Claudia Amand Dr. Osterweil GLBL 210.

602 12 April 2013 Olympism in Action: The Race for Gold, Glory, and Justice In 2009, Brazil successfully won the bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, seizing the opportunity to formally present itself as an emerging world power. For nations on the rise like Brazil, hosting an international mega-sporting event has become an assertion of modernity and cohesion, offering a unique occasion to showcase its culture and its advancement as a society (Canales 53). These events have also provided host cities with modern infrastructure, development projects, and investment opportunities as a way to benefit the community and the economy (Millington et al). Even though mega-sporting events appear to help empower developing host nations, the pursuits of modernization and economic development commonly end up resulting in social injustices. This paper will use the case of Rio 2016, with supplemental support from the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa, to argue how the economic interests of hosting an international mega-sporting event overlook the social implications that come along with it, specifically focusing on gentrification and inequality. The argument will also aim to analyze how conflicting notions of development are constructed and realized within the context of hosting such an event. As the first South American host, Rio demonstrates how the Olympics Games continue the trend of sports mega-events moving to the Global South in an effort to position the events within a broader development policy agenda (Darnell 498). While these agendas claim to focus

2 on promoting social and economic equality, the reality is that governments and event organizers tend to employ notions of development that clash with the needs of its local residents. To better understand how these notions of development lead to gentrification and inequality, we must consider the different stakeholders involved in the organization of these events. We begin with the International Olympic Committee1 and their involvement in a new political sport movement, encouraging sustainable social and economic development models for host nations in the Global South for the broader institutionalization and mobilization of Sport for Development and Peace (Darnell 499). According to scholars, the IOCs choice to pick Rio was intended to focus the Olympic investments on the regions where the greatest amount of development is currently aimed. This model of development-through-sport advocates sport programs, policies, and infrastructure as a means of meeting international development goals. This also allows the IOC to provide host cities and nations with powerful economic opportunities through their development projects. These initiatives, which are aligned with modernization and neoliberal notions of development, claim they will be able to sustainably address social and economic structural inequalities in the Global South (Canales 56). Through this model, Rio will be anticipating a complete makeover in preparation for the biggest competitive mega-sporting event in the world. At face value, these activities promise the continuation of using new sports facilities and other development projects after the hosting of the games to promote sustainable economic growth. Many critics of this movement, however, believe that this kind of development will not challenge the political economy or help promote social justice in the Global South but rather create spacematerially and discursivelyfor
1

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is the official organization responsible for planning the Olympic Games (Millington et al.).

3 international investors and corporations, and allow residents to maintain a sense of progressiveness (Darnell 506). In an interview with Democracy Now, Raj Patel explained how World Cup organizer FIFA is an incredibly powerful organization that in many ways has sort of commandeered the willing South African government to be able to rearrange the country to make it more football and corporation-friendly. With the creation of this economic space, investors and corporations laud at nations when they announce the hosting of a mega-sporting event because for them, it means more liberalized trade. In fact, studies suggest that countries that have hosted the Olympic Games have 20% more exports than other countries (Rose et al.) What these findings propose is that part of the decision to host such a big event is based on a strategic political move to pull in more international investment and solidify the country as an engine of economic growth, thus forging a stronger relationship between the government and international investors. Brazil is especially attractive, particularly because Rio de Janeiro will also be hosting the 2014 FIFA World Cup less than 24 months before the Summer Olympics (Gibbons 562). Something to consider, however, is that investors that endorse the construction of new sporting facilities and infrastructure usually do so out of self-interest because these events usually end up imposing large costs on their hosts that are not nearly compensated by either the revenues earned during the event or the legacy of large stadia or obscure facilities (velodromes, aquatic centers, and so forth) that are left behind. (Rose et al.). In China, for example, the government pushed out thousands of residents from their homes to make space for the construction of their Olympic venues, but after the 2008 games ended, these huge plots of land and expensive facilities became totally abandoned. The infamous Birds Nest, which was used for the opening ceremony, is still costing the government millions of dollars for maintenance and

