7 ms·

This seems like the worst outcome for Japan and best outcome for the IOC. Japan incurs all the cost of hosting the Olympics while reaping none of the tourist ye

This seems like the worst outcome for Japan and best outcome for the IOC. Japan incurs all the cost of hosting the Olympics while reaping none of the tourist yen, while the IOC gets paid the broadcasting fee. At this point the optimal outcome for Japan is probably to cancel the game altogether. Is it an example of the political pull of the IOC? The Asian culture of face-saving? Or plain old sunk cost fallacy? I honestly don't know.

jelling 6y ago
Perhaps it gives the population something to look forward to.
- marakv2 6y ago
  We arnt looking forward to it. We never really wanted it. Edit: sorry that's a bit generic, but I have never heard anyone say they are looking forward to the Olympics locally, pre covid, and post, I hear a lot of people wtf'ing it's going ahead. It's completely anecdotal, but as a private teacher at 4 different schools I have a wide pool.
  - tkgally 6y ago
    I live and work in the Tokyo area, and my anecdata are similar to yours. Of the hundreds of people I know through work or private life, exactly two ever mentioned looking forward to the games, most seemed uninterested and passively resigned, and a few have been actively opposing them. The percentages would probably break down somewhat differently, though, if I knew more people in the travel industry or people whose primary information feed comes from the mainstream media, which were enthusiastic about the games up until COVID.
  - toyg 6y ago
    I think this is now the standard reaction of first-worlders whenever something like this is planned for their city. Everybody knows the costs are massive (and often being siphoned off by corrupt people) and the upsides very few; most people are unlikely to attend the events (they are typically very expensive); and the pain of construction will add misery to their everyday life for years in advance. The press typically reverts this outlook by going full-jingo once the event happens, and then "you" will be "proud" that your homeland could be so excellent and well-organized and now attracting even more tourists. Expect a horrifying overflow of basic nationalism. For Japan this will now be harder, but I'm sure a narrative will eventually emerge about resilience in the face of adversity and "showing the world" some of that proverbially-unbreakable Japanese spirit. And you won't have to endure a month of terrible commuting.
    - speeder 6y ago
      I am Brazillian and we had that reaction too. The World Cup was more popular, but still wasn't widely accepted as some people think it would be. The Olympics was outright hated, so many stupid shenanigans happened there (like demolishing a NEW stadium, to build another identical one, just because the seatings positions were slightly bad). So no, you don't need to be first world to recognize how stupid hosting the Olympics is.
      - dfxm12 6y ago
        just because the seatings positions were slightly bad). A lot of the IOC (and probably FIFA) requirements seem silly. Pretty soon, we're going to see the Olympics go back and forth between LA and Paris just because they're the only cities that naturally have the required infrastructure, unless there's a change.
        speeder 6y ago
        Not if they keep changing stuff. The stadium in question was the one for bicycle racing, it was built for the Pan-American games. Right after those games, IOC decided to change the percentage of seats allowed behind pillars. So they concluded the solution, instead of reducing amount of seats or something, was to demolish the entire stadium, and build a new one with the support pillars in new locations.
        toyg 6y ago
        You are not looking at this from the right perspective. Nobody really cares about pillars and views, but a lot of people do care about construction money. Reasons will be found.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    It would not surprise me if only 10% of the population cared. But 10% is quite a large number for any event, and sure to bring in quite a bit of profit. Name me a concert that 10% of the population claims to wish to attend? The majority indeed does not care, but a sufficiently high number does that it is profitable.
    - dagw 6y ago
