The Pros And Cons Of Olympism
In the year 776 BC, a simple competition of endurance and strength, dedicated to the Olympian gods, birthed a tradition. This tradition that has stayed around and extended nearly 3000 years is known as the Olympic Games. Olympism is defined as “a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles” (olympic.org, 2017). However, the standards set forth by this definition of olympism have called the IOC into question. The issue is that the IOC needs to generate revenues while upholding Olympic
…show more content…
Olympic resistance by citizens has become more conventional. Early in 2016, Stockholm and Oslo cancelled their bids for the 2022 Olympics because their cities showed such little support for hosting. Cities like Krakow, Davos, Barcelona and Quebec City all went through similar scenarios, as their governments lost a well needed referendum. The lack of social respect from the IOC for cities during the bidding process, building process and post Olympics, contradicts the social and ethical respect value olympism uphold. A quote from Christopher Gaffney, who is a known advocate for the anti-Olympic movement, states “Wherever we see an educated population that has a relatively free press, relatively high levels of governmental transparency, and that has put it up for a referendum, in every one of those cases we have seen the Olympics be rejected” (Gaffney, 2016). Why are cities so reluctant to take on the burden of hosting the games? The answer is simple, economics. To begin, the more cities that are bidding, the more money that the IOC is being offered and the more leverage they gain. Second, during the building process, citizens are fully aware that their city is spending money on building things such as new sporting facilities, rather than housing people sleeping in the streets or better education. Lastly, structures that were used for the Olympics hardly ever get reused and infrastructure upgrades such as roads, are all upgraded to accommodate Olympic traffic, and are not necessarily all that beneficial to regular city traffic.
Olympic resistance by citizens has become more conventional. Early in 2016, Stockholm and Oslo cancelled their bids for the 2022 Olympics because their cities showed such little support for hosting. Cities like Krakow, Davos, Barcelona and Quebec City all went through similar scenarios, as their governments lost a well needed referendum. The lack of social respect from the IOC for cities during the bidding process, building process and post Olympics, contradicts the social and ethical respect value olympism uphold. A quote from Christopher Gaffney, who is a known advocate for the anti-Olympic movement, states “Wherever we see an educated population that has a relatively free press, relatively high levels of governmental transparency, and that has put it up for a referendum, in every one of those cases we have seen the Olympics be rejected” (Gaffney, 2016). Why are cities so reluctant to take on the burden of hosting the games? The answer is simple, economics. To begin, the more cities that are bidding, the more money that the IOC is being offered and the more leverage they gain. Second, during the building process, citizens are fully aware that their city is spending money on building things such as new sporting facilities, rather than housing people sleeping in the streets or better education. Lastly, structures that were used for the Olympics hardly ever get reused and infrastructure upgrades such as roads, are all upgraded to accommodate Olympic traffic, and are not necessarily all that beneficial to regular city traffic.