The games bring the worlds greatest athletes together as the
world watches on, so what is more global that that? Or are the Olympics really
about the athletes?
As the London Olympics are in full flight I am getting the
feeling its becoming less about the athletes and more about exposure.
Coca-Cola has paid more than £150 million ($221 Million AUD)
to have their name as the ‘official drink’ of the games, Omega, Samsung,
McDonalds, Visa and Panasonic the same.
As I watched Michael Phelps win his 18th gold
medal he celebrated in the pool with a giant Omega sign behind his head, then a
McDonalds commercial followed, then a Visa ad, then Harvey Norman and so forth.
I spent more time watching commercials from sponsors than
the event itself.
So while the sponsors shove hundreds of millions into having
their product next to Usain Bolt, Kobe Bryant and Stephanie Rice; it is
predicted the London 2012 games are costing $11 Billion, $43 million on the
opening ceremony alone.
The Olympic games are an event that now only so few
countries will be able to hold in future years. Even the founders of the games,
Greece who last hosted in 2004, will struggle to host again due to their
current bankruptcy. 1992 hosts Spain are facing a similar crisis as their
economy is sliding.
If only countries with a strong economy and no risk of
future debt with suitable resources can only host the games, is it really a
global event?
References:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/367609/20120727/london-2012-opening-ceremony-cost-tickets.htm
http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2012/08/10/1226447/204597-david-rudisha.jpg
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey Will, very strong stand point on the Olympics as a global event. You raised some great questions about the integrity of the games in regard to its economic standpoint. I agree with you, I also believe that the games have become more about the exposure and advertisement that is forced down our throats by the media than the actual athletes themselves. Your statistical were great but could use some more direct referencing. Other than that it was a great post, keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteGreat post Will, a different look at the global event aspect of Olympics, through displaying the facts and the figures that effect the economy, make it a worthwhile read for sure. It is evident that through heavy research you have obtained relevant information, I especially like the historic research on how Spain's economy is now hurting and linking that to the issue of the hosting the Olympic Games.
ReplyDeleteThe advertising figures were also well received.
I really liked where this finished, as i was reading i wasn't sure where you were going. Its very intriguing to look at it from a money stand point. The way it seems to be going, as you said, this event may not be so global after all. The effects of the GFC, i think, have been underestimated, and it will be interesting to say the least, how global events will cope in the future. I look forward to reading more! Only criticism i have to offer is to take a look at the provided e-readings and such for some more 'critical thinking' ideas to ponder over.
ReplyDeleteYou raise some great points about the inequality and unfortunately unavoidable presence of advertisements surrounding the games, your post is informative and entertaining. You may need to re read your posts though before you submit as there is a couple of typos. No real complaints though! Great piece!
ReplyDeleteExcellent point Will.
ReplyDeleteThere is inequality in many other aspects of the Olympic games. It seems that money and a countries resources determine their ability to be successful at the games, and successful at attaining the games. Money comes from both governmental and non governmental organisations, however, as you mentioned sponsorship plays a large role. Sponsorship of athletes allows them to focus on training prior to the games, which helps them be competitive. Non of this however lessens the globalised nature of the Olympic games. It just illustrates that Globalisation is not an equitable transaction.