2009

Olympic Games Hosting and its Ethical Implications

Joshua Riker-Fox SGMA 575 12/24/2009

Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Looking Back Before Looking Forward............................................................................................ 4 A Global Game ................................................................................................................................ 6 The Olympic Games Odyssey ...................................................................................................... 6 The International Olympic Committee ....................................................................................... 7 The Bid Process ............................................................................................................................... 8 Consequence and Reciprocity......................................................................................................... 9 Ethical Implications in the Selection of a Host .......................................................................... 10 Germany and China .............................................................................................................. 11 USSR and USA ....................................................................................................................... 12 Selection of the Host Closing Thoughts ............................................................................. 15 Domestic Implications of a Games Hosting ............................................................................. 15 Effect on Host City ................................................................................................................ 16 Financial Consequences ........................................................................................................ 20 Closing Remarks ............................................................................................................................ 22 Appendix A The Olympic Partner Program (TOP) ...................................................................... 24 Appendix B The IOCs Host City Selection Voting Procedure .................................................... 25 Appendix C The Olympic Charter ............................................................................................... 26 Appendix D List of Boycotting Nations for the 1980 Summer Olympic Games......................... 27 References .................................................................................................................................... 28

Abstract
As the Games evolves as a social spectacle of human behaviour, its commercial character has simultaneously evolved into a phenomenon in its own right. The impression that hosting a Games has on a city and nation is eminent and long-lasting, for a multitude of reasons. Some are positive, while some are disastrously negative. The world witnessed student protests at the 1968 Mexico Olympics result in bloodshed. Conversely, the 1988 Calgary Olympics saw the positive influence hosting can have, as the citys volunteers united to create a legacy that is still celebrated today. The Games exist as a carefully intertwined mix of international stakeholders, all with different objectives, but all affected by the quality of product delivered during the 2 weeks that a Games takes place. The rewards and repercussions of hosting the Olympic Games are both complex and sensitive. National agendas, national pride, and the struggle for a place in the global environ are central to the incentive for hosting. Yet, so much is at stake. Prospective host nations, its citizens, and Olympic fans alike, must consider: is hosting an Olympic Games ethically sound?

Looking Back Before Looking Forward

If our Games are to be stopped every time the politicians violate the laws of humanity, there will never be any international contests. Is it not better to maintain and support the Olympic Games, one of the most priceless and powerful instruments of our present civilization, and try to expand the fair play and sportsmanship of the athletics field into other areas?1 As the flash of bullets began to fly at the group of students in Tlateloco, a section of Mexico City, they must have wondered how protesting against an event that theoretically prized fairness and equality would lead to the death of the colleagues surrounding them, or perhaps their own. On October 2nd, 1968, the Mexican government clashed with roughly 10,000 student protesters. These individuals, frustrated with the Gustavo Diaz Ordaz presidency, peacefully sought accountability for the governments actions and in particular its future role as the host of the 1968 Summer Olympic Games. Although the protesting group was also composed of union groups, teachers, and peasants, each with a different agenda to demonstrate against, the uniting theme was the upcoming Games. Bread and circuses did not represent a policy in the interest of the Mexican people, they reasoned. Ordaz responded to the protest on the National Autonomous University of Mexicos campus with an army occupation order. With the Olympics-inspired protest as a pretext for the violence (and only 10 days from the Games opening ceremony), Ordazs army violently countered (Brewster & Brewster, 2009). As author Elena Poniatowska (1991) accounts: Flares suddenly appeared in the sky overhead and everyone automatically looked up. The first shots were heard then. The crowd panicked [and] started running in all directions.

IOC President Avery Brundage, 67 session, International Olympic Committee, 07/10/68.

th

Sunset approached and the attack began, leaving thousands beaten and between 200 and 300 individuals dead. Violence has existed throughout human history and across all cultures, yet in this moment, why would the Olympic Games exist as an impetus for such destruction? Perhaps Mexico was not an appropriate host for the Games, and the IOC prematurely selected a Latin American nation for the job. As the Tlateloco massacre demonstrates, it is imperative to understand the implications of hosting a Games and the resonating effect it has on the host population. Yes, 1968 was an exceptional period where protests were common internationally, and revolutionary change had momentum. Despite the severity of the incident, it portrays the degree of power that the Olympic Games has to influence a society, emphasizing the necessity to identify the real impact hosting may have on a city and nation. To explore this, one must consider a number of different factors. Each of which exists as its own seemingly complex vacuum of conflicting values, objectives, and incentives. First, the repercussions, both positive and negative, that hosting a Games has historically had on a city must be addressed. Second, a discussion is necessary on the International Olympic Committees (IOC) role, and the image it
Figure 1. Student leaflets following Tlateloco massacre. Brewster & Brewster, 2009.

has historically demonstrated to the world. This refers to the ethical footprint left by the IOC and Local Organizing Committee (LOC). Finally, and generally of the greatest concern, what economic stimulus exists from hosting? Brundages words, delivered less than a week following the Tlateloco massacre in Mexico City, capture the essence of a broader question that the current paper seeks to answer: Is hosting an Olympic Games ethically sound, with consideration to its immense economic cost, its disruption and displacement to the local community (a direct and indirect repression), and

the halo effect associated to the IOCs less than exemplar morality? In this evaluation, ethics is considered primarily with regard to the consequences affecting the local population. Ultimately, as this paper will demonstrate, hosting an Olympic Games typically, though narrowly, provides a net benefit to the host city. But there are numerous transgressions and casualties accepted in the process, making it a difficult venture to approve.

