Likely Impacts of London 2012 upon the UK Sports and Society - Case Study Example

Likely impacts of London upon UK sports and society The current global economic problems has produced immense anxiety among public and as per the reports from developing and developed countries, many people already started to cut down their expenses on their leisure activities. The recession is so severe that many people have already lost their jobs and many people afraid of losing it in near future itself. Most of the countries have cut down their expenditures on non productive sectors in order to overcome the current challenges. “Britain is justified in spending 9.3 billion pounds ($13.54 billion) on the London 2012 Olympics despite the worst recession since World War Two” (Despite crisis, IOC supports Londons Olympics expenditure, 2009) The proposed London Olympics on 2012 is going to be one of the costly affairs for Britain especially under recession. Even on stable economic conditions most of the earlier Olympics has not produced the desired results apart from Sidney and Los Angeles Olympics. London Olympics also has raised many concerns among sociologists and economists regarding the expenditure of such a huge amount in conducting a big event under the current crisis scenario. This paper briefly analyzes the pros and cons of London Olympics through the lenses of global economic crisis. Legacy of London Olympics “Organizers and government officials hope the Olympics will transform the economically depressed London borough of Newham, which features Stratford and the Lower Lea River Valley. The Newham Council has offered their unequivocal support for the bid particularly citing the proposed 9,000 new homes in Olympic Park with revamped healthcare and educational facilities, and the building of the Olympic Park itself.” (London Olympics 2012, 2009) The social life standards near the Olympic park will be improved immensely because of Olympics. Infrastructure facilities and the community life will definitely improve because of the Olympics. The inhabitants near the Olympic village will have access to most modern facilities of public life because of Olympics. The new buildings, roads and stadiums made for Olympics can be utilized for public after the event is over. The opportunity to interact with different people from different countries will definitely improve the cultural awareness of the people near the Olympic park. “The borough council also hopes that the Olympic Games will provide “role models for our young people in what is the youngest community in Britain” and “radically improve the image of East London and its residents." (London Olympics 2012, 2009) One of the largest beneficiaries of Olympics Games is the youths in the country. The youth will benefit directly and indirectly as well. The youths will get an opportunity to watch their superstars in action live which will definitely motivate them to imitate such idols in their life also. Olympic Games will motivate the youths to concentrate more on sports activities which will bring glory to the country in sports competitions in future. Moreover youths who were interested in other antisocial activities like drug addiction and liquor addiction may change their habits and concentrate more on improving their physical activities. Obesity is one of the biggest problems faced by most of the people in Britain irrespective of small children, youths or the elder ones. Lack of physical activities is being cited as the main reason for obesity and lack of self esteem among public by experts. Olympics will improve the motives for physical activities and hence the public health will be improved. Many diseases like, high blood pressure, Cholesterol, diabetics etc can be controlled by increased physical activities and the Olympics will help the public in getting the much needed motivation for such things. “The bid committee believes that the Olympics will create 12,000 new jobs, with the possibility of many of them going to East Londoners.” (London Olympics 2012, 2009) Many people have lost their jobs because of the current recession and hence the offered 12000 new jobs will be a substantial one for the east London public. Moreover indirect jobs and the businesses will definitely improve near the Olympic Park. Most of the tourists visiting the Olympics village have good spending habits and hence the small scale industries will benefit from that. Other major advantages of London 2012 Olympics will be; to make the UK a world-leading sporting nation, to transform the heart of East London, to inspire a generation of young people, to make the Olympic Park a blueprint for sustainable living, to demonstrate the UK is a creative, inclusive and welcoming place to live in, visit and for business. (London 2012 Olympic Legacy Action Plan, 2008) Arguments against London Olympics 2012 Critiques of London Olympics believe that the proposed expenditure of more than $ 13 billion from the pockets of taxpaying public in a non productive sector is definitely not a wise move by the British government. Apart from 1984 Los Angeles and 2000 Sydney Olympics, the event costs more than it returns to the host city (Pros and Cons, n.d) The propaganda associated with each Olympics is immense and hence the public will consider hosting an Olympics as an achievement. The politicians or the administration want to prove that they are capable of conducting such a big event in