Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   Was anyone here hoping that the Olympics would bring much-needed economic and social benefit to Rio? If so, I'm afraid I have some bad news for you   ( espn.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Rio, Olympic, Brazil, Brazilian Olympic Committee, Brazilian Postal Service, São Paulo, Olympic medalist, Olympic medal  
•       •       •

1116 clicks; posted to Sports » on 12 Aug 2017 at 11:06 AM (18 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



37 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-08-12 09:14:39 AM  
Say it isn't so!
 
2017-08-12 09:16:26 AM  
Shaking down Ryan Lochte can only keep the lights on for so long.
 
2017-08-12 09:18:06 AM  
The 2016 Summer Games were supposed to bring Rio and Brazil to new financial and athletic heights. What's left behind? A city and country shrouded by corruption, debt and broken promises.

So, nothing's changed then.
 
2017-08-12 09:26:58 AM  
How do people thing a few-weeks event is going to bring all that much to any country in the long-term?  It makes no sense.
 
2017-08-12 09:33:59 AM  
The second Olympics you host is the money-maker, they just have to wait their turn again
 
2017-08-12 09:45:36 AM  
A handful of wealthy people became wealthier. That's the way is always works.
 
2017-08-12 11:11:56 AM  
Good read.

Just pick one permanent site per continent and let the countries split any profit or costs and be done with this nonsense.

Oh wait, graft, corruption, bribes, etc.
 
2017-08-12 11:17:35 AM  
Quick get my fainting couch.
 
2017-08-12 11:22:29 AM  
Hosting the Olympics is like most other projects like this.  great support from those who will tremendously profit.  Then they have to develop support from the population by conning them with phony promises of a wonderful future.  They offer hope for a better future and hope is the key to the con.
 
2017-08-12 11:32:59 AM  

downstairs: How do people thing a few-weeks event is going to bring all that much to any country in the long-term?  It makes no sense.


The amount of infrastructure needed to host an Olympic games, in theory, should be able to be translated into economic success later on - you need to move 10,000 people an hour, on time and safely, you need to deal with massive security, buildings to hold 10,000+ spectators, etc., for a 2 week period but the facilities are permanent, so a month later you can hold concerts in the buildings, or a new business can open along the transportation lines, etc.

In reality? Eehhhhhh....
 
2017-08-12 11:42:49 AM  
Anybody that thinks the Olympics bring a long-term economic benefit is an idiot.
 
2017-08-12 11:48:01 AM  
I think I read the exact same afticle about Athens, Sarajevo, Turin, Sochi....etc.

The Olympic Village and the venues always wind up looking like a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

It's astounding that the planning for these structures never includes plans for what to do with them after the Olympics are over.
 
2017-08-12 12:24:49 PM  
The problem is that the Olympic movement started to be seen as some kind of jumper cable to launch a city to greatness, when it should be something that travels to the already great cities. I think the Barcelona games are the only ones to really launch a B-class city to another level of global recognition. That's why they're giving Paris and LA games at the same time now. They're both world-class cities which already show their ability to function as global centers of sport, art, industry, and commerce day-in and day-out. They don't need to build twenty new stadiums, a whole new suburb, subway lines, etc., etc. in order to prove that they're world-class cities. Like in LA, except for some of the temporary venues for the more obscure events, all the other stadiums and infrastructure were already planned and being built.
 
2017-08-12 12:25:46 PM  
The Olympics needs to be in a rotating cast of like five cities that can support it with minimal construction- LA, London, Rome, Tokyo, Toronto, maybe Sydney.
 
2017-08-12 12:27:11 PM  
If your city didn't have the infrastructure and demand to fill giant stadiums all over the place before the olympics, it's not going to AFTER the olympics either.

There's not too many cities in the world capable of that.  But that's the only places olympics should be held.

Why cities are willing to go broke and then decay over the olympics I'll never understand.
 
2017-08-12 12:28:38 PM  
Nope. I was just hoping to watch the Olympics. and I did. No social change hopes busted here.
 
