Fair enough. But even if the Olympics generated a profit, who would that money be going to? Why is a city willing to spend on private investments, but not address the problem of poverty and social injustice within its jurisdiction?
The Olympics are just another example of corporate capitalism, where any profit generated goes to the big, private companies, and any loss incurred is thrown on the public.
Host cities routinely underestimate the costs and overstate the benefits of the Games. London is no exception. The city's bid proclaimed: "Every sector of the economy will benefit from the staging of the Olympic Games." Originally slated to cost about £2.4bn, Olympic costs jumped to £9.3bn by 2007. The National Audit Office noted that public-sector funding has almost tripled, while private-sector contributions dwindled to less than 2%. Recently, the House of Commons' public accounts committee revealed costs were "heading for around £11bn". Meanwhile, Olympics critic Julian Cheyne of Games Monitor calculates costs at £13bn. A Sky Sports investigation included public transport upgrade costs, catapulting the five-ring price tag to £24bn.
The public-pays-private-bails theme crystallised in the construction of the Olympic village. Originally envisaged as a £1bn centrepiece of London 2012's urban regeneration plan, the village was to be financed by Australian developer Lend Lease. (The deal reeked of cronyism – David Higgins, the chief executive of the Olympic Delivery Authority until February 2011, previously headed Lend Lease.) But the 2008 economic collapse and credit crunch led private capital to abandon the project, leaving it to the British government. In spring 2009, Olympics honchos admitted the village would be "fully nationalised" – that is, paid for by taxpayers.
Olympics history is marked by the production of metropolitan jungles teeming with white elephants. London organisers were anxious not to add to the herd, so in August 2011 they sold the village at a taxpayer loss of £275m to the Qatari ruling family's property firm. Quizzically, culture secretary Jeremy Hunt championed the transaction as a "fantastic deal that will give taxpayers a great return and shows how we are securing a legacy from London's Games". Such surreptitious subsidies are standard practice with Olympic-induced urban development. Host governments have the incentive to backstop projects to avoid embarrassment on the global stage, while private firms punt responsibility when the going gets tough.
The Guardian
Topic: London 2012 Olympics