London’s Olympic fog

By John Lloyd
July 17, 2012

The scenes of wild British rejoicing in July 2005, when it was announced London would host the 2012 Olympics, have faded and been replaced by visions of doom. Once the games begin, the sheer beauty of the sports will take over, but for now, most media attention is given over to threats, to chaos, to failure.

The day London celebrated in 2005, four British Islamist terrorists killed 52 people in four different bombs attacks, three on the metro system, one on a bus. Seven years later, the shadow still hangs heavy. The security arrangements include sharpshooters, missiles and, most recently, 3,500 soldiers called in because the security provider, G4S, was found last week to have failed to deliver the necessary number of trained guards.

Britain does grumbling as well as any country: It’s hard to find any Londoner who does not use the word “chaos” to encapsulate what he or she thinks will happen to London’s traffic and public transport from late July through August. Residents have been encouraged in that view by signs everywhere on the metro warning that “this station will be very busy during the Olympics.”

There is also a class-war dimension – which is never far from British debates. Special traffic lanes are being created down which VIPs will be whisked to and from the stadiums, in limousines lent by BMW. “What about the rest of us?” is the response of choice to that piece of obliging the noblesse.

In polls, most non-Londoners think the Olympics won’t benefit them, with the Scots and the Welsh especially sure of that (though they’re looking forward to the games themselves). In a survey done last week by Reuters, most economists agreed that the UK economy might get a temporary boost but no lasting benefits and would run the Olympics at a loss, as Athens did in 2004. Even in London, there’s a dispute about how far the vast works undertaken in East London to build the stadiums and the Olympic village will benefit the poor borough where they’ve been sited, one third of whose inhabitants are immigrants, many recent arrivals and many quite poor.

Nothing the Olympics touches seems to be an unambiguous triumph. The clothing company Ralph Lauren has been criticized left and right for having the Olympic uniforms it made for the U.S. team produced in China. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, opined over the weekend that they should all be burned and American-made garments put in their place. And the Olympic curse doesn’t just apply to the current iteration. The Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City in 2002 were said to have been salvaged by Mitt Romney, who took charge of its organizing committee when it was mired in a bribery scandal. Now, the alliances he made in that project – and some of those associates are contributing heavily to his presidential campaign – are alleged to be of a doubtful ethical standard.

The Olympics are drawn into every possible national controversy because they’ve become such a huge national event – socially, politically and economically. They’re now tied to national prestige and status, a means by which nations can prove themselves and show off their ability to compete on the world stage. As a result, they’ve become as much a possible terrorist target as was the World Trade Center. The WTC epitomized Western capitalism; the Olympics epitomize Western pride and corporate boosterism.

The original Olympic Games lasted well over a thousand years, from about 800 BC to the mid-third century AD (and perhaps longer). They were part of a four-year cycle of religious festivals in honor of the God of Gods, Zeus, which took place in Delphi, Nemea, and Corinth with the climax in Olympia, on the Peloponnese peninsula in western Greece.

“Olympick” games – so spelled and so-called in homage to the classical games, descriptions of which had been preserved in Greek and Roman texts – were resurrected in England in the early 17th century, first of all in the Cotswolds, near Oxford. These were crude affairs, with bear baiting, pole-tossing and shin-kicking as central events. There was even a competition as to which contestant could make the ugliest grimace. Still held, they were popular and lively, if not chaotic – often promoted by publicans to increase trade.

Two centuries later, they were enfolded into the 19th-century passion for self- and national improvement, and were seen as serving manly and martial virtues. The French Baron Pierre de Coubertin founded the International Olympic Committee in 1894. The Olympics then bit by bit became part of both a nationalistic brand and a network of corporate interests.

They are now events prepared by armies of organizers (and, in London, protected by a real army) and paid for by billions in corporate and taxpayer’s funds. The Olympics have become so central because they are fused with nationalism and global corporations, and have severed any connection to religion, or to popular participation.

Is London 2012 poised for disaster or for triumph? Whichever, it will be massive. The Olympic Games, to be watched by billions, have now ascended to a very modern Olympus, far above us.

PHOTO: A soldier patrols by a gate at the beach volleyball venue ahead of the 2012 Olympic Games in London, July 16, 2012. The London 2012 Olympic Games start in 11 days’ time. REUTERS/Luke MacGregor. // Vehicles are driven in lanes next to an Olympic lane on the A4 road in west London, July 17, 2012. REUTERS/Toby Melville

More From John Lloyd
Ukraine’s future lies with the West, but there is much suffering ahead
No gimmicks, just 10 good reasons why Scotland shouldn’t leave the UK
In clashes over Ukraine or Iraq, liberty must be defended
Russian ‘realism’ is winning now, but will fail in the end
Germany’s renewed hegemony isn’t something Europe needs to fear
‘Braveheart’ they’re not. What’s Scotland’s problem with a United Kingdom?
Comments
5 comments so far

Being from Vancouver, I can tell you that the Olympics caused only very minor disruptions to city life. Yet all I can recall hearing from the Brits during those games were what a disaster we were blahblahblah. Well, after the amazing games that were Beijing and Vancouver, old London is going to show the world how the ‘Old World’ has fallen behind the times, devoured from within by nepotism, incompetence and corruption (granted Beijing suffers all these as well). I’d say good luck to Londoners but they don’t want it anyways, nor can they have it. Hope it rains every day except for the 100m finals – another Jamaican sweep.

Posted by CDN_Rebel | Report as abusive

The English use of the word “cockup” has a familiarity and gentle tolerance, if the consequences are not too severe. The situations are often Pythonicly hilarious.
The G4S cockup stands out at the moment, but I found the report that the CEO facing a parliamentary inquiry also said that he thought up to 10% of the people they have selected, vetted and trained would not actually turn up for work to be extra amusing.
I can just see Basil doing that gig.

Posted by Neurochuck | Report as abusive

The Olympics Games are now part of our humanity. If were to be another world in the Universe, one of the first five things supposed to represent us would be these Games. Our world, for sure, would be much more poor without these Games. From my part, I wish great success to all people involved in these Olympics, and be the best to win.

Posted by neluroman | Report as abusive

Has any Olympic host ever made a profit from the games? Isn’t the payoff in terms of prestige rather than money? Also, isn’t just about every Olympics preceeded by media reports shortly before the games begin that the host is concerned about potential disaster? Yet, when the day comes, the games tend come off more or less as planned. Whatever shortcomings there are tend to be experienced by those attending the games in person while being invisible to those watching on television. In terms of prestige (the coin in which the Olympic host is compensated), it’s the perception of the mass audience participating by television that matters to the reputation of the Olympic host.

Posted by Bob9999 | Report as abusive

Why would any competently run city want to host a pork-barrel riddled event like the Olympics? The net value to the location is zero at best and the bad publicity generated already will need millions to eradicate from the public mind. Add the IOC scandals and the archaic licensing policies (pay by cash or Visa only, Sir; no Sir we are not allowed to sell chips only, you must buy fish as well (unbelievable but true)), the scar that is the Olympics will mar the face of London for years.

Posted by MrBeck | Report as abusive
Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/