      London apparently saw a drop in spending at shops, restaurants and tourist destinations over the Olympic summer due to so many people (both tourists and locals) fearing the chaos the Olympics would cause and deciding to stay away
- hrktb 6y ago
  People have been memeing "Stop it! Stop it" [0] for a while now. To take with a shovel of salt of course, but that feeling of just getting shafted by the corrupt politicians and the IOC, and just not wanting more money to go into the pit is echoed by the people in my small sphere. [0] https://www.cnnphilippines.com/sports/2020/3/4/tokyo-2020-olympics-akira-prediction.html https://www.cnnphilippines.com/sports/2020/3/4/tokyo-2020-ol...
  - DocTomoe 6y ago
    I doubt you will find any Olympic Games in the last 40 sears that did not attract people being opposed to them. In the end, it binds resources some thing may be used more efficiently elsewhere, as if the money is gone after spending it.
    - hrktb 6y ago
      In this case in particular, what started as mostly a joke got fueled by the cost paid for postponing the event, coupled with the eventual penalties that would apply if the event was canceled altogether. There was a heated moment the first time the gov had to decide wether to swallow the sunk costs and just cancel everything, or only postpone, hoping the situation would be better after a few months. The first set of damages have already be paid, so now whatever the course of events, Olympics will be a pretty bitter subject for most people I think. Edit: postponing was not penalties per se, more contracting and maintenance costs. Fixed the wording,
SiVal 6y ago
I think you mean "tourist dollars", not "tourist yen". The former, both literally and metaphorically, is what they're losing and what they would presumably prefer. The latter is much less attractive--akin to moving money from one kimono sleeve to another--but without foreigners, "tourist yen" is all they end up with.
- anm89 6y ago
  Like the dollars all those Europeans are bringing? I get that there is a grain of truth in what you are saying but this is mostly an outdated mode of thinking. The Japanese economy has plenty of access to $ denominated capital markets if they wanted $.
  - SiVal 6y ago
    Yes, Europeans bring the metaphorical "dollars" I referred to. And there is no "if they wanted $". They do. And I mean earning dollars, not buying them on international markets. I have access to capital markets, too, and I can buy any currency I want, but buying money is not the same as earning it.
    - anm89 6y ago
      They want investment. They aren't facing a shortage of any specific currency. As i mentioned, if their shortage was currency specific, they have access to capital and forex markets. I will repeat. The Japanese don't have any specific need for dollars that they can't fulfill on a balance of payments basis. Some countries do. But Japan doesn't.
      - SiVal 6y ago
        You don't seem to understand the difference between earning dollars and exchanging currency. I'm not claiming they face a "shortage of a specific currency". I'm saying they want to earn money from foreign customers, not exchange currency with them, and that (nationally) they would prefer earning money from foreign customers to earning it from each other. Earning money from foreign customers gives the Japanese as a nation purchasing power of future foreign assets, such as oil, food, or land outside Japan. It makes their country wealthier in the world. Exchanging currency does no such thing, because it gives the foreigners an equal claim against future Japanese assets: no net gain in wealth. Selling to each other also does not give them (as a nation) the increased buying power outside Japan that selling their goods and services for foreign dollars gives them.
CaptainZapp 6y ago
What's the alternative, really? Essentially letting billions of $ of infrastructure go to complete waste? That said, I agree with you. Then again the host city always pulls the shit end of the stick when organizing such an event.
- latch 6y ago
  Sunk cost fallacy
- h0nd 6y ago
  Maybe it would be an option to NOT treat every foreigner as a possible threat, but as a welcomed guest to visit Japan and the Olympic games. edit: I am surprised to see YC attracting people supporting discrimination.
  - SonicTheSith 6y ago