A Global Game
In order to explore the ethics debate inherent in hosting a Games, one must first understand the pretext of the event itself and each stakeholders role. The Olympic Games Odyssey The original Olympic Games were an invention of the Greeks dating back to 776 BC. Every four years, they were celebrated at Olympia in honour of Zeus. In 393, Roman Emperor Theodosius banned them in favour of a more Christian agenda (rather than pagan). It was not until the French Baron Pierre de Coubertin envisioned a global and uniting event that they Olympic Games resumed (Pound, 2006). This was is 1896, in Athens. Coubertin believed that physical fitness in combination with culture and education had the ability to improve society and bring the world together. Prior to this, the primary means of societal interaction was war; a both expensive and depressing cause. The first Games had only 12 nations and roughly 400 participants (Pound, 2006). However, his vision evolved into an event that now showcases 11,000 athletes from 204 nations (in its Summer version). With the exception of 1916, 1940, and 1944, the Olympic Games has consistently been staged. The Games are truly a global event, composed of not only international athletes, but also International Federations (i.e. International Association of Athletics Federations, IAAF, etc.), and National Olympic Committees (NOCs), Organizing Committees of the Olympic Games (OCOGs), and of particular importance, international sponsors (TOP program). There are currently nine TOP sponsors for the Vancouver 2010 and London 2012 Olympic Games. Of the nine partners, seven different nations act as their headquarters further highlighting the international reach of the Games (Coca Cola USA, Acer Taiwan, Atos Origin France/Belgium, GE USA, McDonalds USA,

Omega Switzerland, Panasonic - Japan, Samsung Korea, and VISA USA). This interdependent relationship amongst the IOC, IFs, NOCs, and TOP partners truly captures the global workings of the Games and ultimately its basis as a revenue generating entity. It is likely that few other business can claim the international-ness that the Games provides as the Olympic Movement includes every country on the planet, even those that are isolated such as North Korea. Not even McDonalds can compete with that! The International Olympic Committee The International Olympic Committee is the supreme authority of the Olympic Movement (International Olympic Committee, n.d.). It is a collection of volunteers selected solely by the IOC. Its membership has been as high as 130 members, but a target of 115 has recently been established. It consists of 15 Olympic athletes (elected by peers), 15 International Federation representatives, 15 NOC representatives, and 70 members selected for their personal characteristics (Pound, 2006). These last members terms are lifelong. The IOC operates with a closed-door board of directors, where there are no requirements for public disclosure. Simson and Jennings (1992, p. ix) described the IOC as a secretive elite domain where the decisions about sport [...] are taken behind closed doors, where money is spent on creating fabulous life styles for a tiny circle of officials. The intent of this paper is not to explore the array of qualities and failings prevalent within the IOC. However, it is critical to appreciate that the IOCs values eventually trickle down to the product they endorse, which of course, is the Games experience itself. The Olympic Games is naturally clamoured with a variety of ethical debates as there are so many stakeholders involved. For mega-events such as the Olympics, stakeholders are usually classified into categories according to their roles government, organizing committee, athletes, media, participants, volunteers, and the local community (Xing, Church, OReilly, Pegoraro, Nadeau, Schweinbenz, Heslop, Sguin, 2008). McNamee (2008) cites a lengthy list of such ethical discussions. Is the celebration of the Games unacceptably chauvinistic? Should the Paralympics be held prior to the Olympics to showcase these athletes rather than leave them as

an afterthought? Can politicians justify the opportunity cost to education, health, and welfare budgets in preparing Olympic teams? A subject of considerable contention centres on the ethics of hosting. Hosting has numerous topics oriented towards the ethic of the process. Is it appropriate for a city to nominate itself? Is it acceptable that a nation endures significant sacrifice in order to host successfully? And, has the IOC fulfilled its fiduciary duty to select the most suitable host, irrespective of politics, favours, geographical rotation, and other external factors?

The Bid Process

The incentive to host an Olympic Games exists in the bold and exclusive opportunity to immortalize a citys reputation, while potentially drawing impressive financial recompense. Cities the world over, fiercely compete for the privilege. When Atlanta won the 1996 Summer Olympic Games hosting right, the city rejoiced because the value to its businesses and citizens was projected at US $3 billion (Kotler, Haider, & Rein, 1993). Hosting a Games attracts tourists at grandiose levels, creates jobs while invigorating the city with new knowledgeable and skilled individuals, fosters renewal, infrastructure and national pride, and draws on the TOP sponsors unique capabilities to the citys benefit (Davis, 2008) (Appendix A).2 Naturally, more complex reasons for hosting the Games extend beyond these. Rome (1960), Tokyo (1964), and Munich (1972) wanted to demonstrate that they had rehabilitated since the Second World War. The Moscow Games (1980) aimed to demonstrate the superiority of communism. The Seoul Games (1988) represented a mixture of goals from beating Japan to further isolating North Korea (Pound, 2006). The potential economic, political, social, and technological gain from a successful bid persuades numerous cities to enter the competitive process. Despite this, Olympic Games may be a questionable investment to those who host them (Leeds, 2008). Kotler et al. (1993) term

TOP The Olympic Partner Programme.

