Olympics: how much should be spent on greatest show on earth?

And so another Games ends and another cycle begins.
The closing ceremony ended, marginally better than the opening ceremony started. But the general consensus amongst the French is that it’s an Olympics, 100 years after they last hosted it, they’re very pleased with. Finishing fifth in the medal table, with 64 medals, 16 of them gold, is a respectable placing. There isn’t a nation that finished above the French they wouldn’t have expected to, so they’ll take that.
Looking ahead to the next Games in Los Angeles, Breaking will not be back in 2028, with Boxing very likely to be cut too. Sports you will see in LA include Lacrosse, Baseball, Cricket, Softball and Karate, Flag football and Squash.
The proposed budget for the 2028 Games is $6.8 billion and reportedly funded by the private sector. That’s a lot of money and whilst the Olympics might be the greatest show on earth and a great two weeks for a city/nation, with most nations going through severe debt and in a financial crisis, it may become the unwanted conversation about whether nations should be spending this amount of money on an Olympics. Can they make the case that they leave these cities financially better off than when they rocked up? Athens, Rio and Atlanta are the worst examples of this.
So, what about Team GB? The top line is GB won 14 golds, with a total of 65 medals – beating the total they won in Tokyo and the best haul since London 2012. It also appeases the wide and kind of vague target set by Team GB.
But for what Team GB spend on its athletes and programmes largely from the National Lottery (reported to be £100m a year), what does the country get for that? Well, a sense of joy and pride. We all enjoyed seeing Tony Roberts in Sports Climbing, Amber Rutter in Shooting, both winning silver, and Keely Hodgkinson claim gold in Athletics.
Light relief from some of the more horrific and awful stories in the news, and a sense of hope that with application and persistence, great things can be achieved. As well as some of the backstories which often add to much of what I’ve just listed. But what is the sporting and economic legacy of spending that much on the team?
For all the hundreds of millions spent since 1992, young people’s activity rates have declined and the obesity crisis has gotten worse. Many grassroots sports clubs have closed down, or are funded by communities themselves, and we’re now back to the question Australia answered back in 2000.
Is the money better directed to the grassroots, where they can improve the nation’s health, and to everyday sports and activities? The trade-off is your elite athletes won’t do as well at the Olympic Games. Australia decided the wealth and wellbeing of the nation was more important than the bragging rights that came with being in the top three of the medal table.
Great Britain may be forced into making the same decision in years to come.