7 ms·

I feel like any article on the Olympics should mention that >80% of the Japanese population was against holding the Olympics [1]. And that in most respects it

• ekianjo 5y ago
  Olympics is such a massive waste of money that nobody except politicians who want to show off with taxpayer money or industrials benefiting from government contracts would be for it.
  • poooogles 5y ago
    We benefited from it in London, I think we all wanted it too. Even if it kind of was an austerity Olympics compared to before it and after it? Sure we wasted some money here and there (was who the fuck needs a giant slide) but overall it turned an industrial wasteland into a useful area for East London.
    • fomine3 5y ago
      Well, Tokyo is most far from wasteland in Japan. It wastes money to most crowded city despite most towns are declining.
    • darkfirefly 5y ago
      Yeah, I'm not quite sure how other countries do it, but for the 2000 Olympics (Sydney) they basically renewed this giant landfill site. There's been a bunch of apartments, etc, built around there since then because it basically became a suburb where you could live.
      • makeitdouble 5y ago
        I remember a report on how Sydney was the only Olympics for a while that was net positive. Paris might also be, as they have very little new infra to build.
        • jedberg 5y ago
          That's not correct. Sydney lost money, and Atlanta (4 years prior) made money: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games
          • makeitdouble 5y ago
            I am a bit split. If I’m reading it correctly, Wiki’s source is a journal’s comparing their simulation of what Sydney’s economy would have been without the Olympics, and the numbers published officially, with a twist on additional costs they think should be added to the official estimates. > We simulated the behaviour of industries, households and government resulting from hosting the Games for each of eight Australian regions over the years from 1997 to 2005. Our results revealed that rather than producing an economic benefit the Sydney Games actually reduced Australian household consumption by $2.1 billion. For comparison there are later reviews of the economics of the town with the 6 years after Olympics, with less simulation apparently, which come to a different conclusion https://repository.tcu.edu/handle/116099117/10360 https://repository.tcu.edu/handle/116099117/10360 I honestly don’t know which one is more trustworthy
      • ekianjo 5y ago
        > but for the 2000 Olympics (Sydney) they basically renewed this giant landfill site. Why would you need the Olympics to have land repurposed. They were waiting for a good excuse? No need to have big expensive party if you could have done that in any other context. But then again you'd need to whole country to accept paying for making new apartments just in Sydney.
    • Ntrails 5y ago
      > I think we all wanted it too Definitely not true. However, post hoc I am forced to admit it was not as colossal a waste of money as I'd expected, and honestly there was an astonishingly positive societal response. So, I was wrong, but I was not alone!
      • ColonialOne 5y ago
        An astonishingly positive societal response which lasted how long? Do you think there have been long lasting benefits from that or was it just a nice few weeks? If the latter, which is my impression, I don't think that represents value for money at all.
        • Ntrails 5y ago
          I would argue years, genuinely. I still hear conversations about how great it was etc etc.
    • JetSetWilly 5y ago
      The Olympics in London cost 11.3 Billion and generated revenue of 3.3 billion which doesn't exactly seem hugely beneficial. Of course in the usual London fashion most of the money came out of UK govt coffers, national lottery funding etc - so it was just a form of London sucking cash out of the rest of the UK to build infra, via the handy "Olympics" excuse, so I can see how a londoner might argue it was good as it was a means of extracting resources from the rest of the country. In the aggregate, it was just a giant waste of money especially for the 90% of the UK population that isn't in London.
      • smt88 5y ago
        I'm not sure where your jab at London taking govt funds came from. London, like most modern cities, generates a surplus that subsidizes surrounding suburban and rural areas[1]. It was still an awful waste of money, but it wasn't part of any trend. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/23/uk-budget-deficit-grows-to-more-than-10bn-as-people-spend-less https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/23/uk-budget-d...
        • JetSetWilly 5y ago
          It comes from London frequently having money lavished on it that other areas don’t (eg - check public transport [1]) - and usually accompanied with a self-fulfilling prophecy about how other areas don’t generate tax income (which of course is because they don’t have good infra and investment). And this situation has been very much engineered by the UK government over the last 40 years, it isn’t some state of nature. [1] https://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/revealed-north-set-to-receive-2-389-less-per-person-than-london-on-transport https://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/revealed-...
