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…
values and standards. However, there have been some contradictions between the IOC and the Olympic values. Some examples of these contradictions regarding revenues and their values are their sponsorships/partnerships with companies that do not uphold the value of living a healthy lifestyle, their broadcasting rights limiting the educational value of olympism, and their decreased public support due to the lack of social responsibility and respect.
Compared to past years of the games, many cities have been getting cold feet and struggled to receive public support for hosting the games.
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.
(chicagotribune.com).
The solution to this is ingenious. The IOC’s noxious business regime is built on the foundation of cities bidding against one another to be the host city. The obvious solution would be to avoid the rising Olympic resistance and choose one city to be the permanent host for the Olympic Games. Without the bidding from different cities, the IOC could look more into expanding their broadcasting revenues and depend on that aspect for a large part of their revenue. In an article by Megan McArdle, a writer for the Chicago Tribune, explained that “Picking a single city sidesteps this problem. And making it Athens sidesteps a lot of the problems of choosing a city...Greece, unlike the rest of the international community, really does have a uniquely strong claim to become the permanent host of the Games.” (McArdle) This would minimize the cost to build these structures repeatedly and would increase human capital in the delegated city.
One of the major revenues of the IOC is the selling of broadcasting rights of the Olympic Games. It’s also, according to the Olympic Marketing Fact File, “the most significant factor in the communication of the Olympic ideals worldwide” (Olympic Marketing Fact File, 2017). They go on to claim that they designed their broadcasting marketing strategy “to maximize exposure across all available media platforms and exploit latest media technologies.” This should go hand in hand with the Olympic principle that “Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example, social responsibility, and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles” (Olympic Charter, 2015). So why then is the IOC also banning people from posting videos from the Games on YouTube, Snapchat, and the like? In a document published by the IOC for the 2016 Rio Games, they state that video taken from within the Games is prohibited from being broadcast on live-streaming applications (IOC Social and Digital Media Guidelines, 2015). This directly contradicts the Olympic principle that people should be able to watch the games to receive the educational value of a good example, even if they can’t afford the cable required to do so through NBC, the United States’ official broadcaster.
The solution however is relatively simple. Allow private citizens to share their personal videos from the Olympics so that others may also experience the Games. In an article by the Washington Post, Abby Ohlheiser finds that the strict broadcasting rules the IOC has in place “will restrict the use of one of the best tools out there to appreciate some of the Summer Games’ most popular sports” (Ohlheiser, 2016). Although the IOC is trying to protect its commercial viability in order to continue making money selling broadcasting rights, ultimately, they are shortening the reach the Olympics could have and not allowing the exposure of the “good example” of the Olympic athletes to be maximized. By allowing NBC to continue broadcasting the Games but also allowing private people to post their own videos, the IOC would still be able to retain financial independence while also allowing more people to be able to view the games at a very low cost.
The IOC has a history of accepting sponsorship from companies that promote unhealthy products, such as Coca-Cola, Cadbury, and until recently, McDonald's (“The olympic partner programme, 2017). These partnerships are in direct contradiction with olympism advocating sport as a tool to develop health. This belief can be found directly in the definition of olympism when it is described as “balancing the qualities of body, will, and mind” (IOC, 2013b, p. 11). Coca-Cola has sponsored every Olympic Games since 1928 and claims to “refresh Olympic athletes, officials, and spectators with its beverages during the Games” (Coca-Cola, 2017). However, many studies have identified sodas as key contributors to chronic health conditions - most notable obesity and type-2 diabetes (Nestle, 2017). Although McDonald’s pulled their 41 year long sponsorship this year to focus on different priorities, they have paid millions for the publicity associated with the Olympic Games (McDonald’s ends Worldwide TOP Partnership, 2017”). The Olympic mascots, designed to appeal to 5-15 year-olds, are promoting Cadbury chocolate sweets and McDonald’s Happy Meals. This creates an impression on children that a diet full of fat and sugar is associated with athletes they may idolize. A review by the Food Standards Agency has concluded that junk food promotions directed at children influence their food preferences and consumption, increasing their risk of obesity, diabetes, and other serious illnesses (Neff, 2009). These pairings seem ill-suited considering fast food, alcohol, and sugary snacks are prohibited in the average Olympian’s diet. Yet food stands in the Olympic stadium are selling burgers, candy, and beer buffets officially sanctioned by the Olympic brand (Cooke, 2012).
