Jump to content

The myth of the games


NOC

Recommended Posts

When talking olympics with people I often hear 2 frases repeated and accepted by everyone as truth. I however dont know if they are, but it would be nice to find out...So if anyone know the answer to these 2, preferebly with a sourse, that would be great...

1. The city of Montreal is still paying of the dept, generated from the 1976 olympics? True or false?

2. All olympics (sommergames) since 1984 has generated a profit for the host city? True or false?

I hope someone can answer this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2. All olympics (sommergames) since 1984 has generated a profit for the host city? True or false?

I think I know the answer but may be corrected -

Not all cities after 1984 generated a profit. Seoul, Barcelona and Athens generated a loss.

Atlanta was funded by private companies hence no loss on the Games.

Sydney generated a profit of AU$120,000 with a total expendature of AU$3.2 million (US$2.7 million) for the whole Games.

this was also after the Australian Olympic Committee took AU$90 Million profit from the Games. The IOC gave up the profit generated by SOCOG when information came out that SOCOG was having to use its "contigency" money of $15 Million at one point. Pressure was put onto the AOC to also give up its profit and give the money back to the people of Sydney, but it refused to do so. Good thing it did not because the AOC have used the funds from Sydney 2000 very well and generated more sports programs and also donated a huge amount of fundrasing to sports development within Oceania as well.

I am just remembering how Sydney spent US$2.7 / Athens US$10+ and Beijing at US$40+ does anyone know what Londons proposed budget is?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing w/ the profit-and-loss statements of Olympic Games are, outside of US-hosted Games (the one exception might be Sydney), because they rely heavily on gov't and provincial funding, you will never actually hear how much money or whether the Games actually made money.  THe rule of thumb would be: if you don't hear how much money was made, then it definitely registered a minus amount in the ledger books.  

Whereas, as NOC said, because Games in the US barely dip into state or federal funds (well, they do, for security and overtime), US Games try to and, so far, have shown true profits.  It must be an American thing; but there are tons of people in the US who feel they should not bear the burden of something subjective (like a sports festival -- i.e., avoid a Montreal-like 3-generation meltdown)); so US-hosted Games have to rely on private and creative financing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the main myths of the Games is that London will be hosting the Games of the XXVII Olympiad and not the XXX.  Many of you are probably aware of this anomaly but it's strange that the IOC would pretend that there had been more Olympics than there actually have been.  There have been no Games of the VI Olympiad and no Games of the XII or XIII Olympiads.  

Because of the cancellation of Berlin 1916 Summer Games, Stockholm 1912 (Olympics V) skipped straight to Antwerp 1920 (Olympics VII) without renaming Antwerp the VI Olympiad.  Similarly, after Berlin 1936 and the Games of the XI Olympiad both the XII and XIII games in 1940 and 1944 were cancelled and London awarded the XIV and not the XII in 1948.  The Winter Olympics were also cancelled during WWII after Garmisch-Partenkirchen 1936 and the V Winter Olympiad in Cortina d'Ampezzo was cancelled, however, St Moritz was then awarded the V Winter Olympiad in 1948 (without missing any out). So London 2012 is actually the XXVII Olympiad whereas Vancouver is correct to be called the XXI Winter Games.

Is there a reason for this inconsistency?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it has to do with the strict way of numbering the SUMMER Olympiads, since the Olympic Games was supposed to be originally for the summer sports. Guess by tradition, it has to be four years apart regardless on whether the Games are hosted or not. Remember, the IOC didn't really recognize Athens 1906 because I think it was trying to get the Movement from disappearing so soon after getting the Games back into popularity in 1896.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The mid-olympics of 1906.

Around 1000 athletes, from 20 countries (including 17 women) participate in the Games. They were organized by the Greek Olympic Comittee, but IOC didn't approve them.

Many say that the Olympic movement would be different from what we know, after the fiasco of the Games in 1900 and 1904, if there wasn't the organization of 1906.