2017-08-12 12:33:56 PM  
Some food for thought:

Award to the COUNTRY, not the city.  Then you have multiple cities sharing the burden.  It's easy enough for close cities (like a bunch of big cities in south California or NYC and Washington D.C. in the case of the USA) but you could easily have soccer in one city, swimming in another city, track and field in another, etc.  No one needs to build anything!

The cities don't even have to be close.  Generally no athletes or commentators are cross-sport, there's no need to have everyone in the same exact place (except the opening ceremony.  And I'm sure we could figure out something for that.  Maybe gather in one place for a day and then fly away).  You could have some sport in New York City and another in Denver and a third in, say, Dallas.  No one builds anything, all the participating cities get their share of economic benefit and no one has to spend much of anything except a little extra for security.
 
2017-08-12 12:49:30 PM  

jake3988: Generally no athletes or commentators are cross-sport, there's no need to have everyone in the same exact place (except the opening ceremony.  And I'm sure we could figure out something for that.  Maybe gather in one place for a day and then fly away).  You could have some sport in New York City and another in Denver and a third in, say, Dallas.  No one builds anything, all the participating cities get their share of economic benefit and no one has to spend much of anything except a little extra for security.


You're missing two things. Well, one thing, really: the "spirit of the Olympics" is athletes from different sports coming together. That's the crux of the Opening and Closing Ceremonies and the parade of athletes. If the Opening Ceremonies are in D.C., and the first round of chessboxing competition starts the next morning in Phoenix and the prelims of the kayak tug-of-war are on the Snake River in Idaho at noon, those athletes aren't going to be at the Ceremonies. The more you disperse the events, the less comprehensive the Opening and Closing Ceremonies can be.

The other thing is that the model you describe is essentially a series of discrete World Championships. Swimming already has annual World Championships; so does track and field and gymnastics, etc. etc. etc. If all the swimming is in Dallas and all the track stuff is in Boston and all the gymnastics is in Miami, how would an Olympic year be any different from any other year? Once again, it is the symbolism of all the athletes from all the sports, all in one place that makes the Olympics unique.
 
2017-08-12 12:55:21 PM  

Incorrigible Astronaut: The Olympics needs to be in a rotating cast of like five cities that can support it with minimal construction- LA, London, Rome, Tokyo, Toronto, maybe Sydney.


Why not just Athens? Every 4 years, go to Greece.

The weather's nice, the statues look cool, there's a little historical context...
 
2017-08-12 01:04:24 PM  
They can't even guarantee that LA won't be on the hook for god knows how much in cost overruns. The Olympics should pretty much die off, tbh
 
2017-08-12 01:09:34 PM  

jake3988: If your city didn't have the infrastructure and demand to fill giant stadiums all over the place before the olympics, it's not going to AFTER the olympics either.

There's not too many cities in the world capable of that.  But that's the only places olympics should be held.

Why cities are willing to go broke and then decay over the olympics I'll never understand.


The cities aren't willing to go broke but the city's leaders and their buddies sure are willing to pocket a shiat ton of money in the process.

Still glad the citizens of Boston saw through this bullshiat and shouted down a Boston olympics.
 
2017-08-12 01:15:02 PM  

ElwoodCuse: They can't even guarantee that LA won't be on the hook for god knows how much in cost overruns. The Olympics should pretty much die off, tbh


The whole thing epitomizes supply side economics Imo.  You get a bunch of people convinced of the nobility and importance of it, thus getting cities to pay for your facilities and athletes to compete for free and you pretend the existence of the capital is going to drive growth.  In the end the only people who win are the grifters who have the least invested.
 
2017-08-12 02:10:39 PM  

Uzzah: You're missing two things. Well, one thing, really: the "spirit of the Olympics" is athletes from different sports coming together.


I gave you a "funny" vote for this.
 
2017-08-12 05:26:58 PM  

Uzzah: jake3988: Generally no athletes or commentators are cross-sport, there's no need to have everyone in the same exact place (except the opening ceremony.  And I'm sure we could figure out something for that.  Maybe gather in one place for a day and then fly away).  You could have some sport in New York City and another in Denver and a third in, say, Dallas.  No one builds anything, all the participating cities get their share of economic benefit and no one has to spend much of anything except a little extra for security.