          • dijit 5y ago
            I just want to chime in here and agree with this wholeheartedly. There is a lot of self-fulfilment when it comes to London spending vs London generation of revenues. It's famously the case that London props up almost the entire rest of the country. Scotland itself being a net-loss in terms of GDP. I come from a City called Coventry, "investment" in the city is non-existent; the only investor right now is the University which has essentially bought the entire City over the last 10 years. Why? Because "Coventry doesn't make money". Why does Coventry not make money? -- well, companies would never headquarter there because the infrastructure is not good enough and the networking connections are not compelling; even if you think it will save you money because it's cheaper to hire in Coventry (somewhere in the order of 1/3rd london salaries, 1/5th London commercial rents) it's still awkward because navigating the city requires making use of the awful public transport or buying a car[0] (which the city is close to capacity with already!) Birmingham, Britains "second city" has only moderate investment compared to London (though insanely more than most other UK cities), but also feels destitute in the majority of areas, _especially_ when compared to London, the infrastructure is marginally better than Coventry but the prestige/networking/access is nearly no different. This is many decades in the making, there is absolutely no way to compete with a city like London which is reaping the rewards of many decades of incredible investment which creates network effects which only serve to increase the gravitational pull of the city. [0]: https://youtu.be/Mxvk3KO8p20 https://youtu.be/Mxvk3KO8p20
    • ekianjo 5y ago
      > We benefited from it in London You can never say that for sure because the money spent on organizing Olympics could have been used somewhere else (or not used at all, therefore decreasing taxation). It was certainly a waste for anyone not living in London in any case.
      • prashantsengar 5y ago
        Every money that one spends can be spent somewhere else too
  • jedberg 5y ago
    Every Olympics held in the United States has been profitable for the host city (and all but one in Canada) in large part because the infrastructure already exists. Los Angeles is looking forward to having the games in 2028 because it gives them extra money to pay for infrastructure that they've been planning to build anyway. San Francisco really wanted the 2028 games as well because it would have allowed us to finish building BART/CalTrain around the Bay, and we would have already had all the venues necessary with the various pro and college facilities around the Bay.
    • AlexandrB 5y ago
      > Every Olympics held in the United States has been profitable for the host city (and all but one in Canada) in large part because the infrastructure already exists. Do you have a source? From https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/economics-hosting-olympic-games https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/economics-hosting-olympic-g... > As a result, in 1979 Los Angeles was the only city to bid for the 1984 Summer Olympics, allowing it to negotiate exceptionally favorable terms with the International Olympic Committee (IOC). > The 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles were the only games to produce a surplus, in large part because the city was able to rely on already existing infrastructure. As the costs of hosting have skyrocketed, revenues cover only a fraction of expenditures. Beijing’s 2008 Summer Olympics generated $3.6 billion in revenue, compared with over $40 billion in costs, and London’s Summer Games in 2012 generated $5.2 billion compared with $18 billion in costs. What’s more, much of the revenue doesn’t go to the host—the IOC keeps more than half of all television revenue, typically the single largest chunk of money generated by the games.
      • CydeWeys 5y ago
        Atlanta 1996 turned a profit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Summer_Olympics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Summer_Olympics
        • ak217 5y ago
          Atlanta 96 was a great case study in this. Atlanta built a ton of infrastructure that continues to serve the city well. Many of the venues built in downtown and especially on the Georgia Tech campus went on to be very productive and useful. Georgia Tech has a world-class gym and still uses some of the olympic village as dorms as part of that legacy. There is one big exception - a massive tennis center built out in the suburbs. It was too far outside the city, never got much use and was demolished in 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Mountain_Tennis_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Mountain_Tennis_Center
  • strulovich 5y ago
    The sentimental in me really appreciates what the Olympics stand for. There are many things bad in sports, but the idea of all the humans in the world sending delegates for a global sports competition is a good reminder of all the progress we’ve made. (I’m also a Eurovision fan)
  • Asymmetryk 5y ago
    The understanding that I think that attentive observers are taking away from this games, is that the Olympics Committee and political cohort bring shame on the host nation, not glory. I hope I'm not being too sensitive, but I really have felt as if the Japanese people have been reacting not merely to the patent illogic and consequently unjustifiable dangers, but I like to think that the Japanese are reacting to the contemptuous and privileged solipsism of those responsible, with a demonstration of regret and protest that's going to make everyone start to see these organisers for who they are.