Although the IOC argues that the Games simply could not continue without corporate help, there are ways to engage with commercialism to generate revenues while remaining true to the original founding of the IOC and the Olympic Games. If the IOC is going to continue to accept backing from “Big Food”, sponsorship should only be accepted from those that promote the Olympic ideal of healthy living. The IOC should adopt sponsorship selection criteria that would require the exclusion of food and beverage companies strongly associated with high calorie brands and products. (Baytor, 2012). Although 45% of marketing revenues are obtained through sponsorship (“Revenue Sources”, 2017), a report released by the Children’s Food Campaign estimates that only 2% of the IOC’s total income comes from the category of food and soft drink partners. The IOC could choose to cut these sponsors if they would be willing to reduce the cost of the Olympics by not housing as many IOC officials in elaborate hotels and reducing the amount of events and freebies (“The Obesity Games, 2012). If the Olympics can’t continue to operate without sponsorship from companies that sell unhealthy products, then it has become too inflated and priorities need to be adjusted to stay true to their values and beliefs.
Though the IOC has to retain financial independence through commercialism in order to uphold Olympism and the associated Olympic values of excellence, friendship, and respect, some of the deals in place such as sponsorships, broadcasting rights, and the opportunity to host the Olympics seem to be in direct opposition to the Olympic values which is has sworn to uphold. Whether it be the fact that the Olympics have been sponsored by unhealthy brands for years, the revenue from broadcasting the Olympics often is so strict that some are unable to access the Games, or that hosting the Olympics is often so detrimental to a city that people no longer want their city to bid to have the Olympics at home, the main objective of the IOC’s to be fiscally independent is coming at a cost - the idea that the IOC may no longer be promoting the Olympic values and is actually going directly against Olympism very meaning to be a “philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind.”
values and standards. However, there have been some contradictions between the IOC and the Olympic values. Some examples of these contradictions regarding revenues and their values are their sponsorships/partnerships with companies that do not uphold the value of living a healthy lifestyle, their broadcasting rights limiting the educational value of olympism, and their decreased public support due to the lack of social responsibility and respect.
Compared to past years of the games, many cities have been getting cold feet and struggled to receive public support for hosting the games.
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.
(chicagotribune.com).
The solution to this is ingenious. The IOC’s noxious business regime is built on the foundation of cities bidding against one another to be the host city. The obvious solution would be to avoid the rising Olympic resistance and choose one city to be the permanent host for the Olympic Games. Without the bidding from different cities, the IOC could look more into expanding their broadcasting revenues and depend on that aspect for a large part of their revenue. In an article by Megan McArdle, a writer for the Chicago Tribune, explained that “Picking a single city sidesteps this problem. And making it Athens sidesteps a lot of the problems of choosing a city...Greece, unlike the rest of the international community, really does have a uniquely strong claim to become the permanent host of the Games.” (McArdle) This would minimize the cost to build these structures repeatedly and would increase human capital in the delegated city.
One of the major revenues of the IOC is the selling of broadcasting rights of the Olympic Games. It’s also, according to the Olympic Marketing Fact File, “the most significant factor in the communication of the Olympic ideals worldwide” (Olympic Marketing Fact File, 2017). They go on to claim that they designed their broadcasting marketing strategy “to maximize exposure across all available media platforms and exploit latest media technologies.” This should go hand in hand with the Olympic principle that “Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example, social responsibility, and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles” (Olympic Charter, 2015). So why then is the IOC also banning people from posting videos from the Games on YouTube, Snapchat, and the like? In a document published by the IOC for the 2016 Rio Games, they state that video taken from within the Games is prohibited from being broadcast on live-streaming applications (IOC Social and Digital Media Guidelines, 2015). This directly contradicts the Olympic principle that people should be able to watch the games to receive the educational value of a good example, even if they can’t afford the cable required to do so through NBC, the United States’ official broadcaster.
