Olympics History of Humanity

Question: Discuss about theOlympics for History of Humanity. Answer: Host Country Olympic Game is one of the popular global events in the history of humanity. The international event usually organized after 4 years brings together participants from different parts of the world to participate in a wide range of field events including marathon, short races, discuss, swimming, javelin, football, handball, basketball, just to mention, but a few (Prayag, Hosany, Nunkoo Alders 2013). Questions have been raised regarding the benefits of Olympic Games to the host and participating nations. When it comes to finances, it is no doubt that Olympic is one of the most expensive global events that require a lot of resources to the tune of millions of dollars. Its costs are not constant because they depend on many factors including the host nations economy. Therefore, according to official report, the most expensive Olympic event so far is the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics whose costs were estimated at US$ 51 billion. This was closely followed by the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics which cost a whooping US$44 billion, 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics 1.7 billion, 2016 Rio de Janeiro Summer Olympics which cost approximately US$ 11.6 billion, and 2012 Summer London Olympics which cost US$10.4 billion (Agha, Fairley Gibson 2012). This money is used as operation, venue construction, and infrastructure costs specifically for the construction/renovation of the stadium, Olympic Village, roads, railway lines, airports, security, accommodation, feeding, and transportation. It is a policy requirement that Olympic costs are footed by the tax payers, Olympic Games, debts, and the International Olympic Committee (IOC). For instance, IOC has a responsibility to disburse at least 90% of its resources for Olympic Games. On the other hand, tax payers from the host nation or city are also obliged to contribute for the games. This justifies why the tax payers contributions amounted to US$11.6 billion in 2016, US$4.4 billion in 2012, and US$ 2.3 billion in 2010 (Prayag, Hosany, Nunkoo Alders 2013). However, despite this huge spending, Olympic Games have been bringing a mix of fortunes to the host countries. Apart from benefiting the host by building its reputation, enhancing infrastructural development and boosting the prosperity of its tourism sector, Olympic Games have, on different occasions, proven to be profitable or unprofitable investments because of the profits and losses realized. Whereas the 2006 Turin, 2004 Athens, and 2000 Sidney events brought massive losses to the respective host nations, the 2010 Vancouver and 2008 Beijing events realized a profit of US$70 million and US$ 146 million respectively (Agha, Fairley Gibson 2012). Based on this analysis, it should be concluded that the hosting of an Olympic event is a viable venture that benefits the individual athletes, local business community, and the host government at large. Despite the challenges, these parties emerge as winners because at least each of them has some benefits to enjoy as a result of the event. Participating Country As a member of the commonwealth group of nations, Australia has been participating in each of the Olympic Games. Meaning, just like any other participating country, Australia has to heavily invest in Olympics. This explains why, over the years, the commonwealth government of Australia has been, through entities like the Australian Institute of Sport and Australian Sports Commission, spending a lot of money to promote sporting activities in the country (Boykoff 2013). Precisely, the government allocates a total of $250 million annually to the Australian Sports Commission to use in sporting activities in the country. Out of this money, $ 100 million is used in the training of elite sportsperson participating in Olympic Games. Since the London Olympic Games, the government has been spending $32 million on Olympic. $ 27.5 million of this amount has been allocated to the sports commission to use as direct grants to the athletes while undergoing training. Since this is government money, it is directly sourced from taxes. Meaning, it is the tax payers whose resources are used to finance Olympic Games (Vanwynsberghe, Surborg Wyly 2013). When it comes to returns, it has been argued that the government spends too much money on Olympic Games. This argument is based on the fact that during each event, Australia does not get commensurate number of medals. Meaning, the costs are higher than the returns. Conclusion Although Olympic Games have been labeled as a costly affair, it should be encouraged because it has lots of benefits to the host and participating nations. Apart from helping in the development of infrastructure and tourism sector, Olympic Games can also benefit a participating country. Australias participation in Olympics should not only be looked from a financial perspective. Heavy investment in Olympic Games is useful because it encourages statesmanship, national glory and pride. For example, the 29 medals that were gotten from the 2016 Rio Olympic Games benefited the country because it brought joy to all Australians. References Agha, N., Fairley, S. Gibson, H., 2012. Considering legacy as a multi-dimensional construct: The legacy of the Olympic Games. Sport Management Review, 15(1), pp.125-139. Boykoff, J. (2013). Celebration capitalism and the Olympic Games. Routledge. Prayag, G., Hosany, S., Nunkoo, R. Alders, T., 2013. London residents' support for the 2012 Olympic Games: The mediating effect of overall attitude. Tourism Management, 36, pp.629-640. Vanwynsberghe, R., Surborg, B. Wyly, E., 2013. When the Games Come to Town: Neoliberalism, Mega?Events and Social Inclusion in the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic Games. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(6), pp.2074-2093.