Non aux J.O.
French TV just announced that London won the Olympic Games. Until a month or so ago, this outcome was unimaginable. It was certain that Paris would win. It already had an olympic-ready stadium, an olympic village, had already started the infastructure renovations, the town was festooned in IOC colours, shopkeepers had 2012 signs up in their windows, and stall-owners wore 2012 caps. The Queen herself said that Paris would win because Londoners weren’t behind the bid. She should know, her daughter is a voting member on the IOC.
So what changed?
First, the day the IOC came to town for their last visit, the unions struck (striked?) to protest the rolling back of the trente-cinq, disrupting the town just as it was supposed to be putting its best food forward. Bertrand Delanoe, mayor of Paris, shrugged and said “we are a democracy after all.”
Then, I began to see graffiti around town: non a la constitution, non a la turquie, non aux J.O., all tied together. Then May 29th happened. The naysayers won. No to internationalism. Public support for the J.O. collapsed. People started saying that the 2012 paraphenalia was ruining the aesthetics of the city. They shrugged and said, I don’t want to be here while they’re on.
These last few days have seen a flurry of activity. Widely reported in the British press was the French President’s gaffe during a private conversation where he made rude, generalising, xenophobic comments about Britain, saying their only contribution to gastronomy was mad cow disease.
Not so widely reported was the mudslinging in the other direction that prompted this response. From the Metro I picked up yesterday:
Two australian consultants for the London candidacy criticised the Stade de France which was, according to them, not designed properly for athletic competition. This contravenes the rules of the IOC, which forbids candidates from denigrating each other, and was interpreted as a lack of fair-play by the promotors of the Parisian candidature. This comes very close on the heels of the British press campaign against Guy Drut, one of the three French members of the IOC, who ended up not coming to Singapore.
What the article doesn’t mention is that the “campaign against” Guy Drut is because of shady dealings. The criticisms of the australians, moreover, are substantive also, although against the rules. Chirac’s remarks were against the rules, and completely unfounded and stereotypical. He could not have said something more harmful had he tried. Certainly, the headlines didn’t go to the British faux-pas, but to his own… It’s like a competition for who can shoot themselves in the foot with a bigger gun.
Why is that? Well, follow the money.
The CLO at the Australian Embassy mentioned to me once that the Olympics were the worst possible thing that could have happened to SMEs in Sydney. In order to cope with the added weight of people commuting and operating in an already overbuilt city, companies were compensated for shutting their doors and/or readjusting their working hours during the games. Of course, when you’re a small business, even with compensation, shutting your doors for a summer is the kiss of death…
And the citizens end up paying for the (inevitable) cost overruns. Buried in the business section of the Telegraph yesterday, detailing how Londoners would have to pay 20 pounds a year extra council tax for at least two years (or possibly, ten) after the costs escalated on the bid (not the games, just the bid) contained this little nugget:
Overruns are a fact of Olympic life. The Athens Olympics was a financial disaster for the Greek taxpayer. The bills are still coming in but they cost at least £4.8billion, double the estimate. This culminated in the Greek government having its credit rating downgraded as its fiscal deficit spiralled to over 5pc of GDP.
Is it possible, just possible, that Chirac knew exactly what he was doing? He is too good a politician, priding himself on his role as an international statesman, to not have been aware he was being recorded. Did he think the naysayers would ruin the bid once France had it, striking for the summer? Maybe, just maybe, he did not, in fact, want the combined economic and PR disaster that the Olympics could promise to be in his city?
The spin is already that the “massive anglo-saxon lobbying effort in the last few days” (I am not kidding, direct quote) is the reason why Paris lost, despite already having everything in place. The newsreader actually just said “you know, the english are really acting out of character, it’s not like them to spontaneously demonstrate publicly like this.” There’s an old man who appears to be a hero of French sport crying on TV…
Am I just pulling straws out of the wind to explain away why my adopted city lost? Are Parisians secretly devastated, and just hiding it with a shrug?
Maybe. Maybe not.
Consider this: I knew the announcement had been made because several of the apartments in my courtyard had applause burst out of the open windows. That’s French people, clapping that London got the games. This is not a country known for being magnanimous losers (or even magnanimous winners.) They’re pleased London won because they want to inflict the games on London. That’s not magnanimity, that’s Schadenfreude.
One has to wonder at the continuing popularity of the Olympic Games. As Americans, we love them for several reasons, first and formost because we win so many of the medals. We also love the ‘human interest’ stories about how the cute little gymnast battled back from certain death to become a contender, which are nothing more than NBC’s attempts to fill in airspace around the time difference. I think the main reason we love them, though, is because the Olympics have turned into a capitalism love-fest. With major global partnerships on behalf of American companies such as Visa and UPS, the Olympics inevitably becomes a forum for international marketing, all at the expense of some poor municipality who still has to think of things like filling their potholes and making sure the sewage system works well. Ms. Bartleby puts it very succintly. If I was Parisian, I too would be celebrating the knowledge that summer 2012 won’t be marked by increased litter and huge tax deficits. The games are prestigious, no doubt, and increase the liklihood that one might bump into an international sports celebrity shopping at the local market, but who needs sports celebrities when you have hundreds of years of history and hundreds of thousands of people flocking to your city on a yearly basis simply to celebrate what’s already there?