4 upkeep, despite the fact that it is no longer used (Tomlinson et al.). These investments, which provide short-term economic progress before and during the games, fail to leave behind a substantial trace of economic growth for the nations government and its people (Gaffney). For the government, a prime motivator to host the Olympic games is to solidify its role as a global influence and legitimize its economic and political power. During the 2010 FIFA World Cup, revered archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu praised the games for having helped South Africa become a beautiful butterfly (Patel). Hosting such an event, however, requires a lot of convincing. For Rio 2016, Brazils government focused on community development and the capability of sport to reach out to disadvantaged populations to create balance within the global economy as its bid defense to the IOC (Carey et al. 246). This was an appealing argument to members of the IOC because it presented Brazils government as having considerable interest in the development practices that the IOC so proudly sponsors, particularly development-through-sport. In this official statement, the IOC summarized the governments proposal for the games: The bid is driven by the Brazilian Government and Rio 2016's vision incorporates the involving social inclusion through sport and leisure, elite sports training, expansion of infrastructure, the promotion of major events and its commitment to bring the Games to South America. (Darnell 500) However, for a developing nation in pursuit of economic growth, these projects get tangled with corporate interest. As Patel explains in the same interview from earlier: The sporting events around the world, when they happen in the Global South, have usually been alibis for a few corporations and a few people to profit massively and for

5 governments to engage in what they seem towhat they call beautification, or what more rightly is called gentrification and privatization. (Patel) From this, we can conclude that there is a complex economic system of power driving the governments intentions in bringing the games to Brazil. Brazils government, however, is also plagued with a complicated political and economic history that includes colonial legacy, recent history of military government, habitual urban para-militarization, far more acute inequalities, aggressive neoliberal economic development and associated middle class land grabs (Gibbons 561). Many locals believe that corruptionwhich has become commonplace among Brazilian officialswill illuminate the governments incentives for bringing the games to Rio as purely economic and political (Downie). The final stakeholder, and perhaps the most delicate group involved in the preparation of mega sporting events, is the host cities very own residents. Behind the media faade of celebration and the bringing together of people, these events have also been known to exclude the poor and ignore their rights. This was a major issue in South Africa during the World Cup, during which civil rights protests were shut down by the government in order to ensure safety and security for the tourists of the games (Patel). In South Africa, shack settlement leaders resisting eviction in Durban, Johannesburg and Cape Town were chased from their homes by gangs, arrested, detained without hearing, and assaulted, in preparation for the FIFA World Cup (Patel). In Rio de Janeiro, where projects to tear down favelas have been proposed to make way for the construction of sports facilities and infrastructure, these effects have already begun (Canales 57). Over 170,000 people face eviction in lieu of new construction that will be needed for both the Olympics and the World Cup, but

6 Brazils government claims that these actions are necessary in order to improve the citys standard of living. Due to the lack of affordable and accessible housing in the city, most poor residents are excluded to the periphery of the city, where they build precarious housing structures on land that is unregulated. These poor squatter communities known as favelas are notorious for rampant crime, lack of infrastructure, nonexistent water and sewage systems, inadequate educational opportunities, and lackluster employment prospects, are in danger of being completely destroyed (He). The following excerpt featured in a New York Times article by Simon Romero offers a perspective: The authorities think progress is demolishing our community just so they can host the Olympics for a few weeks, said Cenira dos Santos, 44, who owns a home in the settlement, which is known as Vila Autdromo. But weve shocked them by resisting. (Romero) Dos Santos is one of millions of Brazilians fighting for social justice against the power-hungry officials organizing the upcoming sporting events. Many Brazilians are skeptical that these development projects will help them because they believe that government is more concerned with accommodating the global market (Carey et al). For them, replacing their communities with commercial shopping malls and tourist attractions will not provide the homes, jobs, and growth that the people truly need to achieve social and economic equality. It also illustrates how the government is ignoring the social needs of its people by focusing more on the short-term economic benefits of Olympic beautification. To people like dos Santos, the $15 billion being spent on the games should be going towards helping these poor communities have basic necessities and rights like education, housing, and healthcare (Downie).

7 Because the favela communities sustain their livelihood on organized crime and informal economies like the drug trade and street vending, the government sees their continuation as a threat to their capitalist agenda. What they fail to realize, however, is that by demolishing these neighborhoods, they are disrupting the security and social order that people have come to depend on more than their own government. By replacing this system with westernized notions of development, the government ignores the specific social needs that its people demand and deserve. Brazilians, like South Africans, are rejecting whatever notions of development the government and organizers have by refusing to cooperate. In their eyes, extravagant sporting events, shiny stadiums, luxurious hotels, and multinational corporate investment will only benefit the already rich and powerful. True development for Brazilians, like many others living in developing nations, cannot be measured through the commercial economy; its a notion of development conceived by true democracy and equality (Patel). In China, where over 100 million people live on less that $1 a day, the opening ceremonies of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games were estimated to have cost the government at least $100 million (Tomlinson et al.). In 2010, South Africa spent nearly $14 billion and evicted over 2400 residents in over 6 cities to make room for commercial and economic space in preparation for the World Cup. We see with this argument then that the hosting of huge sporting events like the Olympics places the interests of the nations rich and powerful minority ahead of the interests of its majority low-income residents; residents who end up paying the costs of these expenditures in the long haul. Like China, Brazil will be expected to spend millions of dollars on the event, notwithstanding the fact that most of Brazils urban population lives in impoverished squatter communities (Rose et al). Even though hosting this event can lead to higher global status and

