Travis M. Clark

When my eyes caught this AP story on the future of the Beijing Olympic stadium, I was not surprised. When the stadium dubbed ‘the Bird’s Nest’ was first completed, it was hailed as an innovative marvel, the centerpiece of the greatest games that will ever take place. Everyone oohed and aahed at the show the Chinese government put on display in August 2008. But like all Olympic games, the big question remains in regards to the future of the elaborate complexes that many countries go bankrupt building after completing their hosting duties. This is the future of the ‘Bird’s Nest’:

Officially known as Beijing National Stadium, the showpiece of the Beijing Olympics has fallen into disuse since the end of the games. Paint is already peeling in some areas, and the only visitors these days are tourists who pay about $7 to walk on the stadium floor and browse a pricey souvenir shop.

Plans call for the $450 million stadium to anchor a complex of shops and entertainment outlets in three to five years, Xinhua News Agency reported, citing operator Citic Group. The company will continue to develop tourism as a major draw for the Bird’s Nest, while seeking sports and entertainment events.

Isn’t that lovely to hear? The ornate structure that claimed the lives of between 2 and 10 people while being built, is already losing its luster. As shocking and controversial as this suggestion could be, perhaps the idea of the Olympic games should go extinct. It’s become a corporate sham, with the likes of Visa, McDonald’s and (insert large, multi-national brand here) turning the games into an exercise in global spending. Every single city that has hosted the games has struggled with maintaining and providing upkeep to their facilities. The Sydney Olympic Park area remains nice, with the main stadium reduced to a mere 85,000 capacity area that gets fairly regular use. Salt Lake City sees a fair share of tourism thanks to the ski slopes that inhabit the area. If you think about it, Winter Olympic venues have an advantage over their summer counterparts because of their proximity to ski resorts that perhaps help justify (only a little bit) the large price tags that host countries/cities have to pay.

Like all international sporting bodies, the Olympic Committee never manages to steer clear of some kind of controversy. The latest emanates from England, where officials involved with the 2012 games have claimed over £100,000 in business expenses — these include lavish corporate dinners and parties. Money well spent indeed. This comes on the tail end of the estimated budget for the games rising from £2.4billion to £9.3 billion. That’s quite a mouthful of money being tossed about. 

But a solution to these kind of problems will always remain elusive. Even in tough economic times, people desire to see athletes compete, and will scrip and sacrifice in order to do so. The Washington Post reports of local fans taking a mortgage to finance their season tickets to the Washington Redskins, which to me seems like an exercise in folly. Sport keeps the spirit of nations alight even in hard times, and the Olympics are such an occasion. The only feasible solution to the problem would be to establish a rotating-host system. This is unfair because it would force the games to rotate and only be played in certain cities every four years, perhaps removing some of the luster. But when you have the Russian government already pledging $14 billion to boost Sochi — that’s right, show me where that is on the map — maybe things could stand to be twisted around to curb spending. But since when do people think like that?