You're missing two things. Well, one thing, really: the "spirit of the Olympics" is athletes from different sports coming together. That's the crux of the Opening and Closing Ceremonies and the parade of athletes. If the Opening Ceremonies are in D.C., and the first round of chessboxing competition starts the next morning in Phoenix and the prelims of the kayak tug-of-war are on the Snake River in Idaho at noon, those athletes aren't going to be at the Ceremonies. The more you disperse the events, the less comprehensive the Opening and Closing Ceremonies can be.

The other thing is that the model you describe is essentially a series of discrete World Championships. Swimming already has annual World Championships; so does track and field and gymnastics, etc. etc. etc. If all the swimming is in Dallas and all the track stuff is in Boston and all the gymnastics is in Miami, how would an Olympic year be any different from any other year? Once again, it is the symbolism of all the athletes from all the sports, all in one place that makes the Olympics unique.


To say nothing of the logistical problems that would come up when a swimmer in NYC wants to bang a fencer in Atlanta, or a gymnast in Houston wants to fark that hot beach volleyball chick playing in LA. Thats the real spirit of the Olympics. That and gorging on Big Macs by the dozen.
 
2017-08-12 05:29:50 PM  

ChrisDe: Anybody that thinks the Olympics bring a long-term economic benefit is an idiot.


I know its not much....probably the only one but...

http://utaholympiclegacy.org/park/
 
2017-08-12 05:37:36 PM  

Gonz: Incorrigible Astronaut: The Olympics needs to be in a rotating cast of like five cities that can support it with minimal construction- LA, London, Rome, Tokyo, Toronto, maybe Sydney.

Why not just Athens? Every 4 years, go to Greece.

The weather's nice, the statues look cool, there's a little historical context...


Bankrupted them even further the last time they held it
 
2017-08-12 07:26:15 PM  

Incorrigible Astronaut: Gonz: Incorrigible Astronaut: The Olympics needs to be in a rotating cast of like five cities that can support it with minimal construction- LA, London, Rome, Tokyo, Toronto, maybe Sydney.

Why not just Athens? Every 4 years, go to Greece.

The weather's nice, the statues look cool, there's a little historical context...

Bankrupted them even further the last time they held it


Yeah, but that's the point- they've already made the initial capital outlay. Going forward, it's basically just maintenance costs. Multiple Olympics give them a chance to recoup the initial investment plus some.
 
2017-08-12 07:41:25 PM  

Gonz: Incorrigible Astronaut: Gonz: Incorrigible Astronaut: The Olympics needs to be in a rotating cast of like five cities that can support it with minimal construction- LA, London, Rome, Tokyo, Toronto, maybe Sydney.

Why not just Athens? Every 4 years, go to Greece.

The weather's nice, the statues look cool, there's a little historical context...

Bankrupted them even further the last time they held it

Yeah, but that's the point- they've already made the initial capital outlay. Going forward, it's basically just maintenance costs. Multiple Olympics give them a chance to recoup the initial investment plus some.


It's not like dusting off your wedding china. All the stuff they built is basically ruined now.
 
2017-08-12 07:58:26 PM  

ChrisDe: Anybody that thinks the Olympics bring a long-term economic benefit is an idiot.


As I say in every Olympics thread, the only likely benefit from hosting the Olympics is very long-term marketing.  It puts your city in a very elite class.  50 years from now, more than a few people will be looking through an almanac and conclude that Rio de Janeiro is the pre-eminent city in South America because it once hosted the Oympics.  (Seriously this is probably the only thing St. Louis has going for it.)

Also, in spite of what happened, and with all the dramatics going in, they did manage to pull it off with only minor issues.  Smart investors who can overlook the media sensationalism might be a bit more inclinded to trust the city with more reasonable projects.

Are these small marketing benefits worth the "investement"?  Will they ever be? Probably not.
 
2017-08-12 08:29:34 PM  

aerojockey: ChrisDe: Anybody that thinks the Olympics bring a long-term economic benefit is an idiot.

