Should the Olympics Have a Permanent Home?

Should the Olympics Have a Permanent Home?

Pierre de Coubertin, founder of modern Olympic Games said “The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not winning but taking part; the essential thing in life is not conquering but fighting well.”This sentence shows in which point Olympics Games are more than a sporting event. So when we speak about determining a permanent place for Olympic Games we also raise another debate: setting a permanent home for Olympics does really correspond to authentic spirit of Olympic? In a first part we will see how economic advantages could favor determining of a permanent place before seeing in a second time how established it is contrary to original Olympic values. According to me this is this second point that must be considered.

Put in place Olympics in different countries each 4 years represents a huge organization: to manage sport facilities, to build new stadium for instance since most of the time facilities are obsolete and because Olympics mean a media over exposure, each host country try to give a good picture of itself: it is often the occasion to make a display of force. But this difficult organization not only means build new facilities but also checking logistics, thus having an effective wide reaching system is something which is taking in account by the person in charge of the organization. Obviously it seems, thus, that determine a permanent place make all this organization’s work easier.

Moreover, if Olympics have a permanent home it will be one of the best ways to put in place a real control of expenses. Indeed countries involved in competition don’t hesitate to mobilize huge funds, often excessive and in this way Olympics product a long term debt and country has to cope with this debt several years after the event. Determine a permanent place will be a real effective mean to reduce this incredible expense: country certainly could avoid getting into debt and its financial balance sheets would be balanced because every time it wouldn’t have fixed costs so important but only additional spending.

However, from then on establish a permanent place for Olympics raise an important issue: which permanent home to choose? What must be the criterion to determine the place? There is ever the problem of impartiality in the choice because, obviously place which will be chosen will be clearly advantaged with regard to the others ones. Also organize Olympics in different places around the world appears such as a real tradition which lasts since several years. Thus, to establish a permanent home will put an end to this strong tradition and in this way it corresponds to a “break” of essential values: indeed Olympics are more than a sportive competition it is the moment when differences are rubbed out. Olympics are global not only because of the participation of all the countries but also and especially because of the organization every time in a different country. So a permanent place could be viewed such as the loss of the authentic spirit of the Olympics the “spirit of federation”. Besides, to organize Olympics in the same place would represent certainly a considerable loss of interest. Indeed the choice of the host country is also an integral part of the whole event: it is then a question for the host country of a very big pride: it is because populations know that one day the Olympics can be organized in their country that they carry so much interest there.

Eventually, it seems determine a permanent place for Olympics presents obvious economic advantages but money isn’t all Olympics is a spirit and if this reductions of spending is made to the detriment of this one it is sure that this couldn’t be desirable.