this type of contest a place war, consistent with worldwide competition for businesses, tourists, sports teams, and conventions. Cities contest the rigorous bid process every two years, following a domestic decision on the most suitable host within the nation. Thousands of individuals participate in each bid, and costs are easily in the millions of (US) dollars. In the 2000s, bid cities were required to pay a $100,000 application fee. A Candidature Procedure and Questionnaire is then completed; a 260 page document. From this, a small grouping of cities is selected as potential candidates, and each is required to pay $500,000 to continue with the procedure. A city is distinguished as either an applicant city or candidate city depending on what stage it is in, in the process. Cities are also required to guarantee $100 million in support of their bid, and to sign indemnification agreements protecting the IOC and the NOC (Davis, 2008). Eventually a victor is selected via a voting process amongst the IOCs 110-120 member populace, seven years in advance of Games commencement (Appendix B). Naturally the process is highly politicized and under relentless media scrutiny. Upon winning the right to host a Games, the real work begins. Rio de Janeiro successfully won the privilege for the 2016 Summer Olympic Games on October 2, 2009. This will be the first South American host. Their struggle to win this contest was hotly contested, with Chicago presenting a disappointing 4th place bid endorsed by Barrack Obama, and Madrid earning a respectable 2nd place finish on the backs of previous IOC President Juan Antonia Samaranchs influence. Tokyo, Japan finished 3rd. Despite this, Rios true work lies ahead as it prepares organizationally (security, volunteers, event management, transportation, and tourism), infrastructural projects (roads, networks, power supply, technology, hotels, and healthcare), and with respect to its venues (athletic venues, the Olympic Village, and commercial sites); all with the hope to complete the seven year project having bettered Rios current state (Davis, 2008).

Consequence and Reciprocity

From its inception in 1896, the Olympics has aspired to embrace two qualities: ethics and internationalism (Pound, 2006). In reality the Games have been and continue to be highly

politicized, elitist, and commercialized. Although succeeding in its appeal for global inclusion, one would sceptically agree that it has an acceptable ethical record. The paper posits that the negative repercussions resulting from hosting most often arise when irresponsible decisions are made by organizing committees and the IOC, and they become evident when various spheres are scrutinized. However, unethical behaviour does not just simply and clearly appear, and is thus not easily identifiable or preventable. When one investigates the various contributing factors that impact the hosting of a Games, two domains are most notable. First, what image is portrayed through the hosting mechanism? Is the Games adhering to its Charter (Appendix C)? Are there conflicting agendas present? This is critical as it identifies how the world will perceive the event. Second, what is the broad effect on the city and its population? This requires a qualitative interpretation. And likely of greatest importance is the financial after-effect. Does the city (and state and nation as well) benefit economically from the enormous initial investment they make in order to host? Ethical Implications in the Selection of a Host Hosting a Games invokes the worlds attention on a community. This attention is both critical and judgemental of the host city, and of the IOCs selection of this city. A host city should represent a beacon of positive ideals to the rest of the world. It must be capable financially, logistically, and with respect to its infrastructure (Davis, 2008). And, the population must deliver the Games with the same values that the IOC champions. The Games are a tool for positive change; an opportunity to present the best of humanity. Stakeholders must ask Will staging the Games here contribute to the progression of this cultures quality of life? Two opposing arguments are forwarded here. One will argue that the privilege to host a Games must go to those who have strong rule of law, strong human rights, and are financially able to deliver a fantastic product. The other side will argue that the Games has the capacity to improve the rule of law, develop human rights, and increase financial stability. One side prefers the stick, while the other, the carrot.

By selecting only those cities (and thereby nations) that meet a strict list of requirements establishes a standard that the world will (theoretically) appreciate as projecting the values that all human should have access to. This will encourage those nations that are not meeting the standard to improve. However, others will argue that a great risk exists in alienating many nations with a western palate of values that are not congruent with all cultures. By alienating these nations, they may become isolated, and the ability to influence them is forfeited. Historically, there are many instances where this dilemma has pervaded the course of the Games or generated a surfeit of scandal-rife analysis. Germany and China Those who adhere to the carrot camp note both Germanys and Chinas hosting as indicators of how change can prevail from hosting a Games. Germanys hosting in 1936 was filled with numerable inconsistencies with the IOCs Charter. Hitler viewed the Games as most state leaders do an opportunity to further a national agenda and demonstrate its supremacy. He hoped that Germanys athletes would dominate the competition. However, his contorted view extolled Jesse Owens, 1936.

Nazism. This was well known ahead of the Games and most agree that Semitism should play no role in a celebration of humanity such as the Olympics. However, from this hosting, certain heroes arose who embodied the true Olympic values such as Jesse Owens, who forced Hitler to swallow his pride and accept (very briefly) that the Aryan Nation was not untouchable (Young, 2008). As Large (2007) notes: Even the Nazis were unable to impose their ideology with impunity upon the Games in Berlin. Rather, they were forced, however briefly, to appease the

Olympic leaders and to conform (or appear to conform) to the internationalist and inclusive ideals promoted by the IOC ideals which even the latter itself did not always follow that closely. Jesse Owens won four gold medals and left Hitler highly annoyed (Speer, 1936, p. 73). Interestingly, Large (2007) contends an association between Germanys 1936 hosting and that of communist Chinas 2008 edition. Similarly, China sought a facelift through the Olympic Games that would demonstrate its arrival as a superpower (Bonde, 2009). Just as Tokyo in 1964 and Seoul in 1998 marked their emergence as major global players, so too would Beijing (Sands, 2008). Many supporters of the carrot concept cite China as a further example of how a Games can bring positive change to a nation. Those will argue that overlooking some of Chinas shortcomings in favour of mobilizing broader change through hosting will lead to a quicker and more robust development of human rights. To many though, it appears counterintuitive that a one-party state with notorious human rights abuses and ethnic boarder disputes, is given the right to fuel its cultural propaganda through an Opening Ceremony at an Olympic Games (Bonde, 2009). In the seven year lead up to the Games, leaders around the world admonished Beijing for its disparate human rights record. Even Nicolas Sarkozy, Frances President, threatened to not attend the event (Sands, 2008). Despite this attention or perhaps due to it, China hosted a successful Games and many believe that regardless of Chinas malfeasance, individual liberties have progressed with the influx of such values. As Liu Jingmin, Executive Vice-President of the Organizing Committee for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games stated: allowing Beijing to host the Games will help the development of human rights (Bonde, 2009). USSR and USA Those affiliating with the stick group will note the USSR (1980) and the USA (1998) as illustrating the benefit in requiring an established and enforced standard of practices prior to

