Olympic Games: still relevant, but a model to review


The Winter Olympics are being held in Beijing from February 4 to 20.

The Winter Olympics are being held in Beijing from February 4 to 20.

Credit: IOC/Greg Martin

In 5 seconds

Researchers Jocelyn Coulon, Adrien Savolle and Michel Poitevin, from the University of Montreal, speak on the relevance of holding the Olympic Games and their long-term viability.

The important thing is not to win, but to participate.

If this philosophy instilled by the father of the modern Olympic Games, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, is still in force, it is clear that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is the subject of numerous criticisms regarding the criteria for awarding the games , not to mention that more and more potential host cities are withdrawing their candidacy.

In the context of diplomatic tensions between China and many countries including Canada, can we still say that the Olympic Games constitute a tool for unifying peoples? What are China’s objectives in holding these games and what could be the benefits for the country? (Note that China appears in 177e rank out of 180 in the press freedom index established by Reporters Without Borders!) Which countries can afford to host the Olympic Games, besides totalitarian states? And, finally, is holding the Olympics economically profitable or sustainable for the host cities?

Researchers Jocelyn Coulon, Adrien Savolle and Michel Poitevin, from the University of Montreal, share their observations with us.

Why not stick only to democratic countries to host the Olympics?

Jocelyn Coulon

Credit: Amélie Philibert

“The Olympic Games are the quintessence of multilateralism, because they bring together all the States and their representatives who are competing,” illustrates Jocelyn Coulon. The United Nations is the only other forum that brings together so many countries.”

According to the researcher from the Center for International Studies and Research at the University of Montreal (CERIUM), the emphasis should be placed on the athletes and their performances and, although it is desirable to depoliticize the Olympic Games, it would be naive to believe that host countries would deprive themselves of promoting their models and the values ​​that underlie them.

“We cannot avoid the Olympic Games being politicized, but the IOC could invite the athletes without inviting the States and abolish, for example, the national anthems and the flags to concentrate on the sporting events,” says Jocelyn Coulon. But the IOC is being held hostage and it is not tomorrow that we will find a solution for it to escape from this framework.”

What if the solution lay in awarding the games to democratic countries only?

“We still need to define what the measure of democracy is,” warns the specialist in foreign policy and global governance. When you grant the Olympic Games to a country, you cannot predict whether it will become authoritarian 10 years later, when the games take place.”

Indeed, when the IOC designated China to host the 2022 winter games, the other country in the running was Kazakhstan, “which is not among the 10 countries whose democracy is a consensus” and the race was tight. “The countries that voted for China knew that China has always been authoritarian and, at the time, Xi Jinping had only been president for three years and the Uighur issue, like that of Taiwan, was not not yet the humanitarian issue that it has now become,” recalls the CERIUM researcher.

“This question comes up every time we organize a major world event; but if we only considered the democratic aspect, there would only be around forty countries out of 193 which could aspire to hold the games, without knowing if they would be able to organize them, continues Jocelyn Coulon. This type of organization requires reception structures and a lot of money and, with the differential that already exists between the countries of the North and those of the South, if we add an additional criterion based on democracy, we will not hold the Olympics only between us!”

Restore its image to the whole world and its own population

In this regard, researcher Adrien Savolle, affiliated with Cérium and the Center for Asian Studies at UdeM, recalls that the next five Olympic Games will take place in democratic states: the 2024 summer games will take place in Paris ( France), those of 2028 in Los Angeles (United States) and those of 2032 in Brisbane (Australia), while the 2026 winter games will be held in Milan (Italy).

“In the same way as democratic states which contribute to promoting their country by placing themselves at the center of international interest through the holding of the Olympic Games, China’s objective is both to promote the pride of the Chinese people in the domestic level and to improve its image among the nations of the world,” he says.

And on a strictly sporting level, China has deployed a lot of resources and efforts to do very well: at the last winter games in South Korea, the country finished in 16e position, with only one gold medal in men’s short track speed skating.

“The Beijing Summer Games in 2008 were a huge success on the diplomatic, sporting, economic and technological levels,” says Adrien Savolle. At the time, international observers were very interested in China, which was experiencing a period of relative freedom, and the Chinese organizers played enormously on the country’s thousand-year-old history, culturally rich and open to the world.

Since then, this openness has been notably embodied through the Confucius Institutes, through which China has signed various agreements with numerous countries – particularly in Africa – where it is investing colossal sums which are akin to a Trojan horse, because they allow it to infiltrate these countries to reform their political systems from the inside.

“China wants to show that its model allows economic development and a modernization of the living conditions of populations that liberal democracies will never offer, even if it means controlling information and limiting freedom of expression,” adds the person in charge of courses in the Department of Anthropology at UdeM.

Even more, with the digital Silk Roads*, Chinese companies have established numerous partnerships with foreign universities, including several in Quebec. “Being in the service of the State, they use data captured by surveillance cameras installed all over the world and collect it using applications innocently downloaded to our smartphones. China is thus experimenting with a digital authoritarian regime in which, as in the West, surveillance capitalism is taking hold,” points out Adrien Savolle.

“As the whole world turns its gaze to Beijing for the Winter Olympics, let us be aware that this competition of standards and technologies will have much greater repercussions than the number of medals obtained by the host country,” warns the researcher .


* On this subject, read the article “China in search of digital gold”, written by Adrien Savolle and published on January 30, 2022 in The Press+.

What are the benefits for host cities and countries?

If the motivations linked to holding the Olympic Games relate to geopolitical issues, is it economically profitable to host them, particularly for the host cities?

“In Lillehammer, where the winter games took place in 1994, there is a museum where each Olympic Games outfit, since 1896, is presented in as many small kiosks,” illustrates Michel Poitevin. And when we arrive at the kiosk for the 1976 Montreal games, we especially talk about the deficit that these games caused!”

The mayor of Montreal at the time, Jean Drapeau, convinced the population that the Olympics would not cost taxpayers “a penny.” “In the end, it took Quebecers 40 years to pay for the Olympic adventure, which ultimately amounted to three billion dollars, including debt and interest,” recalls the professor from the Department of Economics at the UdeM.

And Montreal is not the only city to have suffered a significant deficit. “Apart from a few exceptional cases, such as the Los Angeles games in 1984 which were privately financed, the organization of the Olympic Games is always a financial pit, because from the start there is systematically an undervaluation of the “all costs,” insists Michel Poitevin.

One of the arguments put forward by the IOC to justify holding the games is to say that it is an opportunity, for the host city, to begin major land development projects and to equip itself with state-of-the-art sports facilities whose effects will be lasting for its economic development.

Professor Poitevin only sees it as smoke and mirrors. “Several specialized facilities remain underutilized once the games are over. In Montreal, we only have to think of the velodrome, which has completely changed its purpose, or the Olympic Stadium, which is underused and which does not cover its costs. Were games the most economical way to have a biodome? Surely not! As for the Stadium, no professional team present or future wants to play there!”

As for the economic benefits, “they are grossly overestimated and short-lived”. As for the visibility that the games would confer on the host city, their value is undoubtedly not zero, but Michel Poitevin doubts that this is the most effective advertising strategy to attract visitors.

“The truth is that if the IOC is having more and more difficulty selling the Olympic Games, it is because its model needs to be reviewed,” concludes the economist. Perhaps we should look to permanent venues or hold the games in cities that already have the necessary facilities.”

Now for the games!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Shopping Cart
Scroll to Top