As I say in every Olympics thread, the only likely benefit from hosting the Olympics is very long-term marketing.  It puts your city in a very elite class.  50 years from now, more than a few people will be looking through an almanac and conclude that Rio de Janeiro is the pre-eminent city in South America because it once hosted the Oympics.  (Seriously this is probably the only thing St. Louis has going for it.)

Also, in spite of what happened, and with all the dramatics going in, they did manage to pull it off with only minor issues.  Smart investors who can overlook the media sensationalism might be a bit more inclinded to trust the city with more reasonable projects.

Are these small marketing benefits worth the "investement"?  Will they ever be? Probably not.


Exactly why I put my money into Sarajevo futures
 
2017-08-12 09:29:39 PM  

Foxxinnia: The problem is that the Olympic movement started to be seen as some kind of jumper cable to launch a city to greatness, when it should be something that travels to the already great cities. I think the Barcelona games are the only ones to really launch a B-class city to another level of global recognition. That's why they're giving Paris and LA games at the same time now. They're both world-class cities which already show their ability to function as global centers of sport, art, industry, and commerce day-in and day-out. They don't need to build twenty new stadiums, a whole new suburb, subway lines, etc., etc. in order to prove that they're world-class cities. Like in LA, except for some of the temporary venues for the more obscure events, all the other stadiums and infrastructure were already planned and being built.


Seoul.

The Seoul Olympics really did make Worst Korea what it is today.
 
2017-08-13 12:08:55 AM  
Brazil had the double whammy of hosting the world cup and Olympics in a short time. It is a wonder they have anything left.
 
2017-08-13 12:29:03 AM  

Foxxinnia: I think the Barcelona games are the only ones to really launch a B-class city to another level of global recognition


Atlanta shortly before '96:
img.fark.netView Full Size


Atlanta after:
img.fark.netView Full Size


In every way, the Olympics put the city on the map. Made money off of it, too. Atlanta was so crass in its advertising it set up the onerous rules that have ruined all future Olympics in the name of funneling profits to the IOC instead of the host city. But whatevs, it worked for us. The region has pretty much tripled in size since '96 and the Olympics was the catalyst that got the momentum started.
 
2017-08-13 01:06:17 AM  
Even the iconic soccer stadium, the Maracanã, has been vandalized

i.ytimg.comView Full Size

Heeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyy, Maracanã.
 
2017-08-13 02:16:34 AM  

Cheeseface: Foxxinnia: I think the Barcelona games are the only ones to really launch a B-class city to another level of global recognition

Atlanta shortly before '96:
[img.fark.net image 792x528]

Atlanta after:
[img.fark.net image 850x566]

In every way, the Olympics put the city on the map. Made money off of it, too. Atlanta was so crass in its advertising it set up the onerous rules that have ruined all future Olympics in the name of funneling profits to the IOC instead of the host city. But whatevs, it worked for us. The region has pretty much tripled in size since '96 and the Olympics was the catalyst that got the momentum started.


Holy cow Atlanta's downtown is ugly.  Even with two new skyscraper they built since the 96 Olympics.  It could just be the angle but it looks like a slightly bigger Tulsa or Peoria from that view.
 
2017-08-13 04:34:19 AM  
One of the worst parts of the Rio debacle is everything surrounding the golf course. It's still struggling to stay operational. Who would have ever thought building an elite golf course in a country where there's practically no golf interest, and tearing up the local ecosystem was a good Idea?

Let's just say my employer is Olympic associated.  I remember being shown some sort of "inspirational" video about the challenges of building that course in Rio and showing how awesome it was going to be. Sure was fun watching all of that wildlife being displaced, knowing full well that there was no chance in hell that course would be able to sustain itself once the games left.
 
2017-08-13 11:54:44 AM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: The 2016 Summer Games were supposed to bring Rio and Brazil to new financial and athletic heights. What's left behind? A city and country shrouded by corruption, debt and broken promises.

So, nothing's changed then.


I thought for sure THIS would be the Olympics that really helped the host city.

/Not really.
//Has it ever?
///Oblig 3rd
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report