order to boost their image. They will never seek lessons from the previous games held or think about the long term problems associated with the immense spending on sports activities. The short term benefits will satisfy the poor public since they will not think in terms of future impacts at the time of hosting the Olympics. The public will be mesmerised by the hype produced by the Olympics. “The apparent economic growth of the host city is in fact the effect of expenditure switching, i.e. gain of one sector or place in expense of the others” (Pros and Cons, n.d) Most people believes that Olympics will change the face of the city which is hosting the competitions. The government will definitely concentrate more on the Olympic villages and will spend more on infrastructure developments of these areas. But in reality, such increased spending on these areas will be at the expense of others of the same country. The government will be forced to cut down the expenditure on other activities on other areas of the country which are necessary for their economic growth. The immense concentration of government focus on Olympic villages will definitely neglect the needs of other areas. “Accelerated development required in hosting the Olympic Games disrupts the long term town planning of the city and result in long term negative effect” (Pros and Cons, n.d) The focus will be entirely on the success of the Olympics games and hence the most of the planning processes will be in line with short term the needs of the Olympics rather than the long benefits of the public. In other words, most of the facilities incorporated with the Olympics will become useless after the event is being over. For example, the big buildings and the luxurious hotel chains made for the purpose of Olympic visitors may become useless after the event is over. The buildings and other facilities will remain simply as the monuments of a great event rather than anything else. Overcrowding, congestion in traffic, pollution, environment problems are some other problems associated with holding an Olympics Games. Impacts of the current economic climate upon the 2012 Olympics London has plenty of options in terms of sporting venues, but the biggest concerns surround the two public-private sector projects in the Olympic Park — the estimated one billion pound athletes’ village and the 400 million pound media centre. An inability to secure bank loans could result in a possible shortfall of up to 250 million pounds, Olympic authorities said. The slump in property prices, which could damage the chances of recouping money from the athletes’ village after the Games, has also resulted in the number of post-Olympics apartments being reduced from 4,200 to 3,000. The deal with the private sector to build the media and broadcast centre is also in doubt. The 1.3 million square-foot area may have to be scaled back post-Games because an anchor tenant cannot be found. (UK’s Olympic plans run into credit chaos, 2008) Real estate sector is one of the major areas affected by the current recession and hence the chances of selling out the buildings after the game are dim. The London Olympic committee is already worried of such things and hence they were forced to reduce the number of new buildings constructing for the event. London already has more than enough sports facilities and hence the new facilities are going to be a waste. Securing loans for the spending in real estate sector is also difficult under the current economic scenario. Most of the banks were reluctant in granting loans for the real estate sectors. “We do not know what the real impact of the credit crunch will be with the economy, though past experience shows it will be severe, but you could argue it is the classic prescription for Keynesian economics — large public work projects at a time of unemployment.”(UK’s Olympic plans run into credit chaos, 2008) Large public projects at the time of unemployment may be an answer in economic terms to deal with the economic crisis, but these projects must be on the productive sectors in order to sustain the economic development. The investments in big stadiums and hotel chains cannot be considered as a productive investment if they are unable to attract public interest after the event. As mentioned above London is already having ample facilities in these departments and hence the new ones may either destroy the older ones or may fail to attract the required public interest. In any case the economy will be affected badly because of the huge investment in non productive sector. “Both London 2012 and Vancouver 2010 Winter Games are now in serious financial trouble. The governments announcement that it has approved a bail-out worth almost £500m is tangible evidence that delivering Games won in the rosy economic climate of 2005 is going to be grim work.” (Dowdinsk, 2009) Relation between London Olympics and Marxist conflict theory ‘Marx believed that everything of value in society results from human labour. Thus, he saw working men and women as engaged in making society, in creating the conditions for their own existence. Economic exploitation leads directly to political oppression, as owners make use of their economic power to gain control of the state and turn it into a servant of bourgeois economic interests.’ (Kent McClelland, 2000) Karl Marx has defined the working class as the creators of the society. Only the working class will be able to contribute heavily to the society through their physical efforts. For example, most of the activities in the construction sectors in the London Olympics 2012 will be heavily depend on the working class. The administration will succeed in preparing the much needed infrastructure facilities for the Olympics only if the working class fired well. On the other hand these working class will be the least beneficial ones as far as the gains of the Olympics is concerned. Most of the activities and facilities offered by the Olympic village will be expensive ones for the working class and hence they will never benefit much from that. “For Marx, conflict theory was a way to study the social control that the rich have over the masses. Further, he believed that one society or organization only functions in order to try and better their social situation, which usually results in some type of social upheaval. Social change that occurs as a result of a revolt effectively alters society as a whole.” (Marx Conflict Theory, n.d) Most of the facilities offered by Olympics are intended for the rich people alone. For example a poor person staying near the Olympic village may not get an opportunity to enter into the Olympic village or stay in a luxurious hotel because of lack of money he may have. Any social changes which are happening in a society should affect the entire society as per the Marx’s conflict theory. Structural functionalism and London Olympics 2012 Structural-Functionalists would say that sports serve important functions in our society and should be justly rewarded.  In fact, a sports team is a microcosm of the broader society, where everyone learns their roles and contributes to the broader running of the system (winning games).  People who are not as qualified or talented should not make it to the top ranks, and those who do must have the best character, discipline, and skill level of all competing athletes.  Durkheim would say that sports serve the ritualistic function of keeping society bonded and people (fans and teams) in solidarity with each other.  (Structural-functionalism, n.d) Structural functionalists believe that sports have a definite role in holding the society together. Nationalism is strongly associated with all the sports events and hence the love towards the country will be developed immensely through sports activities. For example, we are daily witnessing the enthusiasms exhibited by the spectators of international sports events between different countries. In fact these events are a way of relaxing the immense stress associated with many other activities of the current human life. “Functionalist analysis looks on social systems as having certain needs, and society as a system of social structures (economic, legal, educational, gender structures). If the needs are being met, then it is the social structures that meet these needs. (Functionalism and Parsons, 1999) Functionalists believe that one can compare society to a living organism, in that both a society and an organism are made up of interdependent working parts (organs) and systems that must function together in order for the greater body to function. (Functionalism (sociology), 2009) To conclude, the London 2012 Olympic Games has created many waves of concerns regarding the economical impacts it can create under the present scenario. Nobody has ever doubted about the need of sports in human life, but the expenditure associated with Olympics Games must be reduced and must be streamlined for more productive works. The planning must concentrate on long term goals rather than the short term ones. References 1. Despite crisis, IOC supports Londons Olympics expenditure, (2009) Retrieved on May 14, 2009 from http://www.france24.com/en/20090424-ioc-london-olympic-games-stadium-preparations-expenditure-spending-report 2. London Olympics 2012, (2009), Retrieved on May 14, 2009 from http://www.londonnet.co.uk/ln/guide/about/olympics2012_legacy.html 3. London 2012 Olympic Legacy Action Plan, (2008), Retrieved on May 14, 2009 from http://www.culture.gov.uk/reference_library/publications/5161.aspx/ 4. Pros and Cons, (n.d), Retrieved on May 14, 2009 from http://goodpoint.elc.polyu.edu.hk/?q=node/960&mapid=2244 5. UK’s Olympic plans run into credit chaos, (2008), Retrieved on May 14, 2009 from http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/International_Business/UKs_Olympic_plans_run_in_credit_chaos/articleshow/3600214.cms 6. Dowdinsk, (2009) How London 2012 was credit crunched, Retrieved on May 14, 2009 from http://www.nowpublic.com/world/how-london-2012-was-credit-crunched 7. McClelland Kent, (2000) CONFLICT THEORY, Retrieved on May 14, 2009 from http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/soc/s00/soc111-01/IntroTheories/Conflict.html 8. Marx Conflict Theory, (n.d) Retrieved on May 14, 2009 from http://www.conflicttheory.com/marx/ 9. Functionalism and Parsons, (1999), Retrieved on May 14, 2009 from http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/n2f99.htm 10. Functionalism (sociology), (2009) Retrieved on May 14, 2009 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(sociology) 11. Structural-functionalism, (n.d) Retrieved on May 14, 2009 from http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:HmHEwNllr9IJ:www.unc.edu/~kbm/SOCI10Spring2004/Structural_Functionalism.doc+structural+functionalism+theory&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk Read More