Спасибо, не надо: Проведение мегамероприятий (Олимпиады, Чемпионат мира по футболу) — Часть 1

автор: Денис Песков

Доходы от продажи прав на телетрансляции, 1960–2012
Источники: IOC, Olympic Marketing File, 2014, p. 26. The figures apply to the total worldwide network commitment of rights fees, both the cash and the technical service components. In recent years the technical service component has been largely defrayed by the host city and the equipment has been paid for by the network and not included in the rights fee payments. The figures also do not distinguish the timing of the payments, parts of which can vary by months or by years.

“Table 2-2 depicts the remarkable escalation in television rights fees. The largest percentage increase occurred between the Moscow and the Los Angeles games (and their Winter games counterparts, in Lake Placid and Sarajevo). There was also a sizable jump in the number of countries receiving television coverage of the Olympics: from 111 countries for the Moscow games and 40 for Lake Placid in 1980 to 156 for Los Angeles and 100 for Sarajevo in 1984. In both 2010 and 2012, 220 nations received television distribution of the games.”

Коммерческий успех современных Олимпиад ведёт отсчёт лишь с Игр в Лос-Анджелесе (единственном городе, выразившим желание провести их в 1984). Провёл он их на своих жёстких условиях, ради принятия которых Международное олимпийское движение пожертвовало многими своими принципами, продолжая их разбрасывать ещё на протяжении 10 лет, до тех пор, пока не превратилось в современного монстра. ФИФА, обладающая монопольными правами на Чемпионаты мира по футболу, последовала его примеру. Вспомним некоторые вехи падения:

“L.A. Organizing Committee to realize a modest profit of $215 million. The Los Angeles experience turned the tide. Shown the alluring path to possible profits, cities and countries now lined up for the honor of hosting the games. The competition to host the games became almost as intense as the athletic competition itself. Would-be hosts lavished more and more money on their bids; today, spending upward of $100 million on the bidding process alone is not unusual.”

“With each bidder trying to outdo all the others, expenditures on hosting the games rose to over $40 billion for the Beijing Summer Games in 2008 and reportedly topped $50 billion for the 2014 Sochi Winter Games. Developing economies have jumped into the bidding in recent years. They require more substantial investments owing to inadequate transportation, communications, energy, hospitality, and sporting infrastructure. Other sports mega-events have experienced similar cost escalations. The cost of hosting the FIFA World Cup, soccer's quadrennial showcase event, has risen from several hundred million in 1994, when the United States hosted the event, to $5–$6 billion in 2010 in South Africa and $15–$20 billion in Brazil in 2014. Qatar could shatter all records when it hosts the event in 2022, with some estimating the final price tag will come in at an eye-popping $200 billion.”

“But history might be repeating itself. Just as forces conspired to eliminate bidders in the late 1970s, by 2014 escalating costs had imposed a major financial burden on countries with meager resources and deficient public services. While promoters of the games made lofty claims about the economic benefits to be gained from hosting these sporting extravaganzas, the local populations seemed unimpressed. Not only were there no evident economic gains, there were social dislocations and resource diversions away from meeting basic needs. The games may benefit their wealthy promoters, but those at the middle and bottom of the income ladder appear to be picking up the tab—and increasingly, they don't like it.”

“With multiple bidders from around the globe and only one seller (the IOC or FIFA), it is almost unavoidable that the winning city or country will have overbid. This outcome is made even more likely because the groups pushing each city's bid are representing their own private interests, not the city's. And these groups will not have to pay the construction bills; rather, they will be the ones on the receiving end, getting the lucrative contracts.”

А как вы полагаете, почему развели Зимние и Летние Олимпиады по разным годам? Правильно, потому что хочется и ртом, и жопой 😉 —

“A final step toward commercialization was taken in 1992, when the IOC decided not to have the Winter and Summer Olympics in the same year. This way the take from business advertising expenditures could be maximized by not having to stretch corporate promotional budgets to cover two large competitions in the same year. Henceforth the games would alternate every two years, commencing with the Winter Games in Lillehammer in 1994.

Впрочем, в истории Олимпиад есть предтеча протекающих ныне событий. Первые послевоенные Игры в 1920 г. в Антверпене (в разорённой Первой мировой войной Бельгии, где и прошли основные многолетние сражения Западного фронта) собирались финансировать местные бизнесмены, посулившие на это миллион франков. В итоге дело обернулось иначе. Комментируют бельгийские исследователи, завершая анализ весьма символическим выводом:

Обещанное филантропическое пожертвование на деле трансформировалось в займ под 4%. “Two Belgian historians concluded, “What is clear is that a small group of prominent citizens of large fortune had succeeded in using the Olympic Games for their own financial advantage and social prestige.” (Roland Renson and Marijke den Hollander, “Sport and Business in the City: The Antwerp Olympic Games of 1920 and the Urban Elite,” Olympika: The International Journal of Olympic Studies 6 (1997): 73–84.)

Обсуждение т.н. "наследия" мегамероприятий завтра. Исследования последних 20 лет, рассмотревших тенденции полувека, приятно поразят вас своей контринтуитивностью 😉