How Many Politics Have Informed the Nature and General Tone of Recent News Coverage About the 2012 Olympics?

How many politics have informed the nature and general tone of recent news coverage about the 2012 Olympics?

To the public the Olympic Games are an extravagant event, showcasing the sporting talent of athletes from around the world. It is a time for countries to let down governmental barriers and enjoy the competitions at hand. However, for the host country the Olympic Games are often seen as complicated, expensive and in the end unnecessary. Currently the 2012 London Olympics are shaping up to have the same adverse effect on the grand city. The city of London won the Olympic bid in 2005 and ever since the money surrounding the Games has been out of control; while also getting little support from many MPs and the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.

These current Olympic problems are some of the hot topics being publicized in some of London most read newspapers, The Times, The Financial times, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph. With such broad coverage of the issues it is hard for any paper reader to avoid the problems and controversies surrounding the Olympics and with head lines like - Ready, Steady, Scrap - the big and bloated Olympics are just a start, London Olympic budget "out of control" and London 2012 rethink after fears over cost - why would a regular reader skip over such a publicized issue? The budget of the Olympic Games has been one of the biggest topic at hand in recent months but also the fact that some MPs and the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown are reported to hate the Olympic project has also taken up parts of most Olympic budget articles (Jenkins, 2007).

The London papers have good reason to report on the Olympic budget, because the budget has rises nearly four times compared to the original bid budget in 2005. The original bid price that Olympic organizers place on the Games was £2.4 billion; the currently budget is at £9.3 billion, with another £2.7 billion in a contingency budget. The contingency budget is currently in debates because Olympic organizers now believe that the money will be spent, while the government has stated that £2.2 billion of the contingency budget will be locked away. These astounding numbers are a far cry from the low-cost “people's Games” London offered with its original bid price (Jenkins, 2007). In recent weeks the papers have had large coverage of how the Olympic organizers “grossly underestimated” the cost of the games when the bid for the London games was decided (Sherman, 2007).

It is believed that Olympic officials should have known that the original £2.4 billion Olympic price tag was an underestimation, when other Olympic Games have cost upward of £15 billion. Also, last summer the developer Sir Stuart Lipton was approached to chair the Olympic Delivery Authority and walked away from the job when he saw the original Olympic budget. He said that the games could not be delivered at the bid price. In his assessment the Games could not be organized at a price less than £15 billion (Jenkins, 2007).

There is little debate on why the budget for the Olympics was underestimated but there is debate on how to prevent the problem from getting even more out of control. The original bid price for the Games was created by Tessa Jowell - Olympic Minister - and it failed to include construction price inflation, security cost, VAT and the current contingency fund (Blitz, 2007). Those reasons alone have increased the budget, to uncontrollable numbers. At the present time Olympic organizers have ideas on how to counter balance the rising price of the Games. One idea currently being pop-corned around by Olympic officials is to rethink the Olympic park complex.

The officials believe they can eradicate building cost by erecting temporary structures, while also utilizing some of London current complexes including the 02 arena. This plan would cut cost, however some individuals are angered at spending millions of pound on structures just to have them torn down after two weeks (Bond, 2007). The officials are also discussing cutting down the size of some complexes including the Olympic stadium and the aquatic center, both of which doubled in price since the original bid. The sporting secretary, James Purnell, also has his own idea on how to cut Olympic cost and it includes his declaration that “walking, bicycling, dancing and gymnastics are no longer sports” - basically stating that the four sports should be cut from the schedule of the up coming summer games (Jenkins, 2007). While this idea has little realistic potential, it was an idea.

The MPs that are involved in the Olympic project are doing little to solve the budget problem - they are currently coming up with no plan on how to solve the budget problem because they are spending most of their time placing blame for the situation. Don Touhig, a Labour MP has been noted as stating, “[the Olympic budget is] the most catastrophic piece of financial mismanagement in the history of the world”. While Edward Leigh, the Commons public accounts committee chairman said “[I have] no confidence in [the Olympic Delivery Authority's] ability to plan ahead” (Jenkins, 2007).

Jonathan Stephens, the permanent secretary at the Department of Culture, media and Sport is currently being blamed for the government's failure to take into account a contingency budget when the original budget was created (Blitz, 2007). To ease these worries and other MPs worries, Tessa Jowell will be providing parliament with a detailed report on where all Olympic money is being spent, with a detailed breakdown of specific project. The outline with also detail why there is a need for the budget increase ( Kelso, 2007). Olympic officials hope that this report will ease the concerns of most MPs and hope it will increases public popularity in the Olympic project. Concern over the budget increase is not the only problem on MPs minds another concern is where the extra £6.9 billion will be coming from. At this time less than £260 million of the games sponsorship money has been raised and while there are talks happening with prospective sponsors nothing is currently written in stone (Sports Staff, 2007).

Therefore, many national organizations can solve the continuing daunting money question for MPs because of the current budget cut being sanctioned to them by many sectors of government. The current cuts include £60 million from The arts Lobby, £400 million from Sport England (Jenkins, 2007) and £112.5 million from the Lottery funding for the Art Council England (Blitz, 2007). While those numbers are large they are only £572.5 million, which is only a fraction of the money needed. So where is the rest of it coming from?

The 2012 Olympic Games are over four years away but they are already causing the city of London astronomical problems. The Olympic officials are trying to ease these problems by making as much information about the Games available to members of parliament, but with that information even more questions are arise. At present the largest problems with the Olympic Games in the budget. The increasing bill is causing many involved in the project to worry, while angering many organizations whose funding is directly connected with the Games money tribulations. Hopefully a solution to the current problem will be found before London is down £15 billion and hosting a lack lust Olympic Summer Games.