Βy Vera Rodriguez,
These Olympic Games have combined historic tradition with top-tier athleticism. Over the past weeks, spectators have been treated to thrilling and cinematic moments: volleyball matches at Champ de Mars, with the Eiffel Tower soaring above the sandy courts and cheering fans. The games have had other breathtaking scenarios, like archers aiming at Les Invalides or gymnasts dazzling under the glass-domed Grand Palais. Paris 2024 has given us an Olympic stage, perfectly blending sport and scenery. Furthermore, the games have attempted to promote gender equality, LGBTQ+ inclusion, sustainability, and vegetarianism. Significant sports events are the opportunity to leverage a positive international image, and the Olympics is perhaps one of the best opportunities to do so. Ultimately, it is all about prestige, and Paris showcases this at its best.
From its humble beginnings in the late 19th century, the Olympics have evolved into a lucrative commercial spectacle, attracting sponsors and TV networks. The Games’ revenue surged from $88 million in 1980, to $1.331 billion by 2000, transforming them into a premier commercial spectacle. This historical context is crucial to understanding the current political use of the event by host countries. Most aim to leverage their international presence and image, such as Paris or Japan. In addition to pursuing fame, others have traditionally used this event to elevate the country’s wealth, like Río 2016. An exceptional influx of tourism and great sponsorships were part of the usually advertised incentives for organizing this event. However, for most of the host states, this search for gold ended up in abandoned neighborhoods, unused infrastructure, and debt. The promise of fame and gold is partly why wanting-to-be host countries have also resorted to –Olympic– bribery, offering deals to organizing committee members of the Olympic International Committee. The most notable example is the Winter Games at Salt Lake City in 2002, where 13 committee members were fired after accepting bribes. Far from being a thing of the past, in Tokyo 2020, Japan spent 8 million dollars on money and gifts allocated to members of the IOC. There is a lack of transparency that enables these practices to go on.
The Cold War is the ultimate example of Olympic politics. The US and the USSR fought to acquire the most significant gold medals. Today, a similar trend is taking place between Washington and Beijing. China’s involvement in questionable scandals, such as spying and growing navy, is a warning that China wants to defy the current world order. In this regard, it is difficult not to read the Sino-US rivalry at the Olympics as a symbolic quest for power.
This fight has not always remained purely symbolic. The Israel-Palestine conflict has also had a tangible impact on the Olympic Games. The OIC did not recognize Israel until 1952, mainly due to the opposition of Arab countries. The Six-day War in 1967 resulted in Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, which directly affected the Olympics. One of the most famous and unfortunate incidents at the Olympics occurred during the 1972 Munich Games, when a Palestinian terrorist kidnapped and ultimately killed eleven members of the Israeli Olympic team. The participation of these two countries in the Olympics is highly significant as it is a powerful diplomatic tool. For Palestine, its participation and recognition as a contestant since 1993 legitimizes it to the rest of the world, constituting a powerful diplomatic tool. Activists have consistently called for the IOC to ban Israel from the competition, particularly this year.
Notably, perhaps the most politically charged aspect of these Olympics —and simultaneously the least covered— is the selective banning of Russia and Belarus and not Israel. The IOC has cited Moscow’s “violation of the territorial integrity of the NOC of Ukraine”. Moreover, the committee has also banned Belarus for its compliance with Putin’s regime. At the same time, Israel has not faced a similar ban for a comparable reason, thereby implicitly legitimizing its actions to an extent. This discrepancy only reinforces that the Olympics are power politics at its best, and thus subject to traditional hypocrisies and, most importantly, subject to active scrutiny and critique.
References
- Hopes and fears of a nation: Paris holds its breath as Olympic action begins. The Guardian. Available here
- Por qué ya nadie (salvo Madrid) parece querer organizar unos Juegos Olímpicos. EOM. Available here
- What the Olympics Mean to China. FP. Available here
- Geopolítica de los Juegos Olímpicos: medallas, boicots y nacionalismo. EOM. Available here
- Tokyo Olympics: Why people are afraid to show support for the Games. BBC. Available here
