Title: Why the Olympics aren't good for us, and how they can be
Description: "... presents a sharply critical take on the way the Games have been organized and an imaginative blueprint for how they could be improved ... [Olympic] organisers insist that the lasting value of the facilities built, the tourism the Games will attract, and the popular participation in sport they will promote, all make the spending of billions of pounds of public money an excellent investment. Such claims have been greeted with near unanimous agreement across mainstream British politics and the media. But ... Economists question whether the Olympics will provide the kind of economic regeneration London's East End has been promised. Sports coaches doubt the linkage often made between Gold medal successes and raising rates of popular participation in sport. And the tourism industry has produced reports showing that previous host cities have experienced an overall fall in visitors and their spending during Olympic years. [Perryman's] proposals include: Extending the games from a single host city to an entire country, or even group of countries; using existing stadia with greater spectator capacity than many of the purpose built facilities; expanding competitions held outside of stadia altogether, with more road, cross-country and open water races; increasing the number of events based on sports like running and boxing where international participation is widespread, and reducing the number of those, such as rowing, fencing and equestrianism, where few countries have the facilities to compete; and shifting the onus of the games from corporate sponsorship to the involvement of community and volunteer groups."--Publisher's website
Subjects: Olympic Games, Political aspects, Olympics, Reform, Social aspects, Olympic Games 2012 : London, England), Philosophy, Economic aspects