Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Could the Olympics ever be free of politics?
Should politics play a role at the Olympic Games? The International Olympic Committee insists the Games are non-political, but in practice, that’s never really been the case. From boycotts to political protests to national scandals, politics always loom large at the Olympics, and the 2024 Paris Games are no exception.
Washington Post sports columnist Sally Jenkins joins Ian Bremmer on GZERO World to talk about how politics and sports overlap at the Olympics and beyond, including the IOC’s troubling coziness with authoritarian countries like China and Russia. Jenkins points to the Olympic Truce and the history of international cooperation at the Games but also stresses that this Olympics is taking place amid one of the most divisive political eras in decades. Despite the controversies and geopolitical tensions at the games, she says it is the athletes themselves that “scrape the grime” off the Games and make them so inspiring. The effort and commitment to compete after training for four years, she says, is one of the “great competitive miracles we all get to watch.”
Season 7 of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, launches nationwide on public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don''t miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).
The politics of the Paris Olympics
As the political drama ramps up in the US, Democrats have acted with remarkable speed and solidarity to pass the torch to VP Kamala Harris. At the same time, the world’s most elite athletes are gathering along the Seine in Paris to light a more literal torch, of the Olympic variety.
Washington Post sports columnist Sally Jenkins joins Ian Bremmer on GZERO World to talk about some of the biggest stories leading into the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris, including security challenges, the ban on Russia’s Olympic Committee due to the war in Ukraine, and growing calls for reform within the IOC, which has faced accusations of corruption and bid rigging in recent years. The IOC insists the Games aren’t political, but in practice, that’s never really been the case. This year, a doping scandal involving Chinese swimmers, Russian disinformation, and mounting calls for Israeli athletes to compete under a neutral flag threaten to overshadow the City of Light’s big celebration. Jenkins and Bremmer also dig into Saudi sportswashing, China’s relationship with pro sports teams in the US, and the WNBA’s most-watched season in history.
Season 7 of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, launches nationwide on public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don''t miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).
Olympic dispatch: Business as usual despite pandemic, geopolitical risks
Last week I wrote about why hosting the 2022 Winter Olympics in the shadow of Covid, diplomatic boycotts, and a fraught geopolitical environment was a risky bet for China. But now that the Beijing Games are firmly underway, I have to say they are going pretty well for the host.
On the pandemic front, China has thus far been effective at containing infections within the Olympic “bubble.” Sporting events have been only minimally disrupted. Authorities also seem to be succeeding at keeping said bubble tightly sealed and quarantined from the general population, key to ensuring the sustainability of the country’s zero-Covid policy should an outbreak pop up.To be sure, most people (including the Chinese!) are still feeling blasé about these Olympics. Last Friday’s opening ceremony drew 43% fewer TV viewers than the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Games. But the same could be said about the 2021 Tokyo Summer Olympics, also underwhelming but hardly scandalous. Public interest in the Olympics has been on a steady decline for many years. Beyond this trend and the lack of crowds to cheer on the athletes, though, we haven’t seen any significant Covid- or politics-related disruptions to the Games. That’s a win in China’s book.
This is not to say that these Olympics will prove as valuable for Beijing as the 2008 Summer Games did—they won’t. Back then, China was a debutante on the global stage, and the international community—including President George W. Bush, who was in attendance—was impressed by Beijing’s display of newfound wealth and technological development. Today’s world is much less sympathetic to China on account of its human rights record, its growing authoritarianism at home, and its assertiveness in the international arena. In fact, a handful of countries, including Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and India, joined a US-led diplomatic boycott of the Olympics in protest of China’s crimes against its Uyghur minorities.
Want to understand the world a little better? Subscribe to GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer for free and get new posts delivered to your inbox every week.
But the vast majority of countries, including most of Washington’s European and Asian allies, declined to follow suit. As a result, the boycott isn’t all that symbolically useful. It has neither changed Beijing’s repressive policies, affected the course of the Games, nor driven much of the conversation since the events started. NBC is still broadcasting the events and hewing to a mostly apolitical editorial line. Corporate sponsors have remained largely silent and are still flying their banners over the event venues. And even the few athletes who have condemned China’s abuses are still competing.
On balance, America’s failure to convince key allies like Germany, France, Japan, and South Korea to join the campaign probably bolstered President Xi Jinping’s ability to make the case to his domestic audience that China is under siege from a hostile West that is nevertheless too divided (and therefore too weak) to force Beijing to kneel. The fact that the opening ceremony cynically featured an ethnic Uyghur as torchbearer signals just how confident Xi is in China’s Teflon—and how limited the impact of the US boycott was.