    You are aware that we have a global pandemic right? So if even you won't treat everyone as a possible threat, the chance that 'guests' bring in the virus is high. Since Japan is an island, most people will fly there by plane and most people will be inside the plane for at least 6 hours+. Even if at half capacity the chance that there is 1 infectious person/ person becoming infectious is high. All Tests are snapshots of whether or not your infectious at time X. Quick tests are only valid for 6 hours since they only check whether you are infectious. PCR Tests are more accurate but take some time to get the results. Thus there is a chance to get infected afterwards and before the flight. So all 'guests' would need to go into quarantine for 5 days just to make sure that there is no infection. Who is going to house them? Is it feasable to have large numbers of foreigners quarantined in Japan? Will they follow the rules? Will they were a mask? Looking at the news and the rule bending rule breaking that is happening in the west regarding the pandemic gives litte hope. Furthermore, to protect your own country from a new outbreak is it really a wise decision to add another thousands of people into an already overcrowded city? EDIT: Adding to that, since the whole world is not yet vaccinated mutations are a real threat, even in the US they found 2 new mutations in the past weeks. The later even seems to be immun to the vaccinations. Thus to not have to cancel the whole event and all 'guest' bookings one could also argue that the best way is to minimize the risk, chaos, loss. Now everyone can plan around the restrictions and further cancelations are less likely.
offby37years 6y ago
2036 Tokyo sympathy bid.
reedf1 6y ago
I visited Japan a few months before the pandemic hit and it is really sad thinking back now. There was a real effort from the airport in Tokyo to as far away as Osaka and Kyoto accommodating for foreign languages and really showing off Japanese culture. At the time it felt like I was being practised on - so sad to see all that effort go to waste.
- DocTomoe 6y ago
  That also was related to the general idea that the Tokyo Olympics were meant as a Japan Rebirth after Fukushima, much like the 1964 Olympics were considered a Rebirth of a modern Japan after WW2.
  - ttanimichi 6y ago
    Yes, but, the PREVIOUS Tokyo Olympics was also cancelled due to WW2. (originally scheduled to be held in 1940 and rescheduled to be held in 1964.)
  - fomine3 6y ago
    This is far-fetched argument by who involved Tokyo Olympic. If they really think to support Tohoku area that damaged from tsunami/nuclear event, Tokyo, the most crowded and developed city, shouldn't be chosen.
Xixi 6y ago
My understanding is that the problem are broadcasters and sponsors. If Japan pulls the plug, they are likely on the hook to pay back billions to broadcasters and sponsors. So thinking purely in terms of USD, it might actually be cheaper to press forward than to cancel the games.
LatteLazy 6y ago
I don't know why they didn't just delay it for 4 years and push the rest back effectively missing 1 games.
- stevegalla 6y ago
  What about the athletes who have been training for the event? Some of them won’t get a chance to participate in 4 years time.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    That's a fair point, but they might just be put of luck. They'll have to live with world championships and similar. You can't exactly run a project at a multi billion dollar loss just because you want to be fair to a small number of people sadly.
    - stevegalla 6y ago
      > You can’t exactly run a project at a multi billion dollar loss What is the cost of running the games though? I assume (with absolutely no evidence) that the costs would be heavily skewed towards facilities setup and infrastructure. That’s a sunk fixed cost. I’m sure there is a large security and labor cost when the games are going on. I assume this would be a variable cost that would be reduced without spectators. If the majority of the cost has already been spent and it’s a relatively small (perhaps less than a few hundred million dollars) cost to conduct the games, why not go through with it? Maybe running a limited games could be a compromise? I suppose all of the Tokyo 2020 merchandise is already written off and useless. I acknowledge the whole calculus changes with public health and the pandemic. I’m addressing money as the issue. Anyways I’m a huge fan of all Olympic events, and the Olympics is the only sporting event(s) I watch. I look forward to them when they come, so I’ll definitely be sad if it was all cancelled, and I’m definitely biased.

