost borne by its tax payers.
The question that arises in this matter of the Rio Olympics and its cost is that is it fair for a nation’s leadership, whose primary function is to work for the betterment of its citizens, to spend the taxpayer money with such brazen ease on two weeks of games? Are the people of Brazil so well endowed in funds and comfort that spending billions on games does not leave schools and hospitals neglected?
In case the leadership of a nation does find itself wealthy enough to indulge in such extravagance is the cost not high enough to justify a referendum in which the public at large is asked whether or not they are willing to spend their tax money on the Olympics? After all millions did come out and protest against the games in Brazil.
If we take our example the chief minister of Punjab came under severe criticism for his mass transit projects. Hundred thousand plus people benefit daily from this mass transit system but regardless of the benefits the public have questioned whether or not public funds could be better utilised.
In this light my view on the subject is that history has numerous examples of the downfall of states due to wasteful spending and if the leadership of a state choses to do so, should they be allowed to?