Sporting hopes of Olympic glory

8:40am Wednesday 13th August 2008

Comments (0)   Have your say »

OLYMPIC fever has gripped the Buhagiar household. I have taken to going to bed at gone 1am before getting up at 5.30am to see what I have missed.

Say what you like about China’s politics, there is no doubting they can put on a show like no other.

Dancing of impeccable timing and choreography and a spell-binding spectacle of 21st century technology coming together with man marked the greatest-ever opening to the world’s greatest sporting event.

Just our luck that we will have to follow Beijing in four years time.

Apparently the Games cost China £35 billion. I remember Gordon Brown saying that the Olympics would give Britain an “economic boost” but he also assured parliament that taxpayer loans to Northern Rock would be fully secured on mortgage assets...

Anyway, back to the sport.

How wonderful it is to see these athletes representing their country with pride in the hunt for a medal with finance playing no part.

Sure, the bigger names have made a lot of money through sponsorship – and professionals in tennis, football and basketball can compete – but as far as Britain is concerned, there are far more athletes who have left humble homes in the middle of a credit crunch to participate.

Premier League footballers who demand moves and go in search of ridiculous salaries while already earning more than £3 million a year should look into the eyes of each Olympian. Inside most they will see the hunger to succeed, the desire to win that they probably had before Monopoly money wages took hold of the “beautiful game”. Far more beautiful is rowing, cycling, diving or swimming – at least it is in August 2008.

The average athlete attempting to win a medal probably trained in the morning or evening, before or after work.

Compare that to the life of a Premier League footballer who trains from 9.30am until noon, eats a specially prepared lunch and then returns home to discuss how he can spend the £10,000 he has just earned for a few hours’ “work”.

And just who makes you more proud?

Our failing home nation football sides or those contesting nearly every event at the Olympics?

Lottery funding has helped some athletes progress, but the pounds per person are light years away from the gargantuan numbers which enter a footballer’s bank account every month.

And we can hold our heads high should an athlete previously banned for drug taking win a medal for another country, relaxing in the knowledge that drug cheats never prosper in British athletics with no second chances given.

But as I cheered Rebecca Adlington and Nicole Cooke in the swimming and cycling respectively I realised I was a “glory hunter”.

Yes I have good reason to back our British boys and girls being a patriotic soul, but is staying up late or getting up early and cheering them on a bit hypocritical?

When was the last time I watched a swimming race? Four years ago. How about rowing or cycling? 2004. I may have watched a couple of track and field events but I am hardly what you would call a fan. That is until the Olympics come calling.

I spend Saturday afternoons watching my football team inevitably lose without giving such other sports a second thought.

So should we support minority sports more?

Surely a bigger audience for the events mentioned above and others like archery, judo, handball and table tennis would benefit everyone.

More future Olympians would be found and our performance in such events would improve with the extra funding provided.

When you consider how much coverage the BBC is giving the Games you realise that there is obviously a huge interest in the Olympics in this country.

So let us continue to keep an eye on the likes of Ms Adlington and Ms Cooke and follow the progress of diving prodigy Tom Daley until London 2012.

Who knows, by giving a bit more to such sports we could get a whole lot more back in four years’ time.

THE Olympic Games might be a huge success but there is still a doubt over whether or not China should have hosted the event in the first place. China has long wanted to “welcome the world” as it seeks to enhance its rising international status.

In China, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) knew it had found a country which would put on a show, meet the cost and not worry about a lot else. As far as the IOC is concerned this is one of the very rare occasions where a dictatorship comes in handy.

But as I mentioned earlier the astronomical cost for Britain could hit us hard in the build-up to 2012 and in between the politics and the sport sits a warning to our Government.

The new hotels in Beijing are two-thirds full, visitor numbers are down and nobody knows what will happen with half of the buildings made specifically for the Olympics once the games have finished.

Previously, in Athens four years ago and Sydney in 2000 tourism in Greece and Australia was down, with holidaymakers choosing to avoid the countries while the Olympics were on. Large deficits were left – and back then the global economy was stable.

I doubt as much will be spent on the 2012 games as has been blown in the build-up to 2008 but lessons surely need to be learnt.

It is widely known that people were thrown out of their homes in Beijing so that the Olympic village could be constructed. People who protested were jailed while others were forcibly moved on or left homeless. Nothing close to that will happen here, but if the estimated budget continues to increase Wembley-style, more column inches will be written about that than the poor people of Beijing who have been all but forgotten.

It is one thing attempting to follow China, and I have no doubt that London 2012 will be a huge success in the mould of Euro ’96 and the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002, but given the current economic climate, Gordon Brown and Lord Coe would do well to get together and undertake a bit of number-crunching just to make sure everything adds up.