Mumbai is all set to host the 141st full-fledged annual IOC meeting from October 15 to 17. Work on this began in 2022, under the leadership of Nita Ambani, the first woman to be elected an IOC member from the country.
It’s a historic moment; it’s only the second time that India will play host to the session. The last one took place 40 years ago. This time is even more special as India is tipped to make a bid for the 2036 Olympics. And failing which, the one after that.
I was initially excited by this, followed by the sobering thought that I’d be a senior citizen by then. No one wants to grow old, but then, it’s always a good idea to look to the future. It’s called ‘having a vision’.
This IOC session is also important for another reason. The decision to cricket to the Los 2028 Angeles Olympics has been finalised here. Earlier, the argument would have been that cricket is not huge in the US. Now, the talk is about India’s massive market for the sport; the IOC is looking for new audiences to grow itself. The American market is no longer the be-all and end-all, when making these calculations.
As we know, there are no free lunches. Just making the bid needs deep pockets. When London was awarded the Games in 2012, it paid $500,000 to the IOC as bidding fees. Hosting the session itself is a big deal; making a bid even bigger; getting the rights to host the Games, a jewel in Bharat’s crown.
I don’t particularly like the phrase ‘flexing muscle’, with its underpinning of toxic masculinity, but let’s put it this way: democratic India is slowly but surely making its presence felt in the world. India is saying, hello, we are here, folks, ignore us at your peril.
A lot of water has flowed under India’s sporting bridge in the last four decades. Our sporting prowess has reached a tipping point in the last couple of years. In the recently-concluded Hangzhou Asian Games, we won an unprecedented 107 medals across disciplines (the bulk of them in prestigious track and field events), with 28 of them being Gold. This marks an increase of 37 medals from the previous-best achieved in the 2018 edition.
For once, the government and the private sector have displayed highly efficient synergy, coming together to back the blood, sweat and toil of our sportspersons.
So, what are the pros and cons of hosting an event of such magnitude and scale — the classic boon or bane question. First, the pros.
If India wins the bid, and holds a successful event, there will be enormous national pride, both among citizens and our sports persons. It will change the self-image of an entire generation. There is a well-known and oft-repeated Roger Bannister quote, the first man to run a mile under four minutes, where he talks about what sporting achievement does for a nation, a realisation that “as a people, we have the ability, the drive and the determination to be great.”
There’s no doubt that playing host increases a country’s international stature. There is instant recognition around the world; it adds to the country’s brand value. This has spin-offs for trade, business, even international relations, the benefits of which accrue for years afterwards. For instance, Spain got membership of the European Economic Community, soon after it hosted the Barcelona Games.
There is also instant economic gain in the form of visiting tourists and a global television audience. England continued to reap the benefits the year after it hosted the Olympics, with tourist footfalls up by 12%.
Second, the alleged cons.
On the side of the critics, we have, among others, sports economist Andrew Zimbalist, author of the bestselling book, Circus Maximus: The Economic Gamble Behind Hosting the Olympics and the World Cup>. To simplify, the arguments against, go something like this.
Questions have been raised about the economic viability of hosting the Olympics. In the past, no Olympics have turned a profit, barring the exceptions of Los Angeles in 1984 and Barcelona in 1992.
It’s also been said that infrastructure for elite sports, created at huge cost, often falls into disrepair, with stadiums and facilities being demolished. If they are maintained, the burden falls inordinately on the tax payer. The entrepreneurs and property developers make a windfall.
There is the issue of displacement. For instance, to make way for Beijing’s 2008 infrastructure, 1.5 million people were displaced, with residents being removed to the peripheries of the city. Citizens are inconvenienced, as happened in London, when the then mayor, Boris Johnson, requested locals not to take the London Tube, to avoid overcrowding and causing inconvenience to visitors.
The economic spike from tourism is considered short-lived. And when, the army, missile launchers and submarines are put on stand-by (as they were in London), critics argue that is this is an avoidable drain on a nation’s resources.
It’s good to know about both sides of the aisle, but here’s what I think:
One, the argument that a ‘poor’ country cannot afford to ‘waste’ money or afford to have ambition, is a specious one. This is what they said when we put the Chandrayaan on the moon. But, we were also making a contribution to humanity. By the ‘poor country’ rationale, Los Angeles should be spending the money it spends on hosting multiple Olympics, into changing the lives of the homeless poor living on Skid Row. The money required would be lesser than the budget for an average Hollywood film.
India’s self-image is constantly changing and evolving. No one can stop us from dreaming big. We can do that, whilst simultaneously working on the bread and butter issues of education, health and increasing per capita income.
Two, let’s learn from past mistakes that other host countries have made. Nationalism doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad word. Nation states put their own interests first, and we should make sure that we are the ones who benefit the most from hosting this mega event. We shouldn’t let expensive infrastructure go waste, like others have, but make it a lasting platform from where our sports persons can go on to reach for the stars.
We should learn from our own mistakes. Look what happened to Asiad Village, originally meant to house participants. The bulk of the flats were allotted to an elite that had nothing to do with sports: bureaucrats, top officials of PSUs, union ministers and a select few artists and dancers.
On the other hand, the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium was built for the 1982 Asiad and has served the country’s athletes well in the years since. It’s up to us what we do with the infrastructure.
And finally, an Olympics at home will come as a tremendous boost for our sportspersons. I’ve often been asked by friends abroad as to why India doesn’t win more medals and tournaments, what with its billion-plus population. Statistically, it’s an obvious truth: there has to be talent out there, more so than in a country smaller than one of our metropolises. (Just look at the number of movies and OTT shows we produce).
The Olympics will help us harness our true sporting potential. Fingers crossed, the world-famous five rings will be awash with Indian colours, come 2036.
The writer is the author of ‘The Butterfly Generation: A Personal Journey into the Passions and Follies of India’s Technicolor Youth’. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.
Comments
0 comment