Subscribe to Intelligent Life

RECENT ARTICLES


BOOKS
Adventures in human waste
Is "2666" a masterpiece?
Proust is damn funny
Talking to Rivka Galchen
Michael Portillo on the Booker
Marilynne Robinson's "Home"
James Joyce's censor
"Get Your War On"
Meeting Marilynne Robinson
Vocab 2.0

MUSIC
The playlist: Alfred Brendel
New boss of Proms
The playlist: Leonard Cohen
My "Rock Band" band
Orchestral pleasures in Abu Dhabi
Sparks perform everything
Rock critics we like
Letting Bach breathe (audio)
Bryce Morrison on Hattogate
Music as installation art

FINE & PERFORMING ARTS
Dutch skaters at auction
Iraq on stage
Richard Serra at auction
"Dr Atomic"
Regional auctions
Haunting Spiegelworld
The rare and the beautiful
Lucian Freud and Francis Bacon
A happening in Paris
Richard Long

FILM
"Local Hero"
"The Women"
Will your vote count?
Q&A with Bond's producers
Locarno film festival
"Brideshead" redeemed
Tribeca Film Festival
Watching "Shine A Light"
Martin Sheen for president
Smoking on screen

FOOD & DRINK
London's best retail wine list
Heston Blumenthal loves sherry
Cheapskate cuisine
Drinking during the financial crisis
In search of cebiche
Delicious calves-foot jelly
Dining: Hélène Darroze
And with the snail porridge...
Glass warfare
Finally, a quiet meal

ISSUES & IDEAS
The election in a graphic
Teaching spin in school
Prince Charles at 60
In the air with Obama and McCain
Tinkering outside the tower
City of the future
The IVF revolution
Money talk
Freedom to intervene
Audio: why pet food matters

PHILANTHROPY
Partying for charity
On the road with Shakira
Europe gets the bug
Does one abused woman = 100 abused puppies?
In pursuit of community
Robin Hood and the ARK
Your money or your life?
Donating to Afghanistan
One cause, or many?
Embedded giving

PLACES
7 wonders: Ilse Crawford
Diary: Estonia
Diary: Grant Park, election night
London, part 3
London, part 2
America's election from London
Diary: "Real" America
Diary: Nebraska
Diary: Reporting in Tokyo
American ghosts at Gettysburg

SPORT
Arsene Wenger
An Olympic game
Roof down, sales up
Cricket at Lords
Federer: dreaming of mastery
EURO 2008
World's sexiest brakes
Olympic memorabilia
Watch cricket
Marathon training

TECHNOLOGY
Nightmarish video games
Just a little gratuitous violence
Downloadable gaming
Fancy weapons
Gaming: jump on board
Warping time and cheating death
Shall we play a game?
Nintendo, me, and your mom
Hanging out in Liberty City
The high art of "Bioshock"

MISCELLANY
Insider trading: woodland
Me and my Manolos
One perfect: grey
A woman's guide to men's jeans
Enigma's secret twin
He hates perfume
Joining the circus
Bad taste is a good thing
How to wear sunglasses
TV, theatre, pop culture critics

FEEDING THE OLYMPIARCHS

STEPHEN HUGH-JONES | ON LANGUAGE AND LIFE


The London Olympic games will break several world records, predicts Stephen Hugh-Jones. Including those for wasting public money, overrunning budgets, inconveniencing the public, and indulging the arrogance of the organisers ...

Special to MORE INTELLIGENT LIFE

Is there no limit to the arrogance of those who run the Olympic Games? To their gargantuan appetite for public subsidy? To the readiness of politicians to feed them? London is to host this showcase of commercial athletics in 2012. And from what we've seen so far, the answer to all these questions is no.

Baron Pierre de Coubertin, who dreamed up the Olympics in 1894, had a noble slogan, Not the winning but the taking part. At their Lausanne HQ, his successors still prattle of the Olympic movement. In the puff-pastry of their website, you'll discover that it even has an ethos, Olympism.

