6 ms·

Yes, I prefer it this way. Children can be the best they can be at something, and have that thing generate no value to anybody else around them. No need to subs

Yes, I prefer it this way. Children can be the best they can be at something, and have that thing generate no value to anybody else around them. No need to subsidize it.

kitd 2y ago
Children can be the best they can be at something, and have that thing generate no value to anybody else around them Except that the IOC generate billions in revenue so there obviously is value to a lot of people in it somewhere. The problem as stated is that the root source of that value, ie the athletes, see very little of that revenue.
- lmm 2y ago
  > the IOC generate billions in revenue so there obviously is value to a lot of people in it somewhere. There's value in the Olympics, sure, but that value is concentrated in a handful of big-name sports. The smaller ones come along for the ride rather than generating value themselves.
JambalayaJimbo 2y ago
People very much do care about the olympics… once every 4 years. There is clearly value generated by throwing a disk around, and it’s not being distributed well.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  They do care for a few seconds on average per viewer… so that small amount of value is making its way to the athlete. It’s just a fraction of a cent per viewer. So even with hundreds of millions of viewers it’s still barely a hundred thousand dollars to be split up between all disk throwers.
- unsupp0rted 2y ago
  Do they? I can't name a single disc thrower, sabre-master, parallel bar gripper, judo person, or thing-shooter. Every once in a while a Turkish guy shooting with no equipment becomes a meme, or the greatest swimmer or runner in the history of the world comes onto the scene. Newsmedia goes nuts because this sells advertising. But then a southern girl in a 5-second viral video does 100x of that in notoriety, with no travel budget and for the production cost of a single Big Mac.
  - DrillShopper 2y ago
    > Do they? Clearly they do or NBC wouldn't pay approximately eleventy quadtrillion dollars every time the contract is up to renew. NBC makes billions on the Olympics though running advertising and advertisers are willing to pay NBC's rates therefore at least enough people care for NBC to profit massively.
    - hindsightbias 2y ago
      Maybe there should be some ethical consideration of a culture of prizing American/German/Chinese/Russian mostly semi-pro and literally pro athletes stomping mostly real amateurs from the rest of the world in the olympiad. They could all save a lot of money and it would probably be more interesting to watch.
    - unsupp0rted 2y ago
      Advertisers might be paying due to historical inertia and the need to compete with other advertisers during these times. And NBC rakes in the money just like Google does from local pest control companies who pay $10+ per click. They don't want to pay that much, they may not really profit from paying that much, but they can't let their competitors take the customer for free.
    - Auracle 2y ago
      Except NBC barely broadcasts any sports other than swimming, gymnastics, and track and field (summer). If you’re good at one of those you’re probably good financially as well. If you’re a decent shot..putter? Nobody particularly cares, other than other people in the sport. The only reason they might show you is if you win a medal for the US.
- Neonlicht 2y ago
  Let's be real here the value comes from someone winning a medal for their country. I don't think a single person in the Netherlands gives a shit about fencing or kayaking but if a Dutch boy/girl ends up on the podium it's broadcast live.

Yes, I prefer it this way. Children can be the best they can be at something, and have that thing generate no value to anybody else around them. No need to subsidize it.

kitd 2y ago

Children can be the best they can be at something, and have that thing generate no value to anybody else around them Except that the IOC generate billions in revenue so there obviously is value to a lot of people in it somewhere. The problem as stated is that the root source of that value, ie the athletes, see very little of that revenue.

lmm 2y ago
> the IOC generate billions in revenue so there obviously is value to a lot of people in it somewhere. There's value in the Olympics, sure, but that value is concentrated in a handful of big-name sports. The smaller ones come along for the ride rather than generating value themselves.

JambalayaJimbo 2y ago

People very much do care about the olympics… once every 4 years. There is clearly value generated by throwing a disk around, and it’s not being distributed well.

MichaelZuo 2y ago
They do care for a few seconds on average per viewer… so that small amount of value is making its way to the athlete. It’s just a fraction of a cent per viewer. So even with hundreds of millions of viewers it’s still barely a hundred thousand dollars to be split up between all disk throwers.
unsupp0rted 2y ago
Do they? I can't name a single disc thrower, sabre-master, parallel bar gripper, judo person, or thing-shooter. Every once in a while a Turkish guy shooting with no equipment becomes a meme, or the greatest swimmer or runner in the history of the world comes onto the scene. Newsmedia goes nuts because this sells advertising. But then a southern girl in a 5-second viral video does 100x of that in notoriety, with no travel budget and for the production cost of a single Big Mac.
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  > Do they? Clearly they do or NBC wouldn't pay approximately eleventy quadtrillion dollars every time the contract is up to renew. NBC makes billions on the Olympics though running advertising and advertisers are willing to pay NBC's rates therefore at least enough people care for NBC to profit massively.
  - hindsightbias 2y ago
    Maybe there should be some ethical consideration of a culture of prizing American/German/Chinese/Russian mostly semi-pro and literally pro athletes stomping mostly real amateurs from the rest of the world in the olympiad. They could all save a lot of money and it would probably be more interesting to watch.
  - unsupp0rted 2y ago
    Advertisers might be paying due to historical inertia and the need to compete with other advertisers during these times. And NBC rakes in the money just like Google does from local pest control companies who pay $10+ per click. They don't want to pay that much, they may not really profit from paying that much, but they can't let their competitors take the customer for free.
  - Auracle 2y ago
    Except NBC barely broadcasts any sports other than swimming, gymnastics, and track and field (summer). If you’re good at one of those you’re probably good financially as well. If you’re a decent shot..putter? Nobody particularly cares, other than other people in the sport. The only reason they might show you is if you win a medal for the US.
Neonlicht 2y ago
Let's be real here the value comes from someone winning a medal for their country. I don't think a single person in the Netherlands gives a shit about fencing or kayaking but if a Dutch boy/girl ends up on the podium it's broadcast live.