The Olympics also served as a stage for Xi Jinping to consolidate his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The joint statements from the summit held on the sidelines of the opening ceremony make it clear that Xi and Putin view their interests vis-à-vis the United States as increasingly aligned. Both leaders see American behavior in their neighborhoods (the Indo-Pacific and Eastern Europe) as a national security threat, and both are eager to work together to shake up the status quo at the expense of global stability. While tactical alignment between China and Russia is not unprecedented, their budding strategic partnership—an alliance in all but name—is challenging news for the US and the world.
To be clear, there’s a lot that could still go wrong for China in the next two weeks. Covid containment policies work until they don’t, and we can’t discount the possibility that one or more athletes will speak up against Beijing on live TV.
But so far, it’s looking like smooth sailing for China.
🔔 And if you haven't already, don't forget to subscribe to my free newsletter, GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer, to get new posts delivered to your inbox.
The Graphic Truth: Olympic champs of budget overruns
With a current budget of $3.9 billion, the upcoming Beijing Winter Olympics will be relatively cheap by modern standards for the Games. The cost of Tokyo 2020 was almost twice the initial budget, and doesn't even count infrastructure spending. Indeed, cost overruns are a given for the Olympics, which since 1960 have always gone over budget — roughly by 173 percent on average. Given that national governments end up footing most of the bill, it's no surprise that in recent years fewer cities have competed to host the Games, and that Brisbane's 2032 bid was unopposed. We rank the last 16 Olympics by how much their final cost exceeded their initial budget.
If You Ain’t First…
I had a quiet moment at breakfast on Sunday and came across a fascinating study as the Olympics closing ceremony played in the background. From the abstract:
This paper investigates the effects of competition outcomes on health by using U.S. Olympic medalists' lifespans and medal colors as a natural experiment. Whereas the life expectancies of gold and bronze medalists do not differ significantly, life expectancy of silver medalists is about 2.4 and 3.9 years less than these former, respectively. These findings are readily explainable by insights from behavioral economics, psychology, and human biology, which suggest that (perceived) dissatisfactory competition outcomes may adversely affect health.
The authors find that Olympic silver medalists on average live significantly shorter lives than gold and bronze medalists. Gold is not too surprising, but bronze?
The reason is well understood by experts: Happier people live longer—that’s a fact. Silver medalists consider their performance to be a loss and are therefore disappointed, while bronze and gold medalists perceive it as a win and are elated. When they think about what could have been, the counterfactual for silver medalists is “I almost won gold,” whereas for bronze it’s “At least I won a medal.” Cue this meme.
Want to understand the world a little better? Subscribe to GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer for free and get new posts delivered to your inbox every week.
If winning an Olympic silver medal seems like a hard-to-relate problem, you’re right, it is. But I suspect the psychology at work applies beyond Olympians to comparatively normal folks like you and me, and maybe even to whole societies.
After all, aren’t most of us taught to treat life as a race? Competitive drive is core to the American ethos, as American as baseball/NASCAR (politics is ruining our metaphors!) and apple pie. The American dream promises that with enough hard work and determination, there is nothing you can’t achieve. No mountain high enough. No Joneses you can’t keep up with. But this promise has its peril. For someone to be successful at something, there must be someone (even slightly) less successful than them. We can’t all be winners. In the words of Ricky Bobby, “If you ain’t first, you’re last!”
Silver medalists look back and think that gold was within reach. Anything but gold is a failure. It doesn’t matter that they just beat every single human being except one. Second place is the first loser—an even bigger loser than third place. I grew up with plenty of people who feel that way. Sure, they’re still better off than most of the world population. But the gap used to be so much wider. And they thought they would do so much better.
They’re not alone. Over the last 20 years, a large minority of Americans—non-Hispanic white men without college degrees—have seen their relative living standards stagnate. Their parents had been better off than their grandparents, and they were sure the same would happen to them. Suddenly, the march of progress came to a halt. For some, it even reversed. Importantly, other people—other groups of people—were getting ahead. That was certainly not supposed to happen.
Can this mismatch between expectations and reality explain the stark rise in deaths of despair among middle-aged white men? Can it account for the rise of Trump and Trumpian politics? I don’t know, but it seems plausible.
Let me stretch the analogy further. Is it possible that America’s perceived relative decline on the global stage over the last 20 years has taken a toll on our national psyche? Did we fail to adjust our expectations for America’s role in the world after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the unipolar moment? We have been trying to defend a lead that feels to many like it’s slipping (even though it’s really not). We have everything to lose and little to gain, except not losing. Playing not to lose sure feels more stressful, and risky, than playing to win. Heavy is the head and all that. The question for you, readers, is can the US afford to continue aiming for gold – and expecting to win it every time – in a GZERO world?
🔔 And if you haven't already, don't forget to subscribe to my free newsletter, GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer, to get new posts delivered to your inbox.