Articles

Press Releases

News Archive

Links

Guestbook

The Olympic Games : Winners and Losers November 2004 The London 2012 public relations assault is now in full flow, and for the organisers it needs to be. When the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decides who is to host the 2012 Games, the level of public support in the candidate city is one important factor. So we’re told that if the Games come to East London, East Londoners will win in every way possible: regeneration, jobs, the local economy, the environment, more facilities etc. One way of finding out if these promises are real is to look at recent Olympics (and other Games) and see how people in the host cities fared. 1) Regeneration It is claimed that “run down” buildings in the lower Lea Valley will be replaced new, desirable housing and workplaces. The “regeneration” of areas of Athens (Olympics 2004) however followed the conventional model of replacing low income housing and manufacturing industries with high cost housing and places of “entertainment and luxurious consumption” for the new residents. In Athens there were a number of “clean ups” of areas where people lived and worked on the streets. There were less than expected , partly due to organised resistance, but nonetheless we should expect similar draconian measures against the homeless, prostitutes, even street traders, if the London bid is successful. According to Athens group Campaign Anti-2004, “it’s now obvious that the big projects and the selective urban interventions were planned and constructed solely for the accommodation of the Games, not for the everyday life of the people”. 2) Boost to the Local Economy? The Olympic Games don’t make money. According to a study by Prof. Larry Keating: “the Atlanta [1996] and Sydney [2000] olympic committees only balanced their books by shifting large sections of the infrastructural cost – land, olympic housing, police and fire department overtime – to the public sector. The Atlanta Games cost the public US$1 billion, and the Sydney Games $1.5 bn. This money will be obtained from us by the proposed “Olympic levy” on London council taxes, and also by cut backs on other areas of local and central government spending. Then once its over, it’s likely that any facilities which retain any commercial value will be handed over to private companies: this is what has happened in Athens, and indeed in Manchester, where, after the 2002 Commonwealth Games the City of Manchester Stadium was given to Manchester City FC. 3) Jobs Most of the employment created will be of a temporary nature i.e. construction work, services during the Games themselves. Much of the latter will be of a low-paid nature, and thousands of Olympic “jobs” will be done voluntarily, by local people and rewarded with tickets etc. Kasimati’s 2003 study questioned the magnitude of job creation during Olympics, showing how many established firms, rather than taking on new staff for a limited period, simply get existing staff to work overtime. He also showed how Olympic areas experience inflation, meaning many residents and businesses actually end up worse off. 4) Civil Liberties & Human Rights Campaign Anti-2004 say “the [Athens] Games were prepared within a framework that resembles a regime of emergency”. This was characterised by ad hoc planning and building legislation; a ban on industrial action; clampdown on civil liberties including right to assemble and demonstrate; and a massive increase in surveillance. All of this justified by the imperative to get the olympic work done, and protect it from disruption by terrorists or agitators. The construction industry gained huge political power as it basically had the government by the balls. Officially 15 construction workers died in the building of Olympic infrastructure, the campaign say these deaths are to a large extent down to the waiving of health & safety legislation. The world may change significantly by 2012, but we can expect something resembling a “state of emergency “ in the area in the build up, and during, the Games. 5) The Green Games? The London bid organisers claim it will be the “greenest” games ever, “carbon neutral” and “zero waste”, amongst other things. There is a precedent here, as the Sydney Games previously claimed the mantle of the “Green Games”. A local organization, Green Games Watch, monitored the games and declared them “semi-green”. Greenpeace issued a report card after the Games, giving them a “C”. There were notable successes, including for example, in renewable energy use and composting/recycling of waste. Notably, Greenpeace observed that, environmentally, things “took a turn for the worse since September 1999” i.e. standards started to slip when push came to shove, with only a year to get everything ready and budgets overspent. Also, tellingly, Greenpeace reserves biggest criticism for the failure to deliver promised clean ups of three areas of seriously contaminated land: so the promised “clean legacy” was forgotten about after the athletes packed up their kit bags. The fact that two of the biggest infrastructural projects of the Sydney Games – the upgrading of the airport and the building of the link road from airport to central business district – both with massive long-term environmental impacts – were not even covered by Greenpeace’s report suggests something of its scope. The Olympics are all Stanstead and Heathrow need to turn the screws in their demand for more runways to further increase use of the most energy inefficient form of transport. A truly environmental games would not just look at whether the infrastructure is built of sustainable materials, but also whether the buildings, and their embodied energy are really necessary in the first place. 6) Grassroots Sports A major claim of the bid organizers is that the Olympics will stimulate sporting activity at the grass roots, by providing facilities and inspiring people. There is some truth in both these claims. Many of the stadia are dismantlable, the idea being they can be moved to other parts of the country. If this is sucessful, this may avoid the problem of white elephants that dogs the big sporting spectacles – the stadiums in Sydney and Japan (World Cup 2002) are significantly underused. However in Manchester 2002 millions were diverted from funds allocated to community sports projects, to fund the elite sports spectacle. Already £340 million has been promised from existing sports lottery distributors for London 2012. At this level, budding young sportspeople are having resources taken from them to build facilities most of them will never get the chance to perform in. There is no escaping the irony of a large chunk of Hackney Marshes- the spiritual home of grassroots football – being built on for an Olympic coach park. Or the fact that the spoiling of the open areas of the Lea Valley will ruin the walking, jogging and cycling routes for thousands. Overall, it seems improved sports opportunities will be available to those excellent enough or rich enough, whilst compromising existing free/cheap outdoor pursuits for all. 7) A World To Win? This report has been concerned primarily with the (generally negative) impact of Olympic Games and other big sporting events on their host areas. It’s not all bad news though: in Athens, campaigners had a few small victories, such as preventing some street “clean ups”, ripping down fences which privatised public parks, and keeping them down, and preventing US war mongering politicians from visiting. In Sydney, the “Green Games” claim was taken up as a gauntlet by environmentalists, who used it to relentlessly press the Games, and its sponsors. Where campaigners have fought against olympic bids, Bread Not Circuses in Toronto (2008 bid) and people in Amsterdam have mobilised public opinion and kicked up enough of a stink, to be able claim some credit for dissuading the IOC from picking them as olympic hosts in the first place.