The Olympics

Dear Reader,

This week I shall be writing about one of the headlines, that shaped the sporting world, the 2016 Olympics shall be held in Rio de Janeiro and not in Chicago. This shall be the first time that the Olympics are to be held in the South American continent, and proves to the world that there is much more the continent then exporting and crime. Brazil will become the sporting destination of the next decade, by hosting the 2016 Olympics and the 2014 soccer world cup. It has been a tough battle for the four potential countries, and the outcome was not cheered by all.

This event is the representation of prestige and shall bring economical uprising to Brazil, but alongside the glory of the event walk many disadvantages, some of which shall be discussed later on. This event shows the world what a powerful country Brazil has become, not only is Brazil the 8th biggest economy in the world, it was the first of the South American countries to rise out of the recession and is already ready for their next coup; hosting two of the major international events.

The Olympics are of such great importance, as the world is trying to recuperate from a global economic downward spiral, countries fought hard in trying to secure the event, in order to assure some sort of economic boost and to show the world they are still on the ball. This was the case of Chicago, the US have suffered greatly from the economic crisis and due to it they have lost some of their statue as the super power, the rest of the world has started to look beyond the American super power. This event would have given them the opportunity to demonstrate that they are still fighting, that they are a link to the world and more than capable to host such an occasion. The Olympics could have been the necessary boost for the US economy, thus Barack Obama flew to Copenhagen to try and sway the IOC into favouring Chicago as a destination, yet unfortunately for the US he was unsuccessful.

The Olympics shall allow the Brazilian economy to grow, through creating jobs, obtaining large building projects that will employ many of people, who shall then in turn spend their wages on the rest of the economy. Projects that have been suspended, such as roads and railways shall be built, and tourist shall be numerous, all factors which shall have a positive effect of a weaken economy. However, for the local people it is not always favourable, having grown up in South Africa I can see the effects that the world cup already has on the country. Prices rise, becoming nearly unaffordable for locals, although the game brings new investments; it also pushes out other investments due to the high prices. All the constructions taken up for the game are not always what is needed for the city afterwards, such as the football stadium in Cape Town, which shall not be hosting any other events after the World Cup, as the locals simply can not afford the price of a ticket.

It is said that politics do not influence the decision of the IOC, however many disagree, the IOC do have a certain political power as their decision shall alter the economy of the country they give the event to. It seems to be the current set of mind to give major international events to emerging economies, as the 2010 soccer world cup was giving to South Africa and the 2014 to Brazil, through this the emerging markets are opening up their boarders and can become interesting partners and allies. The Chicago Tribune however, does not see the benefits that such events create for the global economy, but see it as a revenge process on part of the IOC, due to long-term disagreements with the US leaders.

As this is such an international event I tried to look at a wide array of news coverage on the matter just to get a feel for how the matter is perceived in different countries. Looking at the Chicago Tribune, one gets a feel of how the Americans approach the subject, not only is the paper rather biased, giving a lot of personal insights from the author, claiming that the IOC is abusing the “power” they have “fancies itself a force of global power”, that it is the IOC method of payback: “given the IOC's Byzantine internal politics, its fractious relationship with the country whose companies have been its cash cow”. The Chicago Tribune tried to make it into an anti-American campaign, giving quotes of many unhappy Americans, who feel betrayed by the IOC. Whereas other papers such as the Economist merely stated the facts, the cons and pros of the event. The Swiss newspaper NZZ (which is liberal) headlines read “a slap in the face for Barack Obama”, although generally the article was straight forward, it seemed to be a little harsher then usual, this might be due to the on going conflict with the US government and the Swiss banks. The Daily telegraph as usual enjoyed the gossiping and taking a bias approach on the matter, focusing solely on the American defeat calling it a “humiliation” that Obama’s speech has “backfired spectacularly”.
Unfortunately my Portuguese is not on the level to be able to comprehend their take on the situation, which might have been very interesting, especially since the two countries are not opponents, but neither are they allies.

Till next week all the best,

Stella




Sources used:

The Economist:
Rio’s sporting carnival: http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14576023#


NZZ (Neue Zuericher Zeitung)
Ohrfeige für Barack Obama
http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/sport/aktuell/die_olympischen_sommerspiele_2016_finden_in_rio_oder_madrid_statt_1.3767205.html


Times Online
Snub for Barack Obama as Rio hosts 2016 Olympic Games
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article6859325.ece#


The Daily Telegraph
Rio de Janeiro wins right to stage 2016 Olympic Games
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/6255448/Rio-de-Janeiro-wins-right-to-stage-2016-Olympic-Games.html


The Chicago Tribune
Chicago's loss shows bitter rivalry between USOC and IOC
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-olympics-hersh-04-oct04,0,7643606.column