bestowing hosting rights on a city. Although in both these instances, human rights is not the subject of examination, the corruption was similarly destructive in its own right. The Summer Olympics of 1980 were extraordinary in storyline. The USSR passionately felt that this Games was the opportunity to show the superiority of communism to the Western world. Interestingly, the Soviet athletes did perform the best finishing well atop the medal table. This was for two different reasons that detract from their supposed superiority. First, these Games were apparently the cleanest of all time, as not a single doping infraction was committed. Of course, this is a farce and the Organization Committee of the Olympic Games had manipulated any effort to professionally test cheaters. More importantly though, the USSRs invasion of Afghanistan resulted in a global boycott of 61 nations to these Games led by the USA (although Saudi Arabia was technically the first nation to refuse participation) (Appendix D). In his State of the Union address of January 23, President Jimmy Carter announced that he had notified the Olympic Committee that with Soviet invading forces in Afghanistan, neither the American people nor I will support sending an Olympic team to Moscow (Tristam, 2009). This severely lowered the talent pool, giving the USSR a rather lop-sided competitive environment. The boycott had both straining and humorous repercussions. This was particularly disappointing for Canada, whose 211 qualified athletes were not eligible to attend. It is an absolute shame when an athlete devotes their life to an endeavour and has it removed for reasons that are extraneous to whom they are as competitor. On the lighter side, in the womens field hockey event, the boycott resulted in only one qualified team remaining the USSR. So teams were invited up to the week prior to fill the tableau (Vancouver Now, 2008). The USSR was deeply threatened by the prospect of Western influence during the Games, and instituted a number of strategies to ensure those values were not extended in the Republic. Even though the corruptive persuasion of America and the 60 other boycotting nations was nil, Soviet officials created various diversions to reduce potential influence. For instance, children aged from seven to fifteen were sent away from Moscow on what was

officially regarded as a holiday to the countryside, so as to remain ideologically and culturally pure (Vancouver Now, 2008). The USSRs invasion of Afghanistan highlights how critical it is to limit highly politicized nations from hosting a Games. Moscow clearly had an agenda that was presented as a priority over and above Olympic values. Their foreign policy was sufficient to crumble the integrity of the Games as participation was drastically compromised. The IOC witnessed an aberration of the Olympic values, widespread doping infractions, and a fragmented competitive field. And, unlike in Nazi Germany or Communist China in 2008, the Games remained isolated and insular so no tangible and broad change was discussed let alone arose from the USSRs hosting. Ideologies were maintained, the outside world remained perfunctory, and the IOC sanctioned a sacrilegious event. The IOC had an opportunity to transfer the Games elsewhere or delay them for a year (as was widely suggested). By doing so, it would have shown the world that the luxury of hosting a Games is only privy to those who respect human rights. The IOCs inattention to the USSRs deceit is akin to complicity. The Salt Lake City bidding process witnessed Tom Welch and Dave Johnson, bid committee leaders, bribe IOC delegates for votes (Crowther, 2002). The bribes included cash, college scholarships, and other incentives. One of the IOCs TOP sponsors (John Hancock President and CEO David D'Alessandro) verbalized the frustration held by all investors in the Olympic Games (Wenn & Martin, 2006): It seems to be the way the world works: every government that forgets about the people who give it power and, instead, concentrates on keeping its secrets, keeping its perks, maintaining its rituals and preserving its own hide, eventually implodes. It happened to Louis XVI, and it happened to the Soviet Communist Party. Now, it's happening to the International Olympic Committee. The Salt Lake City bid committees actions, although deplorable, actually exposed behaviour that had long been present in the IOCs selection of host cities. The brand value of

the Games and of Salt Lake itself was severely tarnished. The citys name seems to be accompanied by an asterisk reminding people that the city disingenuously won its hosting rights. This is unfortunate for the city as its reputation is compromised, and it further calls to question the ethical rational behind its bid, and future citys aspirations to host a Games. Selection of the Host Closing Thoughts This paper seeks to determine if hosting a Games remains an ethically sound endeavour. Major partners in this are the IOC and the hosting city (and nation). As Berlin, Beijing, Moscow, and Salt Lake City demonstrate, ethical transgressions are prevalent throughout the Games process, both on the IOCs part and on the organizing committees. The question is whether the hosting, despite its inconsistencies and potential poor practices, results in an improved society following the Games. Analysts like to point to different historical hosts as proving that a Games can or cannot be held without moral casualties. This is prevalent in all Games, and especially in the four discussed here. However, upon evaluating the broad effect that most often prevails, a Games hosting provides overall benefit to the host population. Human rights were at the centre of the above discussion. It would be overly optimistic to suggest that the Games were highly responsible for the post-Games developments that have occurred, but it is notable that the Nazis were shamed in 1936, Beijings government was forced to open internet access during the 2008 edition, the USSR crumbled only a few short years after its hosting, and Salt Lake City bid committees actions resulted in a more transparent process for future bids. Whether big, or small, it is arguable that each of these changes may have not yet occurred, or would have taken significantly longer had the Games not been hosted in these locations. Inherent in this (although a difficult pill to swallow), is the acceptance that ethical iniquitys will occur, but that in spite of them, good will prevail and ultimately a higher quality of life will result. Domestic Implications of a Games Hosting Games hosting is of significant consequence to the city and its populace. The previous section demonstrated a broad effect, largely fuelled by global factors, intrinsic in hosting. It is

