The Olympics are nothing if not a thoroughly doctored three weeks worth of athletic spectacles pressed through seven NBC networks and conscientiously delivered to the eyes of the casual consumer. Each element seems formulaically constructed to fit the Olympic narrative. Whether it’s the the gravity of Bob Costas’ and Al Michaels’ sonorous commentary, the pomp and circumstance of the Olympic anthem or, last but not least, the pure brilliance and excellence from the athletes on display. From Simone Biles to Michael Phelps, the Olympics are an altogether unique sporting event, one whose myth has overshadowed its reality.
It is easy to see why the Olympic myth persists. It evokes notions of international goodwill and friendship, a summer where geopolitical differences are cast aside in favor of friendly competition. Domestically, the Olympic myth succeeds for precisely the same reason: they don’t carry sectarian implications. We all cheered for the U.S. basketball teams and we were all blown away by the world-shattering performances from individuals such as Katie Ledecky. Let’s be honest, most of us have little idea about what constitutes point deductions in gymnastics (we just know Simone doesn’t rack up many of them) or a perfect dive. But we revel in these events and especially love the simpler ones (i.e. who runs and swims the fastest). The nature of these Olympic events make the Games accessible to even the most sports-adverse viewer.
We all scrolled through Twitter every night to see everyone we know lauding the accomplishments of our American athletes. In th`e year of the nastiest and most bitterly divisive presidential election in recent memory, this sense of unity was a comfort.
While these characteristics identify the Olympics as a fashionable topic of conversation every four years, a seemingly uncontroversial and universal subject, the fact that we continue to treat this event as such is inappropriate, irresponsible, and borderline amoral. We can no longer plead ignorance to the human cost of our viewing pleasure.
The state of Brazil has officially spent $4.5 billion to host the Olympics. As it did with the 2008 Beijing Games and the 2012 London games, the total cost of hosting is expected to exceed this figure by a considerable margin. Brazil is also combatting a Zika epidemic (with 1/16 of the funding allocated for the Olympics) and has 11.4 million people living in ‘subnormal agglomerations’ (slums). 16.2 million Brazilians live on less than $1.30 per day, the number designated as the ‘extreme’ poverty line. Nearly all the money invested by the Brazilian state has gone into infrastructure that is useless post-Olympics. Wouldn’t we all have been better served if Brazil spent $10 billion constructing new schools, and new affordable housing as an alternative to the favelas?
Perhaps the ramifications of hosting the Olympics seem less severe when a first-world country hosts, like London did in 2012. But even in that case, London compulsorily purchased a tremendous amount of real estate in east London, displacing hundreds of individuals from their legal residences. Meanwhile, preparations for the Beijing games reportedly displaced 1.5 million individuals. The Rio Olympics have had a similar effect on its host city. Until the Olympic Committee operates on a more ethical standard, the Olympics will continue being a damaging, rather than empowering, event.