Post-Olympic Thoughts

Once, in 9th Grade, I filibustered on the cotton candy-filled goo of Olympic coverage for a solid thirteen minutes because all I wanted to do was watch some fucking speed skating, but no, whoever had the Olympics at the time insisted on filling so much time with human interest stories that it crowded out the sport. Of course, I was in 9th grade and was full of teenage arrogance and lacking in any sort of knowledge of basic media criticism, but I believed what I believed damn it. So when I watch the Olympics, I do judge the coverage.

And the older I get, the more judgey I get about it.

But, you know what: Paris was awesome. 

Medium Spawn and I watched the tape-delayed broadcast of the Opening Ceremonies and, the weird menage-a-trois moment aside, it was awesome. It did something no other Opening Ceremony managed to do effectively and that was a showcase of the host city itself. The boat parade on the Seine? Perfect. 

This-- which on the broadcast I remember being dead silent apart from the sound of the horse's hooves on the pavement, was moving:

It's weird to say that, but it was. The flag bearers fall into line behind one by one...  then, of course, they weirdly sent the Olympic Torch back up the river again, which was a bit of a head-scratcher, but equally moving was the moment when they lit the torch and you thought, "no way it's going to float" and then it floated.

And Celine Dion... uffff. Iconic, perfect. 

Easily the most iconic opening ceremony since London and probably ranks right up there with Atlanta and Barcelona as well. 

But the fun didn't stop there: I know that streaming is in flux and nobody knows how anything works and God only knows what the landscape is going to look like for 2028 or hell, even 2026, but remember this: Peacock for $6.35 a month, fucking nailed this. The Gold Zone? The multi-camera view options? The sport by sport live streams and replays? The Prime Time coverage? There was so much sport and so little cotton candy goo. It. Was. Amazing.

And I'm sure by 2028, NBC will have wised up and jacked up the prices and we will have to pay through the nose for a halfway decent viewing experience, but treasure this moment in time. The timezones have not been kind to the Olympics-- Asia be tough for American viewers, but the pendulum is swinging back our way and I am calling my shot now: if Peacock and NBC are smart they will not change a goddamn thing-- they probably won't be though, so I'm sure we will look back on these games and remember them fondly as the best broadcast experience of the streaming era. Because I'm dead sure the prices won't be the same the next time out and given the behavior of television executives and VC types in this landscape, the potential for some rich asshole to fuck this up is incredibly high.

But this was the most fun I've had watching the Olympics in a long time. This brings up the next question that inevitably gets kicked around every four years or so: should we have the Olympics at all?

I think before London you could have convinced me that there were a lot more problems with the concept than I think there are now. The prohibitive costs and general inconvenience of hosting the Olympics in just one city have sparked a general 'Ewww, no thank you' that's made bids hard to come by. (Boston famously mentioned it and its citizenry revolted. New York City made some noise about it and it went nowhere they are having issues finding bid cities it seems like.)

I think the answer to that is already being demonstrated by London, Paris, and soon, Los Angeles. Surfing for Paris was in Tahiti, 12,000 miles away. Softball from Los Angeles is going to be Oklahoma City along with canoe slalom. London had a lot of venues that were either temporary or were moved straight up to different parts of the country where they would be of more use (which solves the White Elephant problem that a lot of ex-Olympic cities seem to have). 

Creativity in the bidding process might help. The 2030 World Cup is going to be a tri-country bid between Spain, Portugal, and Morocco and have anniversary matches held in Uruguay, Paraguay, and Argentina since it's the centenary of the first World Cup. Do you have to go that crazy? Not unless you want too- but let's say, Seattle and Vancouver wanted to bid together? Liverpool and Manchester?

You could also spread it out a bit more and move to a country model. Consider: if you want butts in seats, every country has a mecca for some sport somewhere. If you did running in Eugene, Oregon-- every seat would be filled. If you did wrestling in Stillwater, Iowa City, and State College, every seat would be filled. It might not work for every sport, but you get the idea. If you want the Olympics to be for everyone, (an open question-- I didn't check ticket prices for Paris, but I saw the discussion about ticket prices for Copa America matches going around) then you need to think creatively about where you host these venues.

Creativity in hosting and venue criteria also means that the Olympics don't just become affordable for authoritarian governments that want to put on a propaganda festival. There should be an Olympics in Africa. There should be another Olympics in South America. If India makes a run at a serious bid, I'd go there too. Make it a worldwide thing as much as you can-- I don't know if you need to go all-continent rotation about it the way FIFA does with the World Cup, but the more flexibility and creativity with hosting you can offer potential candidate regions/cities/countries, the better, in my opinion.

Then you come to the next question: what sports should be at the Olympics full-stop? This Guardian piece makes a provocative case for 'less is more' and for sure I don't think everything needs to be a sport at the Olympics. I do think the Olympics needs to be mindful of this, but I also don't think it's wrong to say try something like 3x3 basketball for 2-3 games and see if the sport grows in popularity or not. I think you can cycle sports in and out. You can keep things fresh. 

Men's football does have some issues-- and I do think if you can get more of the stars to show up, you'd get more interest there- but I also think you have a scheduling problem as well. I doubt many of the European players are going to want to end their professional seasons, go into the Euros or Copa and then turned around after that for an Olympic Tournament and then go into pre-season/pro-season again. Lifting the age cap? Sure. But I wouldn't expect a ton of stars to show up for it.

The elitist argument does sway me a bit on equestrian stuff and sailing. The America's Cup, while cool as hell, isn't exactly the sport of the masses, you know. But to be fair to sailing, there are multiple disciplines within it that may well be more accessible than you know, yachts. 

I'm sure the debates about the Olympics and what sports should and shouldn't be included will continue as long as they have the Olympics-- and whether you like them or hate them or have concerns about their costs or think we shouldn't just bother with them at all, I am always going to love them. They come around once every four years and it's always nice to see them again. 

So thanks, Peacock for excellent coverage. And thanks, Paris for an amazing two week distraction to you know, life.