Olympics: Biggest scam in sports??
- Thread starter Bro Deal
- Start date
Perhaps in theory, but how do you explain synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics?mitosis said:
I say get rid of everything that has subjective scoring.
http://www.slate.com/id/86069/
Stolen from another site:
I remember the first time I saw the rhythmic gymnastics.... I concluded there were a bunch of IOC officials sitting around a table somewhere, getting high and feasting on hoho's and dorito's, inventing "sports" and wondering if they could get people to watch them on tv....
Official 1: "dude! like maybe we can get some hot babes in blue spandex to just dance on the mats for us!"
Official 2: "yeah but dude, what are we gonna call it? we gotta give it a name so that it sounds like a sport... man, pass them brownies over here..."
Official 1: "we could like, call it rhythmic pelvic thrusting or something cool like that!"
Official 2: "no man, if we call it gymnastics everyone will buy into it.... rhythmic gymnastics... that's it!
Official 1: "dude... you are my hero!"
Official 2: "let's head over to the strip joint to see if we can round up some competitors...."
I agree 100% with that statement. Paid-off judges, political vendettas, etc...but I still love boxing...Bro Deal said:
Yeah... I got to admit... I like watching amateur boxing. It's just three rounds of an all-out punchfest. And they wear protective headgear to satisfy the pacifists. Gold medal night is great viewing.tonyzackery said:
I have to say, it is pretty impressive what an inexhaustible supply of extremely impoverished labor can produce in terms of an opening ceremony.Bro Deal said:
Some of it was impressive. I was surprised to see that the matrix of boxes that made patterns were controlled by people.thoughtforfood said:
Watching the Olympic flag be moved around by goosestepping chinese soldiers was too funny given the parallels to the Nazi Olympics that have been made.
I've read that the Athens stadium is unused and a lot of the other venues are falling apart. It does not look like Greece got much in return for their Olympics.Chris_E said:The Munchen Olympiastadion was opened in 1972.
From season 1972-3 until 2005-6 both TSV 1860 Munchen and Bayern Munchen (never Bayern Munich) shared the stadium.
Both play now in the Allianz Arena
Just thought you'd want to know.
We have failed to have 2012 olympic games in Paris but many of the stadium were already build, and it was a green project in accordance with the IOC request.Bro Deal said:
London has chosen a more ambitious way, needing a lot of money, so a lot of companies were interest to win the JO and with the IOC corruption ...
FWIW I actually stayed in one of the athlete's houses made for the Lillehammer winter olympics. I think they're gone now.
That has been a local complaint around here (in Chicago) with the potential of the 2016 games coming here. Personally, I still think it's a long shot. But they've talked a lot about what venues would have to be built, would they make temporary buildings out of some of them. More painful is the potential for emminent domain and usurping mostly African-Americans from their housing to build. I live in Evanston now, but voted for Comrad Daley when I lived in the city. The guy is out of control with the power he has and has really turned totalitarian with some of his tactics. Unfortunately, for Chicago, unless Jesse Jr. runs, no one can overthrow him.Bro Deal said:
The evening tends to be the more popular sports (especially swimming & gymnastics) for the average American.Bro Deal said:
During the day I have managed to catch bits and pieces of fencing, equestrian, rowing, cycling, beach volleyball, indoor volleyball, weightlifting, handball, water polo, archery and lots of soccer. I avoided basketball & tennis on purpose. My DVR certainly has served for the Olympics since I can fast forward through most of the fluff (host commentator chatter) and commercials. I think I do get some extra stuff on Universal HD channel, but the USA channel shows some stuff also.
They are the major spectacle sports in the early stage. It's hard to capture the excitement of some of the other sports like sailing, equestrian, archery and fencing.Bro Deal said:
I think they could show the weightlifting though. But of course... they want to focus on the main US sports (which isn't diving anymore).
You left volleyball out. They've had a pretty big coverage of beach and hardcourt volleyball, and a bit of water polo and cycling.
I found out what must be one of the most boring things to watch on TV today, was cleaning in the kitchen with the TV on and didn't want to watch Olympic boxing so switched to the CBC alternate channel (called "Bold", figure that outCrankyfeet said:
) where they were supposed to be showing sailing. Except, there was a delay because the wind had changed direction and they had to reset the start line. Really riveting viewing (not), all the boats just hovering around - impressed that the commentators actually managed to find enough stuff to keep talking about as this channel only covers equestrian and sailing events at the Olympics so not like they could go back to an anchor or to another sport ...
Not that I am a fan of Irwin Stelzer and his ilk : but nevertheless here is a good piece that he wrote in yesterdays Sunset Times about the IOC and the financing of "the Games"
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article4492144.ece
Some say the Olympics, now under way, are all about politics, a coming-out party for China’s ruling regime, eager to show that its rise to world-power status is no threat to anyone — except for the Taiwanese, Tibetans, domestic Christians and a few million people who might behave in ways the regime finds unacceptable.