An alternative interpretation is that our government has now become more skilled than the French govt at dispensing bribes. If so, it is a national disgrace, but would be entirely consistent with the tone of Tone.
Personally I can’t decide whether I’m more pleased that Paris lost (sorry) or annoyed that London won.
Katie, as for “Maybe, just maybe, he did not, in fact, want the combined economic and PR disaster that the Olympics could promise to be in his city?” Really? You think so – a massive, state run, “cultural event for the world”, and the president of France wouldn’t want it? I think that’s a very, very big maybe.
It’s almost a convincing argument, until you remember one of the prime motivating factors of Chirac’s political career – beating Mitterand. Getting the Olympics for Paris when Mitterand failed to do so (were both the previous failures under him?) would have been Chirac’s final victory in that battle.
Plus, as he was the only national leader there when the vote took place (unless Zapatero was, I suppose) he was associating himself a lot more closely with the bid than other leaders. All the news reports of London winning will likely feature his speech to the IOC today, but if Paris had won, I doubt they’d have included Blair’s video message to them.
Nick – Chirac was mayor of paris while Mitterand was president, so they’d’ve had an equal share of the ignominy of the previous defeats.
Also, Chirac participated in the presentation, but wasn’t (at least wasn’t scheduled to be) there, having to catch a flight to gleneagles for the G8.
I’m personally delighted that Lond has the games. Partly ‘cos it’ll force the government to do some much needed development of the Lea Valley area, partly ‘cos I’ll get to see the olympics on my doorstep, in what has to be the most sporty city in the world, and partly ‘cos it’s yet another blow to that old crook Chirac, a man who’s only not in jail ‘cos Lionel Jospin is an incompetent campaigner and he’s ‘cos marginally less odious than Jean-Marie Le Pen.
you used schadenfreude and i just learned what that meant today! see, espn.com is educational
Pingback: Martin Stabe
Leslie Well, you’re forgetting that the French are mad about modernity. La Defense, for example, and the Parc Andre Citroen, and a lot of the other squares on my monopoloy board are symbols of france’s obsession with public spaces as performance art based on modernity. L’ombre de l’olivier has a very funny piece about how charles de Gaulle is not in fact an airport for travelling in, but a museum to admire. They really did want the games, to prove how modern they are, and, as Neil says, they also love massive state-supported cultural events.
Dearie me, Nick, Neil yeah, I know it’s a mad conspiracy theory, but it was what was dashing through my mind at the time. It was the clapping outside that got me…Much more likely, Chirac’s remarks (and I am still convinced they were deliberate) were designed to reverse his abysmal populatity ratings (20%!) that came out a few days ago. After all, the French place a high value on Chirac “standing up” to other world leaders, even in a populist, ignorant way, and smacking the British is always worth a ten point boost or so. Think Cyrano de Bergerac with his biting words and cutting sword. And don’t forget, Chirac needs to undo the mental image French people have of him in a gimp mask at the end of Tony Blair’s chain (FACT: real cover on a newspaper.)
Kat Another good word, this one for London: Pyrrhic victory.
Finally, all of you go and read King Yoghurt of Hove’s piece, which is far wittier than mine, and puts mine to shame. I love reading Justin when he gets all worked up. He’s like left-wing Boris. Justin for Brighton and Hove 2009!
Pingback: Independence
I think it’s only fair that the wealthier countries host these events. Think of it as another tax for the public good.
Of course, we can always debate whether the Olympics represent the public good.
I don’t think the small cost (1-2pc of government spending for 1 year, but spread over 7 years, so 0.14 to 0.29 pc government spending, or about 0.07-0.15 GDP/year) will matter very much.
Tony Blair vowing to keep our EU rebate for a cpl of years will pay for it!
The three most hated countries in the world are USA, France, UK… in that order. So in a straight battle between Paris and London, London was bound to win. Had Madrid got 2 more votes at Paris’s expense then Madrid would have trounced London in the final round. It’s all simple politics really.
Friendly Sydneysiders delivered:
– On Time
– On Budget
– On a great Location
Get the message ?
I wasn’t casting aspersions on the success of the Sydney games. I was merely pointing out that I have been told that even with such “successful” games there was a hidden cost. That cost, in the eyes of some, is worth it. But, I’m with Justin: what real benefit? To whom? What public? What good?
Does it really matter? The Frenchies faces when the bid result was announced was priceless.
I have admire your unselfishness in taking the time to make this web site.
Pingback: Martin Stabe » London 2012: Is anybody actually in favour?