For many years the Olympic movement has aimed to represent itself as a catalyst for positive change within the host country, under the gaze of millions all around the world, countries parade their country on a grand scale. City organisers utilise the event as a means of boosting tourism, and local infrastructure, however this façade has seen millions of people displaced from their homes or pushed to the side-lines in a bid to socially cleanse poorer areas.
In recent years there has been a shift towards scepticism in hosting the Games.
Using examples from three previous Olympic Games this blog will explore the destruction left in the wake of hosting the Olympics
Whether you are a sports fan or not, it is difficult not to enjoy or follow when it is happening. As someone who has attended ‘the London 2012 Olympics’, it is easy to be swept up in the buzz of having a city close to home host such an extraordinary event. Being able to witness first-hand the changes in the city as it ramps up preparations to host a world event is awe inspiring, however this is not the case for those who lived in the London borough of Newham.
A motive for hosting the Games is the ability for host cities to receive urban renewal along with social policy interventions, this made the Stratford site for the London Olympics ideal, as a previously disused industrial site in a lower socioeconomic area. To the naked eye this seems like a positive effect of hosting the Games, however this is not the case for those living in the surrounding areas of the Olympic site.
Hosting a world event on the scale of the Olympics involves high security risks such as terrorism. In order to combat this the host city is required to increase military and policing operations all over the city. In London this included up to 13,500 military personnel and 12,500 extra police officers in addition to the use of snipers on surrounding buildings in Stratford. Research carried out following the Games in 2013 found that stop and search numbers rose during the Olympics
These security measures were not unnoticed by the surrounding communities who felt that the extra security procedures were not there to serve them, rather the visitors. To add to the disillusionment an overnight curfew was placed on people under 16 in Newham throughout the Olympics. For an Olympics’ whose legacy was to ‘inspire a generation’ why would the youth be marginalized with such measures as this only promotes further exclusion of the communities in the city in which the Games was held.
As a Games with such a youth focus, it seems contradictory that the very generation which the organisers wanted to inspire, were kept away from the ‘celebrations’ and criminalized. What is clear is that the IOC and other governing bodies involved in hosting the Olympics have little regard for those affected by the civilians affected by the Games. We can suggest that maybe, those involved are only focused on the capital gains that come with hosting the Olympics with little regard for marginalized civilians. This is a common theme when hosting the Olympics, examples include Atlanta in 1996 and Rio in 2016 just to name a few.
One of the Olympic charters is for Olympism to “place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind”, yet the behaviours of the few put focus on capitalist endeavours rather than developing humanity. The evidence that contradicts this charter is overwhelming, and this does not just include the home Games.
In preparation for the 2016 Rio Olympic Games, more than 77,000 people were forcibly removed from their homes, with some whole villages just being airbrushed away. Due to the size of redevelopment and the pace in which it needs to be completed, poor residents and landowners are ruthlessly bulldozed out of their communities. Vila Autodromo, a small fishing community was targeted as it was in a prime real estate location in the sought-after West Zone, for 25 years the Brazilian government had wanted to remove the favela so utilised the Games as an excuse. Some families were forced to move 30km as they could no longer afford to live in the area.
Even more tragically, two women in their 80s and 90s in Tokyo have been displaced TWICE for the 1964 and the 2020 Olympics. This causes major disruptions to the lives of people being displaced with one man even stating:
“There is a shadow extending over Tokyo. You can feel it. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that it’s coming with the Olympics.”
It is no surprise that public scepticism is growing for holding these Games, the cost of hosting is rising and while the elites benefit it is clear that the benefits are not felt everywhere. In a public survey by Asahi Shimbun daily, 43% of respondents wanted the postponed 2020 Tokyo Olympics cancelled while a further 40% wanted them to be postponed again, alongside protests there demonstrated public unrest.
A newer issue adding to public discontent is the COVID-19 pandemic. As coronavirus cases rose and lockdowns were implemented many Tokyo residents were against the Games going ahead, and rightly so. Hospital spaces were decreasing, and the city was preparing for thousands of foreign visitors to attend. While strict safety procedures were implemented, a virus such as this cannot be controlled 100%.
While the honour that comes with hosting the Olympics is understandable in addition to benefits to local economy and national togetherness, there needs to be a serious change in who is dictating and organising the events, or rather their intentions. As the big corporations and Olympic elites reap many benefits from the Olympics while the laymen, who embody the culture that each Olympic champions when they host their individual Games, are left side-lined and are the ones who have to pick up the pieces. The Olympics motto has recently been changed to: “Faster, Higher, Stronger – Together” this expresses the original message except it includes solidarity. Yet, where is the solidarity? Definitely not with those whose homes have been destroyed, and not with those who have been criminalized because of where they live. It is no wonder that public opinions are shifting to view the Olympics more negatively which has ultimately led to less cities bidding for the right to host.
In the future it would be positive to bestow the Games on cities where mass displacement and destruction would not need to occur. This would be cities that have the local infrastructure to cope with hosting an event on such scale. In addition to this the IOC needs to take steps that host cities are not bidding for the wrong reasons, such as a means of getting urban renewal. Whilst this is important in poorer areas, the Olympics and the Olympic ethos should not be jeopardised as a result. For us laymen taking the time to view the Games more critically would help bring about a change in the juggernaut that is the Olympics. It is possible to enjoy watching the most elite athletes at the highest level whilst also being aware of the sacrifices many families have taken against their will in order for the Games to happen.
By being made aware of what is happening behind the scenes when a city is setting up to host the Olympics allows us as normal people to think critically about these events, therefore it would be beneficial for others to be educated on this issue. There is not enough noise surrounding this topic, and that could be a result of few people knowing about the losers of the Olympics. So, spread the word readers, engage in this conversation as it is vital to set about change.
Kennelly, & Watt, P. (2013). Restricting the Public in Public Space: The London 2012 Olympic Games, Hyper-Securitization and Marginalized Youth. Sociological Research Online, 18(2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3038
Lee, J. W. (2021). The sociology of the Olympics: A prelude to Tokyo 2020(1) and Beijing 2022. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, Virtual Special Issue . https://journals.sagepub.com/page/irs/virtualspecialcollections
Ward, C., 2013. Atlanta and Other Olympic Losers. [ebook] American Sociological Association. Available at: <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1536504213499878> [Accessed 17 December 2021].