8 economic advancement, the structural transformations involved in its planning and execution often result in gentrification and increased inequality within the nation, failing to meet any previously held promise of social justice. Like so many other previous host nations, Brazil is also expected to transform the Olympic host city Rio de Janeiro into a world-class metropolis to impress its international audience. With an estimated budget of $15 billion, Brazil has promised that bringing the games to Rio de Janeiro will be done in a way that benefits the general population to promote a sustainable economic future (Canales 55). Despite Brazil having the 6th largest economy in the world1, the fact that they are still considered a developing nation by the UN adds a lot of pressure on the government to display Rio as a modern, global city (Millington et al.) In Rio de Janeiro, where rapid rates of urbanization have led to very uneven economic and social growth, hosting the Olympic games will be a powerful resource used to transform the impoverished parts of the city and bring in more development and economic opportunities. These notions of development, however, vary quite differently between the local residents, Brazils government, the IOC, and its international investors. This argument is intended to postulate a more general issue concerning how different notions of development are employed between the global forces of power and ordinary citizens. Its easy to think why something like the Olympics would be a good investment for a country like Brazil, but thats only true if seen through an economic and market lens. When taking a closer look at all the external costs of hosting such a huge event, we see that the immediate economic benefits are only reaped by investors, who in turn leave behind obscurities in the hands of the government its people once the games end, particularly issues with gentrification and inequality. As a result, the host country ends up making little to no profit in addition to losing the trust and loyalty of its people. If Brazil wants to truly leave behind a legacy of Olympic success,

9 they need to seriously consider the interests of its people by incorporating them in policy-making and not just on paper through a rhetorical promise.

10 Works Cited Carey, Meaghan, Daniel S. Mason and Laura Misener. Social Responsibility and the Competitive Bid Process for Major Sporting Events. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 35.5 (2011): 246-263. Sage Publications. Web. 8 Apr. 2013. Canales, Fernanda. The Olympic Games and the Production of the Public Realm: Mexico City 1968 and Rio de Janeiro 2016. Architectural Design 81.3 (2011): 5257. Wiley Online Library. Web. 5 Apr. 2013. Darnell, Simon C. "Mega Sport for All? Assessing the Development Promises of Rio 2016." Rethinking Matters Olympic, 10th International Symposium for Olympic Research, London, Ontario. 2010. Academic OneFile. Web. 8 Apr. 2013. Downie, Andrew. Rio 2016: Is Brazil Going to be Ready for the Olympics? Time Magazine 16 Sept. 2011. Web. 5 Apr. 2013. Gaffney, Christopher. Mega-events and socio-spatial dynamics in Rio de Janeiro, 1919-2006. Journal of Latin American Geography 9.1 (2010): 7-15. Print. Gibbons, Andrea. Introduction: Spotlight on Olympic Rio: Critical implications of Faster, Higher, Stronger. City: Analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action 16.5 (2012): 561-562. Routledge Taylor Francis Online. Web. 6 Apr. 2013. He, Tianhao. Urban Brazil: an Olympic opportunity. Harvard International Review 34.2 (2012): 9+. General OneFile. Web. 8 Apr. 2013.

11 Millington, Rob, and Simon C. Darnell. Constructing and contesting the Olympics online: the internet, Rio 2016 and the politics of Brazilian development. International Review for the Sociology of Sport (2012). Sage Publications. Web. 7 Apr. 2013 Romero, Simon. Slum Dwellers Are Defying Brazils Grand Design for Olympics. New York Times 5 March 2012: A1. Print. Rose, Andrew K., and Mark M. Spiegel. The Olympic trade effect: countries that bid for the Olympics are sending a signal that they are ready to open up trade. Finance & Development Mar. 2010: 12+. General OneFile. Web. 6 Apr. 2013. Tomlinson, Richard, Orli Bass and Thomas Bassett. Before and after the vuvuzela: identity, image, and mega-events in South Africa, China and Brazil. South African Geographical Journal 93.1 (2011): 38-48. Routledge Taylor Francis Online. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.