evident, through the historical analysis, that the motivation to host is often predicated on similar dynamics. More deeply, there is a layer of consequence touching the local populace that is worthy of further investigation. There are a host of risk-laden unknowns during the Games. The host city may be peripherally affected by the quality of the competition, the extent of doping infractions, the potential for a judging scandal, or even the weather. Numerous risk factors will establish if the Games (and ultimately the host) is perceived as a success or a failure. The list is lengthy, yet organizers must focus on the elements for which they have a degree of control. Implicit in this is the multitude of changes a city experiences (and is obligated to) in order to meet IOC requirements. A second aspect, and of incredible significance, is the financial aftermath that the host city commits itself to. While considering these two elements, it is sought to determine if hosting an Olympic Games remains ethically acceptable to the local population, given its micro-level impression? Effect on Host City Games have a formidable affect on host cities and nations. Consider Vancouver today, in the final months prior to Canadas hosting. Vancouver progressed from the idyllic modern miracle: a controversy-free, efficient, and financially solvent Games, to a protest-plagued (world poverty, seal hunting opposition, treatment of First Nations people, etc.) and recessionrattled Games (The Economist, 2009). Local support for hosting the Games is generally considered a prerequisite for IOC approval, though this has rarely been measured through formal means (Xing et al., 2008). In open, democratic societies, there will always be groups challenging the presence of the Games. And, in many cases, their assertions are warranted. This impact on this city is not unique. In fact, Parent (2008) lists thirteen distinct issues that event organizing committees face: politics, visibility, financial, organising, relationships, operations, sport, infrastructure, human resources, media, interdependence, participation, and legacy. This places significant responsibility on the organizing committee. And, as much as the event organizers (i.e. Vancouver Organizing Committee VANOC) are concerned with how the event can be capitalized upon to promote the city, event owners (i.e. IOC) seek organizers who

will safeguard and enhance the brand equity of their event (Xing et al., 2008). This is quite challenging for organizers as they must please local residents while also meeting the IOCs stringent standards. An assortment of issues are central to the effect on a host city. Here, we discuss three of them; relationship building with other partners, displacement of locals, and the innate intangibles of hosting. Relationship Building Relationship building is an interesting component of the Games as there is impressive opportunity to develop long term, fruitful associations with other nations as trading partners. There is a economic incentive with this, but there are further benefits, akin to the initial progression towards bilateral trade agreements. Beyond gaining access to better pricing on certain goods, nations also procure products that perhaps were not accessible before. Jaffe and Nebenzahl (1993) found that the 1988 Seoul Olympic Games in South Korea positively influenced Israeli perceptions of and willingness to purchase South Korean products for those with high exposure to the Olympics. This is a pertinent finding as Israeli consumers formed a more favourable image of South Korea after exposure to the Seoul Olympics. Conversely, Frances perception and relations with China soured immensely due to the Beijing Games. Xing et al. (2008) found that perceived human rights violations in China could influence beliefs about the social responsibility of the Beijing Olympics. France, more than any other nation, demonstrated against Chinas human rights abuses and its treatment of Tibet. As such, Chinas travel agencies informally retaliated by suspending French packages (de Beer, 2008). A further boycott targeted LOreal, Louis Vuitton, and other French goods. Naturally this apprehension was reciprocated, and the overall relationship is still being salvaged more than a year later. Beijings hosting fuelled a number of international campaigns to boycott Chinese products. Naturally, host nations want to form trading relationships and not strain them as a result of organizing a Games. Fortunately for China, the worlds demand for their products is so immense, that a haphazard embargo will hardly raise eyebrows, let alone be a meaningful

impetus for change. Not all nations have the unique positioning of Chinas though. The IsraelKorea, and France-China events highlight the delicate nature of Games hosting and relationship building. There is tremendous risk in this pursuit (and tremendous potential upside), which identifies the ethical dilemma. If hosting has the counter-productive risk to sour foreign relations, is it in the best interest of the city and nation to do so? It is worth noting that the above relationship is bi-directional between the event and the host place. So, consumers may transfer their negative perception of Beijings policies, to the Games itself. Consumers are then likely to transfer negative perception of the Games to a negative perception of the Games TOP partners. This is of considerable consequence to the sponsorship partners, who are a invaluable stakeholder for the Games operations (Xing and Chalip, 2006). Displacement of Locals Most Olympic Games require a movement of local businesses and residents in order to accommodate the appropriate infrastructure. It is a near impossibility to host a Games in a metropolis (the only cities capable of hosting major Games) and not move existing structures. This is only justifiable if those affected are compensated fairly. What is fair is difficult to determine. In any case, we can be assured that most often, those individuals are not remunerated well, as their voice is overshadowed by Olympic inertia. Consider this, according to the Geneva-based Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE); 2.75 million Chinese citizens were displaced to make way for Olympic-related construction. And, a total of 512,100 houses had been removed since the city was awarded the Games in 2001. COHRE states that most Chinese citizens were given little or no warning before they were evicted from their homes and were not compensated for their land. The Chinese government disputes these figures and says all owners have been compensated (Zurlo, 2007). Displacement does not only occur in less developed nations such as China, as evidenced by Vancouver and its downtown eastside. This is Canadas poorest zip code, suffering from chronic homelessness, drug use, and prostitution. Amid the excitement for the Games,

