Following an initially positive response to the announcement that the 2018 winter Olympics will be held in Pyeongchang, some South Korean press has begun reporting on some possible negative sides of this event. For instance, one article analyzed the games from a geopolitical perspective, and argued that it will be challenging to host the game in the context of the likely geopolitical realities of the year 2018. And in one opinion piece, the estimated economic benefits of the games have been questioned, economic benefits that, according to industry groups, are expected to be in the tens of billions of dollars (or tens of trillions of won).
The 2010 winter Olympic games were held in Vancouver, Canada, and Canadians saw first hand the true costs of hosting such games.
As in Korea, Canadian business groups saw the Vancouver Olympics as an opportunity to make money. But in July 2010, 5 to 6 months after the Vancouver games were finished, a Canadian tax payer's organization was calling for the full accounting of the costs and benefits of the games. It therefore seems that government officials in Vancouver and British Columbia have taken a long time to fully make public the costs of the 2010 games. Granted, it is probably difficult to estimate the true costs of hosting an Olympic event, particularly when accounting for investments in infrastructures that can continue to serve after the games are finished. But one article provides some surprising details about the sources of public financing for the games, and disturbingly, it seems that the government of British Columbia increased its Olympics spending at the same time that it decreased spending on health care. And though it is still today difficult to find a complete cost-benefit account of the 2010 Vancouver games, an analysis of these games produced in 2006 by an economist from Canada's Queen's University concluded that the games would result in a net cost to the public of over 100 million dollars. Finally, in the Washington Post, just prior to the 2010 games, a British economist from London provided some sobering information on the financial burden borne by that city as a result of the up-coming 2012 Olympics.
It also seems that the benefits and costs of the Vancouver Olympics were not shared equally among people in the Vancouver area. The Vancouver Olympics were held on Aboriginal lands that were never ceded to the Canadian government. The Aboriginal owners of these lands saw very little benefit from the games. Furthermore, there is a large homeless and low-income population in Vancouver, and some argued that the billions spent on the Olympics should have been invested in housing and treatment programs for homeless people. Some also argued that the city of Vancouver was trying to hide its homelessness problem from the people who came to see the games.
Finally, there may have been a major safety problem with some of the sporting infrastructure that was built for the Vancouver Olympics. Sadly, just before the games began, Nodar Kumaritashvili, a luge racer from the Republic of Georgia, crashed during a training exercise on the Vancouver Olympics luge track. After losing control of his luge, he flew out of the track, struck a steel pillar located nearby, and died. Though Nodar's death was ruled an accident, an investigation by Canadian journalists revealed that questions had been raised about the safety of the track by professional athletes who had been asked to evaluate it. But it seems that not all of the issues raised by these athletes were addressed by the officials responsible for the Olympic luge event.
In spite of all these negative aspects of the Olympics, I remain in favour of holding such games. I see them as a fun and positive opportunity for bringing together people from all parts of the world. But I am an idealist, and I would like to see Olympic games bring benefits to all people living where they occur. And so, in light of what happened in Canada, I humbly offer the following advice to the Korean government as preparations are being made for the Pyeongchang Olympics...
First of all, Koreans must understand that Olympics are likely to bring more financial losses than gains to their country. This is OK, as there is value to holding the games in spite of this. However, the expenses of the games should be shared fairly among Koreans, and should not be paid for with money that is needed for more important matters, like health care or other essential services or infrastructure.
Secondly, in order to maximize the benefits to Koreans of the Olympic games, it should not be assumed that the sporting infrastructure that will be built for the games will by itself bring financial benefits after the Olympics are finished. Rather, in preparing for the Olympics, investments should be made in roads and in other infrastructures that will clearly be of benefit after the games are finished.
Thirdly, if lands must be acquired for the construction of the Olympics sporting infrastructure, land-owners must be compensated generously, at rates that are higher than market value, taking into account not only the value of the land, but also all losses of future revenue that the sale of the land represents for the original owners. In this manner, no one will be impoverished because of the Olympics, and all those directly affected by the hosting of the games will benefit.
And finally, the safety of the Olympic sporting infrastructure must be rigorously evaluated by athletes themselves. All safety concerns raised by athletes should be addressed diligently by the relevant sporting organizations. Furthermore, the organizers of the Pyeongchang Olympics should be aware of accidents that have occurred during prior Olympic events, like the accident involving Nodar Kumaritashvili at the Vancouver games, and heed the lessons learned as a result of these unfortunate events.
No comments:
Post a Comment