jelling 6y ago

Perhaps it gives the population something to look forward to.

marakv2 6y ago
We arnt looking forward to it. We never really wanted it. Edit: sorry that's a bit generic, but I have never heard anyone say they are looking forward to the Olympics locally, pre covid, and post, I hear a lot of people wtf'ing it's going ahead. It's completely anecdotal, but as a private teacher at 4 different schools I have a wide pool.
- tkgally 6y ago
  I live and work in the Tokyo area, and my anecdata are similar to yours. Of the hundreds of people I know through work or private life, exactly two ever mentioned looking forward to the games, most seemed uninterested and passively resigned, and a few have been actively opposing them. The percentages would probably break down somewhat differently, though, if I knew more people in the travel industry or people whose primary information feed comes from the mainstream media, which were enthusiastic about the games up until COVID.
- toyg 6y ago
  I think this is now the standard reaction of first-worlders whenever something like this is planned for their city. Everybody knows the costs are massive (and often being siphoned off by corrupt people) and the upsides very few; most people are unlikely to attend the events (they are typically very expensive); and the pain of construction will add misery to their everyday life for years in advance. The press typically reverts this outlook by going full-jingo once the event happens, and then "you" will be "proud" that your homeland could be so excellent and well-organized and now attracting even more tourists. Expect a horrifying overflow of basic nationalism. For Japan this will now be harder, but I'm sure a narrative will eventually emerge about resilience in the face of adversity and "showing the world" some of that proverbially-unbreakable Japanese spirit. And you won't have to endure a month of terrible commuting.
  - speeder 6y ago
    I am Brazillian and we had that reaction too. The World Cup was more popular, but still wasn't widely accepted as some people think it would be. The Olympics was outright hated, so many stupid shenanigans happened there (like demolishing a NEW stadium, to build another identical one, just because the seatings positions were slightly bad). So no, you don't need to be first world to recognize how stupid hosting the Olympics is.
    - dfxm12 6y ago
      just because the seatings positions were slightly bad). A lot of the IOC (and probably FIFA) requirements seem silly. Pretty soon, we're going to see the Olympics go back and forth between LA and Paris just because they're the only cities that naturally have the required infrastructure, unless there's a change.
      - speeder 6y ago
        Not if they keep changing stuff. The stadium in question was the one for bicycle racing, it was built for the Pan-American games. Right after those games, IOC decided to change the percentage of seats allowed behind pillars. So they concluded the solution, instead of reducing amount of seats or something, was to demolish the entire stadium, and build a new one with the support pillars in new locations.
        toyg 6y ago
        You are not looking at this from the right perspective. Nobody really cares about pillars and views, but a lot of people do care about construction money. Reasons will be found.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  It would not surprise me if only 10% of the population cared. But 10% is quite a large number for any event, and sure to bring in quite a bit of profit. Name me a concert that 10% of the population claims to wish to attend? The majority indeed does not care, but a sufficiently high number does that it is profitable.
  - dagw 6y ago
    London apparently saw a drop in spending at shops, restaurants and tourist destinations over the Olympic summer due to so many people (both tourists and locals) fearing the chaos the Olympics would cause and deciding to stay away
hrktb 6y ago
People have been memeing "Stop it! Stop it" [0] for a while now. To take with a shovel of salt of course, but that feeling of just getting shafted by the corrupt politicians and the IOC, and just not wanting more money to go into the pit is echoed by the people in my small sphere. [0] https://www.cnnphilippines.com/sports/2020/3/4/tokyo-2020-olympics-akira-prediction.html https://www.cnnphilippines.com/sports/2020/3/4/tokyo-2020-ol...
- DocTomoe 6y ago
  I doubt you will find any Olympic Games in the last 40 sears that did not attract people being opposed to them. In the end, it binds resources some thing may be used more efficiently elsewhere, as if the money is gone after spending it.
  - hrktb 6y ago
    In this case in particular, what started as mostly a joke got fueled by the cost paid for postponing the event, coupled with the eventual penalties that would apply if the event was canceled altogether. There was a heated moment the first time the gov had to decide wether to swallow the sunk costs and just cancel everything, or only postpone, hoping the situation would be better after a few months. The first set of damages have already be paid, so now whatever the course of events, Olympics will be a pretty bitter subject for most people I think. Edit: postponing was not penalties per se, more contracting and maintenance costs. Fixed the wording,

SiVal 6y ago

I think you mean "tourist dollars", not "tourist yen". The former, both literally and metaphorically, is what they're losing and what they would presumably prefer. The latter is much less attractive--akin to moving money from one kimono sleeve to another--but without foreigners, "tourist yen" is all they end up with.

anm89 6y ago
Like the dollars all those Europeans are bringing? I get that there is a grain of truth in what you are saying but this is mostly an outdated mode of thinking. The Japanese economy has plenty of access to $ denominated capital markets if they wanted $.
- SiVal 6y ago
  Yes, Europeans bring the metaphorical "dollars" I referred to. And there is no "if they wanted $". They do. And I mean earning dollars, not buying them on international markets. I have access to capital markets, too, and I can buy any currency I want, but buying money is not the same as earning it.
  - anm89 6y ago
    They want investment. They aren't facing a shortage of any specific currency. As i mentioned, if their shortage was currency specific, they have access to capital and forex markets. I will repeat. The Japanese don't have any specific need for dollars that they can't fulfill on a balance of payments basis. Some countries do. But Japan doesn't.
    - SiVal 6y ago
      You don't seem to understand the difference between earning dollars and exchanging currency. I'm not claiming they face a "shortage of a specific currency". I'm saying they want to earn money from foreign customers, not exchange currency with them, and that (nationally) they would prefer earning money from foreign customers to earning it from each other. Earning money from foreign customers gives the Japanese as a nation purchasing power of future foreign assets, such as oil, food, or land outside Japan. It makes their country wealthier in the world. Exchanging currency does no such thing, because it gives the foreigners an equal claim against future Japanese assets: no net gain in wealth. Selling to each other also does not give them (as a nation) the increased buying power outside Japan that selling their goods and services for foreign dollars gives them.

