If you have any delusions that the use of public money to build stadiums or host sporting events provides an economic benefit to a city or country, please take a couple of minutes to read these articles about the burning dumpster fire that is Rio de Janeiro and the Summer Olympics.
"Rio de Janeiro governor declares state of financial emergency ahead of Olympics" The Guardian (6/17/16)
"As the Olympics near. Brazil and Rio let the bad times roll," New York Times (6/25/16)
"Rio visitors greeted with 'Welcome to Hell' banner," Yahoo Sports (6/28/16)
The only folks who claim that hosting these types of events and building fancy new playgrounds for fat cat owners are the owners themselves, the organizers of the games, league officials and every local politician who has his or her hand in the fire.
As I have stated before, if these really were money-making propositions, there would be no shortage of investors willing to pony up the bucks to make them happen. The very fact that state and local governments end up picking up the tab for these expenses tells you all you need to know about whether or not they are economic engines.
Showing posts with label Olympics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Olympics. Show all posts
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Friday, August 3, 2012
Sometimes you win by losing
Who would've thought the biggest Olympic scandal to date would be in the field of women's badminton?
Four doubles teams have been sent packing for deliberately losing matches in the group stage of the Olympic tournament. For some unknown reason it was decided to put the teams into groups and have the top teams from each group advance to the elimination rounds.
Much like the World Cup, the quarterfinal match-ups would be set in advance and not on the basis of seeding. So, going into the competition, each team was aware of who their potential foes in the knock-out rounds could be.
Thus there was a perverse incentive to lose in order to avoid being matched up with a certain team. Each of the teams that were found to have tanked their matches ended up with better match-ups in the quarterfinals after losing than they would have had they won.
Of course the Badminton World Federation and the International Olympic Committee could have none of that gamesmanship. This is the Olympics after all and the competition must be sacrosanct (well, except for all the sports that decided to toss out the amateur ideal and let the pros get their games on). The two bodies made it quite clear that tanking a match on purpose just isn't good cricket and decided to put the hammer down without even considering that it was the way they organized the tournament that created the incentive to lose.
Now maybe tanking a match isn't the most sporting thing one can do, but if the name of the game is trying to get your hands around that gold medal, then why should we condemn athletes for making decisions that enhance their chances of standing on the podium and hearing their national anthems blaring over the PA system?
Teams in the NFL who have locked down their seeding in the playoffs are lauded for resting their starters in meaningless games down the stretch. Baseball teams out of the playoff race are encouraged to unload their star players and put out glorified minor league lineups the last month of the season. How does that differ from what happened in London on the badminton courts?
The problem isn't that the teams found a way to game the system. The problem is that the system was set up in such a way as to reward teams for gaming it. Don't blame a competitor for working the angles and increasing his chances of competing for gold; blame the folks who gave them the incentive to lose.
Four doubles teams have been sent packing for deliberately losing matches in the group stage of the Olympic tournament. For some unknown reason it was decided to put the teams into groups and have the top teams from each group advance to the elimination rounds.
Much like the World Cup, the quarterfinal match-ups would be set in advance and not on the basis of seeding. So, going into the competition, each team was aware of who their potential foes in the knock-out rounds could be.
Thus there was a perverse incentive to lose in order to avoid being matched up with a certain team. Each of the teams that were found to have tanked their matches ended up with better match-ups in the quarterfinals after losing than they would have had they won.
Of course the Badminton World Federation and the International Olympic Committee could have none of that gamesmanship. This is the Olympics after all and the competition must be sacrosanct (well, except for all the sports that decided to toss out the amateur ideal and let the pros get their games on). The two bodies made it quite clear that tanking a match on purpose just isn't good cricket and decided to put the hammer down without even considering that it was the way they organized the tournament that created the incentive to lose.
Now maybe tanking a match isn't the most sporting thing one can do, but if the name of the game is trying to get your hands around that gold medal, then why should we condemn athletes for making decisions that enhance their chances of standing on the podium and hearing their national anthems blaring over the PA system?
Teams in the NFL who have locked down their seeding in the playoffs are lauded for resting their starters in meaningless games down the stretch. Baseball teams out of the playoff race are encouraged to unload their star players and put out glorified minor league lineups the last month of the season. How does that differ from what happened in London on the badminton courts?
The problem isn't that the teams found a way to game the system. The problem is that the system was set up in such a way as to reward teams for gaming it. Don't blame a competitor for working the angles and increasing his chances of competing for gold; blame the folks who gave them the incentive to lose.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
British to arm apartment complex during Olympics
If this is what the Olympics have come to, I hope the games never come to the Bayou City. There are probably some residents in London thinking the same thing about now.
The British government, in all its infinite wisdom, has decided to look into the placement of surface-to-air missiles on apartment buildings in London. Residents of one East London complex received a leaflet stating that missiles could be placed on a water tower at the complex during the games. Residents were told that the military would place missiles at the complex for an exercise in which military and police personnel would occupy the complex in early May.
According to the leaflet, the increased military presence would not make it anymore likely that terrorists would attack the complex; not that terrorists had any plans to attack the complex in the first place. The authorities also assured residents that the decision to fire any missiles would come from the highest levels of government - whew, that would certainly make me feel better.
The bigger danger to residents are the threat of terrorists, it's the threat that the government would order the missiles to be fired. Such a decision would, in the words of one resident, "would shower debris across the east end of London."
Of course it's often through the introduction of "temporary" security measures that the government gets its foot in the door and begins to make the measures permanent. And, once the security measure becomes permanent there will be a bureaucracy tied to it and the chances of it ever being terminated get worse and worse every passing year. For an example, just look at TSA.
The British government, in all its infinite wisdom, has decided to look into the placement of surface-to-air missiles on apartment buildings in London. Residents of one East London complex received a leaflet stating that missiles could be placed on a water tower at the complex during the games. Residents were told that the military would place missiles at the complex for an exercise in which military and police personnel would occupy the complex in early May.
According to the leaflet, the increased military presence would not make it anymore likely that terrorists would attack the complex; not that terrorists had any plans to attack the complex in the first place. The authorities also assured residents that the decision to fire any missiles would come from the highest levels of government - whew, that would certainly make me feel better.
The bigger danger to residents are the threat of terrorists, it's the threat that the government would order the missiles to be fired. Such a decision would, in the words of one resident, "would shower debris across the east end of London."
Of course it's often through the introduction of "temporary" security measures that the government gets its foot in the door and begins to make the measures permanent. And, once the security measure becomes permanent there will be a bureaucracy tied to it and the chances of it ever being terminated get worse and worse every passing year. For an example, just look at TSA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)