The solution however is relatively simple. Allow private citizens to share their personal videos from the Olympics so that others may also experience the Games. In an article by the Washington Post, Abby Ohlheiser finds that the strict broadcasting rules the IOC has in place “will restrict the use of one of the best tools out there to appreciate some of the Summer Games’ most popular sports” (Ohlheiser, 2016). Although the IOC is trying to protect its commercial viability in order to continue making money selling broadcasting rights, ultimately, they are shortening the reach the Olympics could have and not allowing the exposure of the “good example” of the Olympic athletes to be maximized. By allowing NBC to continue broadcasting the Games but also allowing private people to post their own videos, the IOC would still be able to retain financial independence while also allowing more people to be able to view the games at a very low cost.
The IOC has a history of accepting sponsorship from companies that promote unhealthy products, such as Coca-Cola, Cadbury, and until recently, McDonald's (“The olympic partner programme, 2017). These partnerships are in direct contradiction with olympism advocating sport as a tool to develop health. This belief can be found directly in the definition of olympism when it is described as “balancing the qualities of body, will, and mind” (IOC, 2013b, p. 11). Coca-Cola has sponsored every Olympic Games since 1928 and claims to “refresh Olympic athletes, officials, and spectators with its beverages during the Games” (Coca-Cola, 2017). However, many studies have identified sodas as key contributors to chronic health conditions - most notable obesity and type-2 diabetes (Nestle, 2017). Although McDonald’s pulled their 41 year long sponsorship this year to focus on different priorities, they have paid millions for the publicity associated with the Olympic Games (McDonald’s ends Worldwide TOP Partnership, 2017”). The Olympic mascots, designed to appeal to 5-15 year-olds, are promoting Cadbury chocolate sweets and McDonald’s Happy Meals. This creates an impression on children that a diet full of fat and sugar is associated with athletes they may idolize. A review by the Food Standards Agency has concluded that junk food promotions directed at children influence their food preferences and consumption, increasing their risk of obesity, diabetes, and other serious illnesses (Neff, 2009). These pairings seem ill-suited considering fast food, alcohol, and sugary snacks are prohibited in the average Olympian’s diet. Yet food stands in the Olympic stadium are selling burgers, candy, and beer buffets officially sanctioned by the Olympic brand (Cooke, 2012).
Although the IOC argues that the Games simply could not continue without corporate help, there are ways to engage with commercialism to generate revenues while remaining true to the original founding of the IOC and the Olympic Games. If the IOC is going to continue to accept backing from “Big Food”, sponsorship should only be accepted from those that promote the Olympic ideal of healthy living. The IOC should adopt sponsorship selection criteria that would require the exclusion of food and beverage companies strongly associated with high calorie brands and products. (Baytor, 2012). Although 45% of marketing revenues are obtained through sponsorship (“Revenue Sources”, 2017), a report released by the Children’s Food Campaign estimates that only 2% of the IOC’s total income comes from the category of food and soft drink partners. The IOC could choose to cut these sponsors if they would be willing to reduce the cost of the Olympics by not housing as many IOC officials in elaborate hotels and reducing the amount of events and freebies (“The Obesity Games, 2012). If the Olympics can’t continue to operate without sponsorship from companies that sell unhealthy products, then it has become too inflated and priorities need to be adjusted to stay true to their values and beliefs.
Though the IOC has to retain financial independence through commercialism in order to uphold Olympism and the associated Olympic values of excellence, friendship, and respect, some of the deals in place such as sponsorships, broadcasting rights, and the opportunity to host the Olympics seem to be in direct opposition to the Olympic values which is has sworn to uphold. Whether it be the fact that the Olympics have been sponsored by unhealthy brands for years, the revenue from broadcasting the Olympics often is so strict that some are unable to access the Games, or that hosting the Olympics is often so detrimental to a city that people no longer want their city to bid to have the Olympics at home, the main objective of the IOC’s to be fiscally independent is coming at a cost - the idea that the IOC may no longer be promoting the Olympic values and is actually going directly against Olympism very meaning to be a “philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind.”