All those words are empty breath. Since the 1980s, when an ingenious Spaniard, Juan Antonio Samaranch, began to build a one-time sporting event into a giant sports conglomerate, the driving force of the Olympics has been money.

Other people's money, mostly. And its misuse.

I don't mean the idiot sums—that's their choice—poured in by sponsors and broadcasters: over 2001-04, $1.4 billion and $2.2 billion respectively for the International Olympic Committee alone, the top level of the Olympic ziggurat. Nor yet back-stage corruption, claimedly sorted out since Samaranch's time, when some IOC members readily sold their support as rival cities vied to host the games.

No: the issues are public money and its open mis-spending. All at the cost of taxpayers in cities, and thus countries, daft enough to want the Olympics, and unlucky enough, in the characteristically Olympian wording of Lausanne, to be "granted" them. Montreal only recently paid off the last of the bonds it issued to finance its games in 1976. God knows—the Greeks certainly don't—when the final costs of the 2004 Athens Olympics will be met.

Leave aside the Chinese puzzle of Beijing 2008, London 2012 will surely go the same way. In 2005, its public budget was, supposedly, £3.4 billion: £2.4 billion for the games themselves, a further £1 billion for "regenerating" their main site in dumpsville east London. Last March the government confessed to £9.3 billion: regeneration apart, £5.5 billion for Britain's new 'Olympic Delivery Authority', plus a fat £2.8 billion for "contingencies". Few but believers in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy doubt that that £2.8 billion will be called on. And very probably exceeded.

For what? Notably, a shiny new 80,000-seat stadium, whose estimate is so far 75% up to £500 million, and whose later use, even when seating is cut to 25,000 after the games, no one knows; an architecturally cutting-edge (ie, budget-busting) aquatics centre; a stadium for track cycling, a sport for which few Britons give a damn. Oh, and £600 million of security.

Plus, noisily puffed to justify the rest, sundry public improvements, mainly in transport. Fair enough—except that most reflect not London's long-term needs but the two-week demands of a Swiss-based athletics multinational.

It is cheerily admitted today that the 2005 figures were a support-catching sham. Even the new ones draw such airy comments, this one on the cost of the aquatics centre, as "I'm not sure where we are going to finish up ... the important thing is that it does the job that is required." So much for cost-control.

You might find arrogance enough in all that. You would be wrong. This week we learned some travel plans. Spectators' cars, let alone parking, will simply be banned from anywhere near the eight main competition sites, to make these "the greenest games in modern times ... We want to accelerate the shift to public transport seen in London in recent years." And who, pray, are the "we" that have taken it upon themselves thus to nanny the British nation out of its cars? The voice of God? The Queen? The government? No. The Olympic (sic) Delivery Authority.

Happily for some, it has a further transport scheme: one lane in several key roads across London will be reserved for the 80,000 (re-sic) true Olympians; competitors, media folk and, top of the heap, officials and IOCocrats. Who, while we hoi polloi pollute the air with redoubled fumes from our gridlocked cars, will no doubt be proceeding greenly on foot, by bicycle or in rickshaws.

No doubt. Funny that Nanny Green also plans to order a private fleet of 3,500 new cars.

Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious Delicious
  • Digg Digg
  • StumbleUpon StumbleUpon
  • Reddit Reddit
  • Facebook Facebook
  • Add new comment
  • Printer-friendly version



FROM THE MAGAZINE



Our Autumn 2008 issue is on newsstands now


Read the complete text of the Summer 2008 edition


Read the complete text of the Spring 2008 edition


Read the complete text of the Winter 2007 edition


Read the complete text of the Autumn 2007 edition

RECENT COMMENTS

  • Proust
  • Sam Adams, It is exactly
  • krakow
  • Dr. Atomic
  • Great article!
  • Gladwell
  • But why . . . ?
  • Bravo! Although some may
  • Simply think aloud
  • Dutch romanticism


RSS: Fullposts

MIL

Intelligent Life | Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2008 | All rights reserved | Disclaimer | Terms and conditions | Intelligent Life magazine FAQs