Link to post
Share on other sites
when looking at a term like "profit" i think its very misunderstood...this is really just a figure that any accountant or financial director can manipulate...i dont think the financial success of any games can be revealed by this figure...i believe sydney was financially succesful..but then athens too claimed to make a profit..however we all know thats not true at all....i dont think any city really wants the games for financial success of profit...the other gains which baron or someone else will explain are and can ba far greater than financial statements that say "profit"....the LA games were a financial success.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it's just that the US just keeps very strict books (and I'm not saying that judgmentally -- look, Lake Placid 1980 was NOT a money-earner for the village of Lake Placid.  The State of New York had to subsidize those Games by kicking in several millions (I think like $30 mil) to put on those Games).  

Unlike, say, the gov't-financed Games of Athens, or Seoul, where a whole nation's pride and honor is at stake, therefore, who cares how the profit-and-loss statement really looks?  Just charge the cost of the subway maybe to the Dept. of Antiquities; or, say, shuffle the cost of renovations of the airports to the Ministry of Defense budget, etc., etc., no one dare take a second look -- BUT so long as the Games look glorious to the outside world; then it's worth the ledger book-magic.

Strangely enough, Beijing seems to be actually watching its budget.  But of course, it was the biggest budget in history to begin with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that Atlanta actually broke just a little over even and walked away with their city debt erased.  And that Sydney did have a bit of debt after it was over but one that is manageable.    

With regards to the 1906 mid games, I do not understand why the IOC does not recognize them.  The 1900 and 1904 games were a disaster and the Athens 1906 games did shore up the Olympic movement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the main myths of the Games is that London will be hosting the Games of the XXVII Olympiad and not the XXX.  Many of you are probably aware of this anomaly but it's strange that the IOC would pretend that there had been more Olympics than there actually have been.  There have been no Games of the VI Olympiad and no Games of the XII or XIII Olympiads.  

Because of the cancellation of Berlin 1916 Summer Games, Stockholm 1912 (Olympics V) skipped straight to Antwerp 1920 (Olympics VII) without renaming Antwerp the VI Olympiad.  Similarly, after Berlin 1936 and the Games of the XI Olympiad both the XII and XIII games in 1940 and 1944 were cancelled and London awarded the XIV and not the XII in 1948.  The Winter Olympics were also cancelled during WWII after Garmisch-Partenkirchen 1936 and the V Winter Olympiad in Cortina d'Ampezzo was cancelled, however, St Moritz was then awarded the V Winter Olympiad in 1948 (without missing any out). So London 2012 is actually the XXVII Olympiad whereas Vancouver is correct to be called the XXI Winter Games.

Is there a reason for this inconsistency?

No, London is hosting the Games of the XXX Olympiad.

The Summer Games are numbered by Olympiads, not like the Winter Games, which are numbered by the amount of times they actually happen.

An Olympiad is a period of time that is 4 years long and the Games are celebrated to mark the beginning of the Olympiad.  This is the way the Ancient Greeks marked it.  There was a 6th, 12th and 13th Olympiad.  There just weren't any games to celebrate those Olympiads.  Its kind of like being sick on your birthday...you didn't celebrate, but you still notched up another number.

So while London is hosting the Games of the XXX Olympiad, you are correct...the games they are plainning will be the 27th time the Summer Olympics have been held.

There is also no such thing as a "Winter Olympiad"...they are officially the Olympic Winter Games.  The IOC's main focus for years were the Games of the Olympiad, and OWG's came about because of the popularity of winter events such as figure skating and hockey, which had originally been tacked on to the Games of the Olympiad, but found their own place in the 1928's.

Another point...the "First" Olympic Winter Games in 1924 in Chamonix were not called that until 1926.  The IOC created the OWG's retroactively after determining that the International Winter Sports Festival was a success and worth doing again as a fully IOC sanctioned event.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...