momentum towards rejuvenation and gentrification has increased. Mayor Sam Sullivan has identified cleaning up this area as an Olympic legacy. Yet, by addressing the lower eastsides problem, he will simply be transferring it elsewhere. Affordable housing advocates fear further displacement in a city that already has Canadas highest housing prices (Baker, 2008). The city has allocated a number of low-income housing projects, although some of these have been reduced resulting in severe criticism of the citys planning. The Intangibles Inherent in Hosting The final micro-level factor discussed is the intangibles of hosting. Generally, the impact of an event is evaluated under three distinct areas: direct financial impact (i.e. job creation to build facilities), indirect financial impacts (i.e. Long term tourism gain), and intangibles (i.e. Development of a citys brand). Too often, Games are primarily evaluated on their financial merits while avoiding the discussion of intangible elements. Beijing claims a $146 million operating profit from the Beijing Games, but does the financial result accurately portray the qualitative impact on the city (Burton & Falk, 2009)? Financial performance is important and discussed later, but it is imperative to understand the intangible components in order to make an accurate assessment of the ethical suitability in hosting. It is an unenviable task to try to compare the resulting intangibles with the economic cost, and determine whether a net benefit or loss occured. Intangible components include economic development (beyond direct revenue and expense of Games itself), branding, volunteer training, facility legacies, health care improvements, and the lengthy list continues. These are long term aspects that cannot easily be accounted for, but which are extremely critical as Burton & Falk (2009) note by asking the question Was it more important for the Games to showcase Chinas growing economy and tourism/branding than to improve the quality of life for Beijing residents? It is clear that a Games is not meeting its ethical obligations if legacy vehicles are not central to its application. However, applications must focus on profitibility in order to appease local citizens. It is dangerous political ground to suggest a Games will perform otherwise, even if

accompanied with legacy benefits, as these benefits are generally difficult to identify and measure accurately. The IOC increasingly expects applicant citys packages to identify legacy aspects within its proposal. Whether these aspects are genuine and sustainable projects is discussion for further research. Post-Games evaluations should not focus soley on costs, but on the holistic impression. Burton and Falk (2009) argue that these aspects need to be evaluated with appopriate metrics, clear benchmarks, and long-term data collections (and done so independently). When a city is prepared to do this, and in fact does while demonstrating net positive progress, it may be deemed as an ethically sound host. Financial Consequences The Olympic Games are not only grand sporting arenas promoting the Olympic spirit, but also great platforms for cities to promote themselves to improve their image for long term economic gain (Li & Blake, 2009). A primary incentive in hosting the Games is the supposed financial gain that the city will derive. In terms of tourism, a positive image of a host destination may pull both international and national travellers to visit (McManus, 1999). Interestingly, some evidence suggests that a spill over effect may have a more predominant affect on those communities surrounding the host, rather than the host itself. Leeds (2008) found that the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics actually provided limited financial gain for the local community (and Utah), but actually benefited 16 Colorado counties that had ski resorts. Of course, there are plenty of benefits implied beyond tourism. Each city hosting the Olympics wants to show its citizens (or government) the pomp and circumstance did not cost anyone anything (Burton & Falk, 2009). Proponents of hosting will often cite supposed economic benefits. Hefner (1990) discussed how the construction of Olympic venues can profit an economy. Investing in venues increases the demand for capital and labour in the construction industry, as well as increasing the demand for building materials, which encourages further productivity and employment in industries that manufacture building materials. Critics note a number of negative financial factors resulting from hosting though. First, opportunity costs are high given that the money spent on Olympic venues could be spent on

other public needs, such as reducing poverty, and improving health and education, which may be of greater benefit to the economy. Second, public investment may cause a crowding out effect out on private investment when public funding is involved in Olympic venue construction. Third, if Olympic venues remain idle post-Games, but maintenance costs are still incurred, construction of these venues is a cost rather than benefit t to the economy (Li & Blake, 2009). It is evident that a Games can quite easily be more expensive than forecasted and that the original intended objective of bettering the society may be lost in the process. A look at the upcoming Games in Vancouver and London highlights this risk. The Vancouver 2010 Games garnered a 64 percent approval rating amongst its citizens in 2003, but is now being scrutinized for a budget shortfall of approximately US $87 million, and a further request for US $20 million to support Olympic Village construction. The IOC has announced it will help with Vancouvers debts should a deficit result. This a rare position for the IOC to take, but at the same time, raises fears for moral hazard, if VANOC (Vancouver Organizing Committee) does not remain conservative in its spending. In London, experts are predicting a US $160 million shortfall in the London Development Agencys 2012 Olympics account (Burton & Falk, 2009). Table One exhibits the historic profitability levels of seven Olympiads. The data must be cautiously interpreted as it is not always clear what stakeholder is responsible for what debt (tax payers vs. organizing committee). A general picture is painted however. Table 1. General Cost of Recent Olympic Games (Davis, 2008) City (Year) Barcelona (1992) Albertville (1992) Lillehammer (1994) Atlanta (1996) Nagano (1998) Sydney (2000) Salt Lake (2002) Bid Cost $ 10 million $ 2-3 million $ 3 million $ 7 million $ 11 million $ 12.6 million $ 7.0 million Games Cost (US) $ 10.7 billion $ 2 billion $ 1.6 billion $ 1.7 billion $ 14 billion $ 3.24 billion $ 1.3 billion Results $ 6.1 billion loss (public debt) $ 57 million loss $ 40 50 million profit Broke even $ 28 million profit of OCOG $ 11 billion loss (public debt) Broke even $ 100 million profit

Montreal (1976) was a disastrous Games financially, leaving a billion dollar debt that the city was responsible for. This experience and numerous others suggest that a Games cannot be

ethically justified. The financial implication is just too great. However, as some Games have demonstrated (and more typically, recent events), denying a citys public the immense opportunity for the unique economic stimulation a successful edition can bring would be ethically futile as well. In terms of financial repercussions, it is not yet clear if hosting a Games can be ethically justified; given its immense cost and its effect of reducing funding to other areas that may better serve the population. What can be confirmed is that if a city should host, it must be conservative in its pursuit or risk a catastrophic inheritance left behind, such as Montreals in 1976.

