Should the Olympics and World Cup take place more often?

Gary Lineker recently tweeted an interesting thought that many have probably had a few times during the summer of an even year (unless there's a pandemic). Should the Olympics and Football World Cup take place on a more frequent basis? 

Utilitarianism is the idea that since humans gain happiness from having certain things, increasing that utility would lead to greater happiness. In our case, Lineker seems to apply this logic to say that since we all seem to enjoy World Cups and Olympic Games, we will surely be better off for having more of these events. While one national treasure might think this, I thought I should consider it from a few different perspectives. Here are my results.

Athletes 

Surely, this is a shut and closed case - players want to play. 

On the one hand, yes. These major sporting events are the most significant moments in athletes' careers. To have more opportunities to compete on the world stage is certainly an attractive opportunity. If an athlete doesn't win or has an injury one year, they don't have to wait as long to have another bite of the cherry. It also means that there is a higher chance of seeing a team or individual at their peak. Many athletes in the Olympics make most of their money through the Olympics, meaning that more Games will likely increase athletes' income.

On the other hand, you have to consider the well-being of athletes. They'll be knackered if they compete throughout the year for their clubs and then for their countries in the summer. Yes, I know it's their job, and they get paid well to be trained for these events, but everyone needs a break and some time with their family.

I sense then that opinions of athletes will be divided. If that is the case, you may have a situation where some athletes don't compete in certain years. Would that take away from the majesty of the events? Potentially. 

Clubs

This is an easier one. We learned more about what clubs really wanted when some of the biggest ones tried to break away with the European Super League. The players they employ are their assets; why would they want them to risk injury while playing for their country in major tournaments? They wouldn’t. I suspect it would be a similar situation for most sports clubs. 

I imagine, also, that for sports without clubs, other competitions, such as the Athletics world championships, will likely oppose the idea that the Olympics may take priority.

Governments 

Countries host major sporting events to promote the nation in the form of soft diplomacy. More of these events mean that more countries can tell the world how great they are and invite them to visit. Naturally, governments will be onboard. 

Except will they? Major sporting events are costly to put on, and they are not always politically popular within the country. The Olympics cost Japan an estimated $15.4 billion. This sort of spending by hosts often results in taxes increasing alongside debt to compensate. 

Major sports events are therefore controversial from a political perspective. In a world where the narrative is perhaps more important than the numbers, possibly more governments would be up for the idea.

Sports fans

I suppose that the general feeling among sports fans will be that of Gary Lineker’s - the more, the merrier. 

However, we will never know the actual perspective of fans until the frequency of major events is increased, by which point, it’ll probably be too late. The biggest issue will be whether events feel as special as they do now. Fan satisfaction will be directly proportional to athlete involvement. If the superstars don’t turn up, neither will spectators. I can also imagine that, due to the expense, the fans that travel to every tournament will be less able to afford to travel the world as frequently. If the fans don’t go to the stadiums, the profits for the host nation will be less handsome. But does the high interest in Tokyo 2020 on television, despite a lack of capacity crowds, show that fans may still be interested in global sporting events with fewer live fans? Maybe. I think it would be a considerable risk.

Football-wise, I think we are set with a World Cup and then a Continental Cup every two years, but I could see another Olympic Games being a success. A Winter Olympics might be good, where winter sports are competed instead. Oh, wait… 

My Verdict

I believe that the way things are is perfectly fine. These major sporting events are special, and I don’t see a reason to change that. What I do think, though, is that more sports being added to the Olympics and increasing the length of the Games would bring even more interest. Naturally, I am drawn to motorsport being added, with track racing in the summer and rallying in the winter. I also don’t know why Cricket, American Football or Squash aren’t part of the schedule either. What else am I missing?

Also, you’ve got the Commonwealth Games, which are essentially a semi Olympics, so adding more would be frankly mad.

Never mind all of that, though. It’s easy to point out the flaws. The Olympic Games left us wanting more, and that’s a true sign of a successful summer in Tokyo. 

Leave a comment below to let me know what you think - should we have more frequent Olympic Games and World Cups?