Opulent Waste

"Overruns in the Games have historically been significantly larger than for other types of megaprojects, such as infrastructure, construction and dams. For a city and a nation to decide to host an Olympic Games is to take on one of the most financially risky types of megaprojects that exists."
University of Oxford paper

"The projects associated with the Games typically seem to be white elephants, such as poorly used sporting facilities associated with idiosyncratic Olympic sports."
Paper published by University of California, Berkeley

Athens, Greece: Many former Olympic venues are now unused and abandoned.The Olympic pool is drained, pathetic, a waste.

Montreal neglected to install adequate waste disposal systems for the city, preferring to continue befouling its environment because, ostensibly it was an expensive enterprise the city saw no need to tackle. On the other hand, the prospect of hosting the 1976 Olympic games was immensely appealing. And it took the city 30 years to pay the debt it acquired to enable the building of its Olympic stadium. What Montreal experienced is something that every city since has come across, but it hasn't stopped the appeal.

The Atlanta Olympics, twenty years later came in at over $2-billion, when its budget was thought to have been adequate, but was overshot by 147%. In London's 2012 Games estimated costs doubled, and its final bill was roughly $15-billion, an amazing burden to the city.  Cities that could in reality, ill afford to host the Olympics requiring a commitment to build stadia, road access to far-flung events, athletic competitors' housing and all the infrastructure required for a successful event, still line up faithfully for the privilege.

None of them likely had to compensate for the disadvantage of hosting a Winter Olympics in what is a semi-tropical environment in Sochi. Moreover, building in an area that was formerly swampland. And where all facilities had to be built for the event, in a city where none existed. An area of the country, furthermore, where the residents have to cope with electrical shortages, and where many have no access to potable water, plumbing and other modern taken-for-granted services.

These Sochi Winter Olympics were chosen to take place in a geography that is blighted with its proximity to a hostile region replete with Islamist jihadis who hate every vestige of the government, considering themselves to be oppressed and vowing to take revenge against a country whose government is always locked in conflict with fanatical Muslims whose idee fixe is to itself dominate by proclaiming triumphant victory over the godless Russian Christian state.

Those hoping to receive the blessing they seek to host Olympic events try to negotiate decision in their favour by presenting themselves as prepared and willing to do whatever it takes to mount a successful Olympics event. They also lowball the costs involved when they submit to the International Olympic Committee. Presenting the view that private investment can be assured to pick up part of the costs involved.

Invariably that private investment fails to materialize to the extent that the host country would ideally hope for. And who ends up picking up the tab for all the building is, needless to say, the taxpayer. Which goes a long way to explaining why there are always organized protests from concerned citizens when they learn that their elected officials plan to make a bid.

A study of 17 Olympics undertaken by the University of Oxford resulted in a paper that concluded the Games manage to overshoot budgets for both the summer and winter games "with 100% certainty". The study found the average cost overrun to be in the realm of 179%. For the London games the private developers counted on to fund the $1.5-billion Olympic village failed to materialize, and the taxpayer came to the rescue.

The International Monetary Fund conducted a study in 2010 called The Olympic Trade Effect, finding that host nations did increase exports  by 30%, but unsuccessful bidders experienced a comparable rise in exports, so what does that mean? Perhaps that in the euphoria of bidding, a promise is made internally to relax trade and integrate economies between neighbours through free trade deals.

Finally, the transit infrastructure that cities build for the games, should have been built for practical purposes benefiting the city, but the huge sport related structures? They go unused. What can a city do with a velodrome once the Games have concluded? And so too with all the other expensive, showy sport venues, buildings whose capacity and cost to operate simply do not equate with the normal needs of even a large city.

Earlier this year, Reuters photographer David Gray captured the current state of Beijing's Olympic facilities. Here's what he found.

And then there's the morality involved. When municipalities, provinces and states decide to put their money in prestige, nothing more nothing less it represents an ephemeral illusion of success. The temporary spotlight on the presumed wealth and stability, technology and enterprise of a country. Which, in many instances, has a population which could use that money being promised for the sports arena for social welfare programs.

Over a quarter of Brazilians live in poverty, yet its successful bid for the Rio de Janiero Games in 2016, proposing a budget of $15-billion, represents an uneasy reality in human values and aspirations and the sometimes unfortunate results.