Closing Remarks
The Games are a spectacular event, drawing remarkable attention to host cities. Many factors influence the process, affecting whether it is a success or failure. The discussion of justifying the event is premised on the extent to which a citys population will be better off for assuming this immense responsibility. A successful Games has the capacity to distinguish a host city as a marquee destination for years to come. But a failed Games is not only an embarrassment, it also saddles its citizens with a burden that may too endure for years to come. It is not only financial factors that are central to the discussion, but further implications such as the displacement of locals, how the bid was won, what the hosts intentions are, and the long term international relationships that are forged. Naturally, the financial implications are a central factor in the equation though. But cities must delve deeper than this to understand how their city will be reshaped following the Games. The challenge of unexpected cost overruns from construction, immense operating budgets and mounting media scrutiny as the Games approach, is common. But, when the Games cost billions to stage and then result in a modest profit or a healthy loss, the citizens of hosting cities deserve some form of independent audit that considers all aspects (Burton & Falk, 2009). Given the potential for the Olympic Games to transform a city in terms of infrastructure, developed financial relationships, and overall vibrancy, it is difficult to argue against hosting. Maintaining an ethically sound Games is truly challenging however as so many stakeholders are

implicated. Fortunately, history has shown a number of Olympic Games that were not fuelled by the right means, but never-the-less resulted in an improved state. This usually stems from international attention on domestic imbalances that would not otherwise be discussed in the media globally. Ultimately, this is the power of the Games. Games hosting remains an ethically justifiable venture because a net positive influence most often results from the project. Despite the risk inherent in its immense economic cost, its disruption of the local community, and the questionable behaviour of many of its stakeholders (IOC, organizing committee, sponsors, and even athletes), the Olympic Games has a tremendous ability to improve, or minimally initiate the discussion on how a societys population can improve, through hosting the event. Given that the IOC was recently granted UN Observer Status for its contribution to the Millennium Development Goals, one would be further inclined to believe that the IOCs operations will continue to improve with respect to its ethics practices and its ability to ensure future Games as a whole are more ethically-sound (Taume News, 2009). The Olympiad is an incredible celebration with the potential to act as a vehicle for change. Although laden with complicating factors, the Olympic Games most often has a positive return on investment for its host community and is ethically justified due to this ability to affect change.

Appendix A The Olympic Partner Program (TOP)

The TOP programme was initiated in 1988 for the Calgary (winter) and Seoul (summer) Olympiads. According to the IOC:

The Olympic Partner (TOP) programme is the highest level of Olympic sponsorship and provides sponsors with exclusive worldwide marketing rights to both the Summer and Winter Games. TOP Partner companies are multinational organisations which are able to provide direct support, sponsor services or expertise for the staging of the Games. In addition to supporting the IOC and the Organising Committees, TOP Partners support National Olympic Committees and their Olympic teams. The worldwide Olympic Partner Programme is managed and negotiated by the International Olympic Committee (International Olympic Committee Sponsorship, n.d.).

Table 2. The Olympic Partner Programme (Davis, 2008) Quadrennial 1985 - 1988 1989 - 1992 1993 1996 1997 2000 2001 2004 2005 - 2008 Games Calgary/Seoul Albertville/Barcelona Lillehammer/Atlanta Nagano/Sydney Salt Lake City/Athens Turin/Beijing Partners 9 12 10 11 11 12 NOCs 159 169 197 199 202 205 Revenue US $96 million US $172 million US $279 million US $579 million US $663 million US $866 million

Appendix B The IOCs Host City Selection Voting Procedure

The eligible IOC members will then be asked to vote. In each round; each participating IOC member may vote for only one city. The votes of members not taking part in a round of voting or who abstain, as well as blank or spoilt electronic voting entries, are not taken into account in the calculation of the required majority. If, after the first round of voting, no city obtains the absolute majority of the votes cast, as many rounds are held as necessary for a city to obtain such majority. The city receiving the least number of votes leaves the competition. The name of the city is made public straight away and the vote continues. If only two cities remain in contention, the one that obtains the greatest number of votes is declared elected. The announcement of the winning city is then communicated by the IOC President at the announcement ceremony, following which, the newly elected NOC and city will sign the Host City Contract. International Olympic Committee

Appendix C The Olympic Charter

To encourage and support the promotion of ethics in sport as well as education of youth through sport and to dedicate its efforts to ensuring that, in sport, the spirit of fair play prevails and violence is banned; To encourage and support the organisation, development and coordination of sport and sports competitions; To ensure the regular celebration of the Olympic Games; To cooperate with the competent public or private organisations and authorities in the endeavour to place sport at the service of humanity and thereby to promote peace; To take action in order to strengthen the unity and to protect the independence of the Olympic Movement; To act against any form of discrimination affecting the Olympic Movement; To encourage and support the promotion of women in sport at all levels and in all structures with a view to implementing the principle of equality of men and women; To lead the fight against doping in sport; To encourage and support measures protecting the health of athletes; To oppose any political or commercial abuse of sport and athletes; To encourage and support the efforts of sports organisations and public authorities to provide for the social and professional future of athletes; To encourage and support the development of sport for all; To encourage and support a responsible concern for environmental issues, to promote sustainable development in sport and to require that the Olympic Games are held accordingly; To promote a positive legacy from the Olympic Games to the host cities and host countries; To encourage and support initiatives blending sport with culture and education; To encourage and support the activities of the International Olympic Academy (IOA) and other institutions which dedicate themselves to Olympic education.