Others, including the president of the United States, say it is all about sport and the athletes who compete — except for the athletes from China, who know it is all about accumulating more medals than America (the original crowns of wild olives will no longer do), and Zhou Yongkang, the Communist party’s security chief who sees the games as giving “full play to the superiority of the socialist system”. Still others say the games are about business — the grubby art of turning a worldwide attraction into hard cash.
All of these observers are probably correct, but this economist, no geopolitician and with an interest in Olympic sports limited to the efforts of the American basketball team to re-establish its rightful hegemony, tends to see dollar signs where others see political jockeying and the glory of athletic competition.
With reason. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) will take in $1.5 billion from the sale of broadcasting rights (no small sum, but still less than half what broadcasters pay for rights to a National Football League season), $1.2 billion from the right to use the logo and other sponsorships, $240m from ticket sales, and $60m from miscellaneous sources. Some 8% of that $3 billion total will go to the care and feeding of IOC staff, the same people who initially barred some Iraqi athletes from participating because their government was too heavily involved in athletics — unlike the Chinese hosts of the games.
The Olympics experience teaches, first of all, that great sporting events are one of the few occasions that can attract a mass audience — in this case four billion people — in a media world in which hundreds of channels and multiple delivery platforms fragment audiences. There are two reasons for this.
First, like the much-maligned reality television shows that so offend the elite of the chattering classes, the end-game is unpredictable. We more or less know that in sitcoms the good guys will get the girls, and that in shoot-’em-ups the last man standing will be our favourite star. There is little real suspense. Sports are different: the contest isn’t over until the fat man tosses his hammer.
Second, as David Hill, Fox Sports’ brilliant chairman and chief executive, once explained to me, sports are tribal.
It is rare for groups of friends to come together to watch some sitcom or film. But put a sporting event on the screen — the Super Bowl, the World Cup — and the only question is to whose home do we go for the best snacks, probably the product of a sponsor such as Coca-Cola or McDonald’s.
Then there are the sponsors. In a year in which advertising dollars are hard to come by, sponsors line up to shell out for advertising time. There are 12 main global sponsors of the IOC; each pays $100m for the right to partner the IOC in each games cycle (winter, summer) and use Olympics logos. In addition, 10 to 15 sponsors are selected by each host city (London has so far chosen Lloyds TSB, BP, EDF, British Airways and Nortel for 2012) and given the privilege of inking multi-million-dollar national sponsorship contracts. Coca-Cola has been a global sponsor since 1928, and the current list includes McDonald’s, Panasonic, Samsung, Visa, General Electric (owner of NBC), Kodak and Lenovo (producer of what once was the IBM ThinkPad PC).
The Olympics also teach that any media company that plans to bid for an event on the scale of the Beijing games had better have multiple platforms available to distribute pictures, text, commentary and, of course, commercials. NBC, which has the American rights, is offering 2,000 hours of live video coverage and 3,000 hours of on-demand video on its website.
It plans to show its advertisers, who pay some $750,000 for a 30-second spot, that the old system of merely counting those who watch on NBC and its other channels (CNBC, MSNBC and Oxygen) is as obsolete as a black-and-white set. With reason: by that method American Idol and Grey’s Anatomy outdrew the 2006 winter games. NBC will issue a daily total audience measurement index (Tami) that adds to the usual Nielsen television ratings all those who have accessed its websites by computers, Blackberrys and other mobile devices.
Abe Novick, an executive with Euro RSCG, a global ad agency, told The Baltimore Sun newspaper: “It’s an attempt to show Olympic advertisers all the eyeballs that are watching the ads for which they paid such a hefty price. And if they can do it with the Olympics, why not for the new [autumn] TV season and beyond?” That, of course, would be a great leap forward for television networks, since most of the newly measured audience is likely to be the young viewers that advertisers lust after.
The final lesson of the Olympics is an unexpected one — all the fuss about stopping global warming is itself a game. Using totalitarian muscle, the Chinese regime has made the air quality of Beijing a bit less threatening to the health of the athletes. Democratic countries cannot order people out of the city and into the country, close down roads and factories, and take other steps to clean the air, if only temporarily.
When the games end, it will be business as usual in China. That includes constructing 500 coal-fired power stations to fuel the growth the regime needs if it is to provide the millions of jobs it must create in order to avoid social unrest. That will offset most of the steps being taken in the West to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, and support President Bush’s insistence that any deal to cut emissions must include China or it won’t be worth the (probably recycled) paper it is printed on.