  • monkeycantype 5y ago
    Watching the soccer made we think maybe we could get used to watching athletes compete in beautiful locations with no stadiums and crowds. Maybe you could do olympics really cheap with no tourists
    • ekianjo 5y ago
      Or do the Olympics always in the same place, instead of wasting energy building new installations around the globe every 4 years that will never be re-used.
  • aiisjustanif 5y ago
    And NBC, they aren’t paying over 1 billion dollars per olympics just to not have the show go on.
  • Hacktrick 5y ago
    I completely agree. The Olympic Games are a huge waste. The stadiums built in Rio for the 2016 games are standing there unused and unmanaged and slowly degrading. I think that it was a shame that Rio was chosen to host the Olympic games. Their country should have spent the money on the nearly 50 million people in poverty in Brazil. (source: https://riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/rio-politics/more-than-25-million-brazilians-living-below-poverty-line/ https://riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/rio-politics/more-tha...)
• wodenokoto 5y ago
  No. More than 80% are against doing Olympics during COVID lockdown. I think the majority is for a non-COVID olympics.
  • new299 5y ago
    There’s no lockdown (as this is normally understood) in Japan. This concept doesn’t really exist (because it’s legally difficult to implement without changing the constitution as I understand it). There’s a state of emergency in Tokyo (now expanded to surrounding areas). But this doesn’t really restrict people very much. Yes, the majority are against holding the Olympics now (or cancelling it if it’s not possible to postpone). But you’d likely find support for delaying the Olympics until after COVID-19 (whenever that might be).
  • lostlogin 5y ago
    > I think the majority is for a non-COVID olympics When you phrase it like that it has me imagining make the 100m sprint for Covid athletes (maybe 80% SpO2?). It sounds quite interesting. So I guess I’m now part of the 20%.
• f0xytr0xy 5y ago
  > And that in most respects it has be a disaster, I've lost count of the number of scandals and resignations... [2] Rather than being good PR for Japan, it feels like it's been overwhelmingly negative. You are basically describing every olympics I can remember and most that I’ve read about before my birth. Assassinations, at least 5 decades of doping scandals by East Germany and USSR, ice skaters’ husbands attacking competitors, Hitler, etc. The Olympics is a rage-inducing waste of taxpayer money, but I love watching gymnastics.
  • numpad0 5y ago
    WA2000 is also one of the coolest sculptures in the history :p
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• sheepdestroyer 5y ago
  At least the Games serve to shine light on Japan's refusal to respect UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child, despite ratifying it in 1994. Japan's Law incites and rewards Child Abductions by giving sole custody to the first abductor. Judicial visitation decisions are not enforced. By refusing to protect the fundamental Right of Children to access both their parents directly and regularly, as per the CRC, Japan is a massive and frequent Child Right violator. In 2019, Japan Minister of Justice publicly and cynically qualified the CRC of "non-binding", and the European Parliament's resolution denouncing the violations of being "unfunded". Is is estimated that between 150,000 and 200,000 new children each year, the majority Japanese, have this basic Human Right violated in Japan. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/japan-custody-fichot/2021/07/11/f10cd538-e224-11eb-88c5-4fd6382c47cb_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/japan-cust...
  • IshKebab 5y ago
    I don't think the games have shone a light on that at all, sorry. First I've heard of it.
    • throwaway2037 5y ago
      It was written about in the Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/d43090eb-e005-4042-8b7a-13ab00ac08b3 https://www.ft.com/content/d43090eb-e005-4042-8b7a-13ab00ac0...
  • chrisseaton 5y ago
    Whole thing seems to be about the denied rights of parents, not children? Doesn’t mention what any child wants anywhere. Weird to dress it up as being about the children.
    • sheepdestroyer 5y ago
      Children benefit to have both parents in their lives, especially when young and can not express consent. There are enough studies and exemples in every other developed countries where it's the norm that it's not a matter of opinion. The UN's CRC is indeed about Children's Human Rights. The specific article in question being Art 9.3
• crakenzak 5y ago
  You’re incorrect. The Fifa World Cup is the largest sporting event in the world.
  • new299 5y ago
    In the context of my comment, I mean largest in terms of number of athletes and support staff. The Olympics is far larger in these terms I believe.