International Olympic Committee

Appendix D List of Boycotting Nations for the 1980 Summer Olympic Games
Albania Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belize Bermuda Bolivia Canada Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile People's Republic of China Cte d'Ivoire Egypt El Salvador Fiji Gabon Gambia West Germany Ghana Haiti Honduras Hong Kong Indonesia Israel Japan South Korea Liberia Liechtenstein Malawi Malaysia Mauritania Monaco Morocco Netherlands Antilles Niger Norway Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Philippines Saudi Arabia Singapore Somalia Sudan Swaziland Thailand Togo Tunisia Turkey United Arab Emirates United States Uruguay U.S. Virgin Islands Zaire

References
Baker, L. (2008). Amid gentrification, Vancouver seeks balance. Architectural Record, 196(1), 18. Beijing sponsorship: pros and cons. (2008, April). Sox First. Retrieved from: http://www.soxfirst.com/50226711/beijing_olympic_sponsorship_pros_ and_cons.php. Bonde, H. (2009). Sport, the Olympics, and politics: European responses to Beijing 2008. International Journal of the History of Sport, 26(10), 1555-1570. Brewster, K., & Brewster, C. (2009). The Mexican student movement of 1968: an Olympic perspective. International Journal of the History of Sport.26(6), 814-839. Burton, R., & Falk, D.B. (2009). Consider intangibles when weighing Olympic host benefits. Street & Smiths Sportsbusiness Journal, 12(9), 33. Crowther, N. (2002). The Salt Lake City scandals and the ancient Olympic Games. International Journal of the History of Sport, 19(4), 169-178. Davis, A.D. (2008). The Olympic Games effect: how sports marketing builds strong brands. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons. De Beer, P. (2008, August). China and the Olympics: a view from France. Retrieved from: http://www.opendemocracy.com/article/china-and-the-olympics-a-view-from-france. EIB approves $376mn London Olympics loan. (2009, April). The Economic Times. Retrieved from: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/EIB-OKs-376mn-Lon-Olympics-loan/ rssarticleshow/4386325.cms. Hefner, F.L. (1990). Using economic models to measure the impact of sports on local economies. Journal of Sports and Social Issues, 14, 1-13.

IOC granted UN observer status. (2009, October). Taume News. Retrieved from: http://news. taume.com/World-Business/World/IOC-granted-UN-observer-status-12939. Kotler, P., Haider, D., & Irving, R. (1993, November-December). Theres no place like our place! The marketing of cities, regions, and nations. The Futurist.27(6), 14-21. How the IOC took on Nike in Atlanta. (2005, July). Street and Smiths Sport Business Journal. Retrieved from: http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/46030. Large, D.C. (2007). Nazi Games: the Olympics of 1936. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Leeds, M.A. (2008). Do good Olympics make good neighbours? Contemporary Economic Policy, 26(3), 460-467. Li, S., & Blake, A. (2009). Estimating Olympic-related investment and expenditure. The International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(4), 337-356. Lukluna, B. (2009). China in Africa: An Olympics-charged re-engagement. International Journal of the History of Sport, 26(8), 1105-1121. McNamee, M. (2008). Editorial: Matters Olympic and Paralympic. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 2(3), 271-273. Official website of the Olympic Movement - News. 2016 bid process explained. (2009, October). Retrieved 17/12/09, from http://www.olympic.org/en/content/TheIOC/IOC-Sessions/Olympic-Congress-2009/?articleNewsGroup=-1& articleId=73278. Official website of the Olympic Movement The Organization. (n.d.) Retrieved 15/12/09, from http://www.olympic.org/en/content/The-IOC/The-IOC-Institution1/. Official website of the Olympic Movement - Sponsorship. (n.d.) Retrieved 15/12/09, from http://www.olympic.org/content/The-IOC/Sponsoring/Sponsorship/.

Parent, M. (2008). Evolution and issue patterns for major sport event organising committees and their stakeholders. Journal of Sport Management, 22(2), 135-164. Poniatowska, E. (1991). Massacre in Mexico. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. Pound, R.W. (2006). Inside the Olympics: a behind-the-scenes look at the politics, the scandals, and the glory of the Games. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons. Rubin, J.W. (2002, Summer). From Che to Marcos. Dissent Magazine. Sands, L.M. (2008). The 2008 Olympics impact on China. The China Business Review. (35)4, 4043. Simson, V., & Jennings, A. (1992). The lords of the rings: power, money and drugs in the modern Olympics. London: Simon & Schuster Ltd. Speer, A. (1936). Memoir: Inside the Third Reich. Thomaselli, R. (2008). Olympics feel the hurt as sponsors steer clear. Advertising Age. (79)45, 34. Tristam, P. (2009). The 1980 Olympics boycott over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Retrieved from: http://middleeast.about.com/od/afghanistan/a/me080803.htm. Vancouver Now. (2008, July). A Games without the Americans but full of oddities. Retrieved 19/12/09, from http://www.cbc.ca/olympics/history/story/2008/05/09/ f-olympics-history-1980.html. (2009). The Vancouver Winter Olympics: sliding off piste. The Economist, 392(8647), 44. Wenn, S.R., & Martyn, S.G. (2006). Tough love: Richard Pound, David DAlessandro, and the Salt Lake City Olympics. Sport in History, 26(1), 64-90. Xing, X., & Chalip, L. (2006). Effects of hosting a sport event on destination brand: a test of cobranding and match-up models. Sport Management Review, 9, 49-78.

Xing, X., Church, A.G., OReilly, N., Pegararo, A., Nadeau, J., Schweinbenz, A., Heslop, L., & Seguin, B. (2008). Olympic Games host and bid city marketing: exploring issue management in the relationships among event stakeholder groups. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 9(4), 321-335. Young, C. (2008). In praise of Jessie Owens: technical beauty at the Berlin Olympics 1936. Sport in History, 28(1), 83-103. Zakus, D.H. (1994). [Review of the book The lords of the rings: power, money and drugs in the modern Olympics, by V. Simson and A. Jennings]. Sociology of Sport Journal, 11, 88-91. Zurlo, M. (2007). Controversy surrounds preparations for Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. Retrieved 20/12/09, from http://www.infoplease.com/sports/olympics/beijingupdate.html.