But that’s for later. Meanwhile, enjoy the games or highlights on everything from your HDTV to BBC’s iPlayer.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article4492144.ece
Some say the Olympics, now under way, are all about politics, a coming-out party for China’s ruling regime, eager to show that its rise to world-power status is no threat to anyone — except for the Taiwanese, Tibetans, domestic Christians and a few million people who might behave in ways the regime finds unacceptable.
Others, including the president of the United States, say it is all about sport and the athletes who compete — except for the athletes from China, who know it is all about accumulating more medals than America (the original crowns of wild olives will no longer do), and Zhou Yongkang, the Communist party’s security chief who sees the games as giving “full play to the superiority of the socialist system”. Still others say the games are about business — the grubby art of turning a worldwide attraction into hard cash.
All of these observers are probably correct, but this economist, no geopolitician and with an interest in Olympic sports limited to the efforts of the American basketball team to re-establish its rightful hegemony, tends to see dollar signs where others see political jockeying and the glory of athletic competition.
With reason. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) will take in $1.5 billion from the sale of broadcasting rights (no small sum, but still less than half what broadcasters pay for rights to a National Football League season), $1.2 billion from the right to use the logo and other sponsorships, $240m from ticket sales, and $60m from miscellaneous sources. Some 8% of that $3 billion total will go to the care and feeding of IOC staff, the same people who initially barred some Iraqi athletes from participating because their government was too heavily involved in athletics — unlike the Chinese hosts of the games.
The Olympics experience teaches, first of all, that great sporting events are one of the few occasions that can attract a mass audience — in this case four billion people — in a media world in which hundreds of channels and multiple delivery platforms fragment audiences. There are two reasons for this.
First, like the much-maligned reality television shows that so offend the elite of the chattering classes, the end-game is unpredictable. We more or less know that in sitcoms the good guys will get the girls, and that in shoot-’em-ups the last man standing will be our favourite star. There is little real suspense. Sports are different: the contest isn’t over until the fat man tosses his hammer.
Second, as David Hill, Fox Sports’ brilliant chairman and chief executive, once explained to me, sports are tribal.
It is rare for groups of friends to come together to watch some sitcom or film. But put a sporting event on the screen — the Super Bowl, the World Cup — and the only question is to whose home do we go for the best snacks, probably the product of a sponsor such as Coca-Cola or McDonald’s.
Then there are the sponsors. In a year in which advertising dollars are hard to come by, sponsors line up to shell out for advertising time. There are 12 main global sponsors of the IOC; each pays $100m for the right to partner the IOC in each games cycle (winter, summer) and use Olympics logos. In addition, 10 to 15 sponsors are selected by each host city (London has so far chosen Lloyds TSB, BP, EDF, British Airways and Nortel for 2012) and given the privilege of inking multi-million-dollar national sponsorship contracts. Coca-Cola has been a global sponsor since 1928, and the current list includes McDonald’s, Panasonic, Samsung, Visa, General Electric (owner of NBC), Kodak and Lenovo (producer of what once was the IBM ThinkPad PC).
The Olympics also teach that any media company that plans to bid for an event on the scale of the Beijing games had better have multiple platforms available to distribute pictures, text, commentary and, of course, commercials. NBC, which has the American rights, is offering 2,000 hours of live video coverage and 3,000 hours of on-demand video on its website.
It plans to show its advertisers, who pay some $750,000 for a 30-second spot, that the old system of merely counting those who watch on NBC and its other channels (CNBC, MSNBC and Oxygen) is as obsolete as a black-and-white set. With reason: by that method American Idol and Grey’s Anatomy outdrew the 2006 winter games. NBC will issue a daily total audience measurement index (Tami) that adds to the usual Nielsen television ratings all those who have accessed its websites by computers, Blackberrys and other mobile devices.
Abe Novick, an executive with Euro RSCG, a global ad agency, told The Baltimore Sun newspaper: “It’s an attempt to show Olympic advertisers all the eyeballs that are watching the ads for which they paid such a hefty price. And if they can do it with the Olympics, why not for the new [autumn] TV season and beyond?” That, of course, would be a great leap forward for television networks, since most of the newly measured audience is likely to be the young viewers that advertisers lust after.
The final lesson of the Olympics is an unexpected one — all the fuss about stopping global warming is itself a game. Using totalitarian muscle, the Chinese regime has made the air quality of Beijing a bit less threatening to the health of the athletes. Democratic countries cannot order people out of the city and into the country, close down roads and factories, and take other steps to clean the air, if only temporarily.
When the games end, it will be business as usual in China. That includes constructing 500 coal-fired power stations to fuel the growth the regime needs if it is to provide the millions of jobs it must create in order to avoid social unrest. That will offset most of the steps being taken in the West to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, and support President Bush’s insistence that any deal to cut emissions must include China or it won’t be worth the (probably recycled) paper it is printed on.
But that’s for later. Meanwhile, enjoy the games or highlights on everything from your HDTV to BBC’s iPlayer.