CaptainZapp 6y ago

What's the alternative, really? Essentially letting billions of $ of infrastructure go to complete waste? That said, I agree with you. Then again the host city always pulls the shit end of the stick when organizing such an event.

latch 6y ago
Sunk cost fallacy
h0nd 6y ago
Maybe it would be an option to NOT treat every foreigner as a possible threat, but as a welcomed guest to visit Japan and the Olympic games. edit: I am surprised to see YC attracting people supporting discrimination.
- SonicTheSith 6y ago
  You are aware that we have a global pandemic right? So if even you won't treat everyone as a possible threat, the chance that 'guests' bring in the virus is high. Since Japan is an island, most people will fly there by plane and most people will be inside the plane for at least 6 hours+. Even if at half capacity the chance that there is 1 infectious person/ person becoming infectious is high. All Tests are snapshots of whether or not your infectious at time X. Quick tests are only valid for 6 hours since they only check whether you are infectious. PCR Tests are more accurate but take some time to get the results. Thus there is a chance to get infected afterwards and before the flight. So all 'guests' would need to go into quarantine for 5 days just to make sure that there is no infection. Who is going to house them? Is it feasable to have large numbers of foreigners quarantined in Japan? Will they follow the rules? Will they were a mask? Looking at the news and the rule bending rule breaking that is happening in the west regarding the pandemic gives litte hope. Furthermore, to protect your own country from a new outbreak is it really a wise decision to add another thousands of people into an already overcrowded city? EDIT: Adding to that, since the whole world is not yet vaccinated mutations are a real threat, even in the US they found 2 new mutations in the past weeks. The later even seems to be immun to the vaccinations. Thus to not have to cancel the whole event and all 'guest' bookings one could also argue that the best way is to minimize the risk, chaos, loss. Now everyone can plan around the restrictions and further cancelations are less likely.

offby37years 6y ago

2036 Tokyo sympathy bid.

reedf1 6y ago

I visited Japan a few months before the pandemic hit and it is really sad thinking back now. There was a real effort from the airport in Tokyo to as far away as Osaka and Kyoto accommodating for foreign languages and really showing off Japanese culture. At the time it felt like I was being practised on - so sad to see all that effort go to waste.

DocTomoe 6y ago
That also was related to the general idea that the Tokyo Olympics were meant as a Japan Rebirth after Fukushima, much like the 1964 Olympics were considered a Rebirth of a modern Japan after WW2.
- ttanimichi 6y ago
  Yes, but, the PREVIOUS Tokyo Olympics was also cancelled due to WW2. (originally scheduled to be held in 1940 and rescheduled to be held in 1964.)
- fomine3 6y ago
  This is far-fetched argument by who involved Tokyo Olympic. If they really think to support Tohoku area that damaged from tsunami/nuclear event, Tokyo, the most crowded and developed city, shouldn't be chosen.

Xixi 6y ago

My understanding is that the problem are broadcasters and sponsors. If Japan pulls the plug, they are likely on the hook to pay back billions to broadcasters and sponsors. So thinking purely in terms of USD, it might actually be cheaper to press forward than to cancel the games.

LatteLazy 6y ago

I don't know why they didn't just delay it for 4 years and push the rest back effectively missing 1 games.

stevegalla 6y ago
What about the athletes who have been training for the event? Some of them won’t get a chance to participate in 4 years time.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  That's a fair point, but they might just be put of luck. They'll have to live with world championships and similar. You can't exactly run a project at a multi billion dollar loss just because you want to be fair to a small number of people sadly.
  - stevegalla 6y ago
    > You can’t exactly run a project at a multi billion dollar loss What is the cost of running the games though? I assume (with absolutely no evidence) that the costs would be heavily skewed towards facilities setup and infrastructure. That’s a sunk fixed cost. I’m sure there is a large security and labor cost when the games are going on. I assume this would be a variable cost that would be reduced without spectators. If the majority of the cost has already been spent and it’s a relatively small (perhaps less than a few hundred million dollars) cost to conduct the games, why not go through with it? Maybe running a limited games could be a compromise? I suppose all of the Tokyo 2020 merchandise is already written off and useless. I acknowledge the whole calculus changes with public health and the pandemic. I’m addressing money as the issue. Anyways I’m a huge fan of all Olympic events, and the Olympics is the only sporting event(s) I watch. I look forward to them when they come, so I’ll definitely be sad if it was all cancelled, and I’m definitely biased.