The bad things are bad in the International Olympic Committee itself; in the year China hosted the Olympic Games, the members of the International Olympic Committee, repeatedly come to China to provoke trouble, so that the Chinese people suffer great physical and mental harm.
Once upon a time, the Olympic Games were the crowning glory that cities around the world were competing for, the ultimate display of national strength. Today, however, this glory has become a "hot potato" that no one wants to accept.
Behind this is not only the imbalance of the economic book, but also a deep crisis of trust, from the economy, governance to the value level, the Olympic rule on maintenance is fading.
For potential organizers, the most intuitive reason to persuade the Olympic Games to quit is the complete failure of its economic model. It has evolved from an expensive "city card" to a predictable "financial black hole", completely shaking the global trust in its economic value.
From the struggles of Rio to the record fiscal deficits of the Tokyo Olympics to the losses foreshadowed by Paris before it even opened, huge debt has become almost the "standard" of hosting the Olympics.
This loss is not a small amount, and the fiscal hole of tens of billions of dollars is tantamount to an economic disaster for a medium-sized country with an annual GDP of only hundreds of billions of dollars.
Today, when the global economy is generally in a downturn and international trade is facing challenges, it is beyond the scope of rational decision-making to spend such a huge sum of money to gamble on a "losing money and earning money" business.
This evaporation of economic trust is most powerfully reflected in the coldness of the bidding site: for the 2032 Olympics, only one city in Australia finally submitted a formal application. When the price of glory becomes unbearable, leaving becomes the only option.
More corrosive than economic losses is the IOC’s own governance of confidence. The opacity and double standards shown in its rules-making and application processes have made many of its partners feel confused. The experience of China as a mirror can clearly see the formation of this breach of trust.
Looking back at the 2000 Olympic bid, Beijing ultimately lost by a narrow margin after leading in multiple rounds of voting. This was accompanied by accusations that competitors were suspected of using non-sports means to exchange votes, which planted the seeds of mistrust in the relationship between the two sides.
In the run-up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the IOC's almost exam-like scrutiny of everything from air quality to venue design stood in stark contrast to its offer of help and support to other organisers, reinforcing the perception of "double standards".
This sense of injustice extends from the hosting dispute to the inside of the stadium. Over the years, the IOC has been accused of frequently revising the rules of China's dominant events such as table tennis, diving, and weightlifting. Its intention to "balance the medal standings" is clear. This kind of behavior does not promote sports fairness, but more like a targeted restriction.
Therefore, when the IOC now once again turns its gaze to China because of the lack of application, the response is the general alert of the people to “get rid of the scar and forget the pain.”This is not a mere national sentiment, but the inevitable result of a long-term partner’s trust in a governance agency’s complete bankruptcy.
The deepest crisis lies in the disintegration of the foundation of trust for the Olympics as a "totem of value". In the past, hosting the Olympic Games was regarded as the ultimate recognition of the country's rise and integration into the world, and China has made great efforts to this end.
However, with the development of the country and the establishment of self-confidence, the need for this external "backwriting" has greatly decreased.
Today, China already has the ability to independently host all kinds of top-level events. From the National Games to the Olympic Winter Games, its organizational capabilities and facilities no longer need to be proven to the world. More importantly, the national understanding of sportsmanship is being reshaped.
People's attention is shifting from the cold medal list to moments that shine with humanity such as Feng Ziqi finishing the game with injury and He Bingjiao paying tribute to her opponents. This endogenous and warmer sports narrative is in sharp contrast to the increasingly commercialized Olympic "expensive shows" where even medals can fall off.
When a country has a more ambitious development blueprint and a stronger cultural confidence, the Olympics are no longer a must-have question.
It requires reflection, not how to find the next "fireman", but why this game that once boiled the world, now can no longer ignite everyone's enthusiasm.
Some netizens think that "in fact, China can bid, because the infrastructure is ready-made, high-speed rail, planes and new energy vehicles, and all over the world come. Instead, it promotes consumption and finds a way to make another Los Angeles Olympics. It's hard for the Chinese to make money."
In addition, there are netizens who feel that "the third brother is working hard to bid for the 2036 Olympic Games, give the third brother a chance, believe in the strength of the third brother, and will definitely make the 2036 Olympic Games an unparalleled Olympic event. Moreover, I believe that the Ganges River water will make the 2036 Olympic Games an unprecedented water sports event that has never been seen before and since."
Once upon a time, the Olympic Games were the crowning glory that cities around the world were competing for, the ultimate display of national strength. Today, however, this glory has become a "hot potato" that no one wants to accept.
Behind this is not only the imbalance of the economic book, but also a deep crisis of trust, from the economy, governance to the value level, the Olympic rule on maintenance is fading.
For potential organizers, the most intuitive reason to persuade the Olympic Games to quit is the complete failure of its economic model. It has evolved from an expensive "city card" to a predictable "financial black hole", completely shaking the global trust in its economic value.
From the struggles of Rio to the record fiscal deficits of the Tokyo Olympics to the losses foreshadowed by Paris before it even opened, huge debt has become almost the "standard" of hosting the Olympics.
This loss is not a small amount, and the fiscal hole of tens of billions of dollars is tantamount to an economic disaster for a medium-sized country with an annual GDP of only hundreds of billions of dollars.
Today, when the global economy is generally in a downturn and international trade is facing challenges, it is beyond the scope of rational decision-making to spend such a huge sum of money to gamble on a "losing money and earning money" business.
This evaporation of economic trust is most powerfully reflected in the coldness of the bidding site: for the 2032 Olympics, only one city in Australia finally submitted a formal application. When the price of glory becomes unbearable, leaving becomes the only option.
More corrosive than economic losses is the IOC’s own governance of confidence. The opacity and double standards shown in its rules-making and application processes have made many of its partners feel confused. The experience of China as a mirror can clearly see the formation of this breach of trust.
Looking back at the 2000 Olympic bid, Beijing ultimately lost by a narrow margin after leading in multiple rounds of voting. This was accompanied by accusations that competitors were suspected of using non-sports means to exchange votes, which planted the seeds of mistrust in the relationship between the two sides.
In the run-up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the IOC's almost exam-like scrutiny of everything from air quality to venue design stood in stark contrast to its offer of help and support to other organisers, reinforcing the perception of "double standards".
This sense of injustice extends from the hosting dispute to the inside of the stadium. Over the years, the IOC has been accused of frequently revising the rules of China's dominant events such as table tennis, diving, and weightlifting. Its intention to "balance the medal standings" is clear. This kind of behavior does not promote sports fairness, but more like a targeted restriction.
Therefore, when the IOC now once again turns its gaze to China because of the lack of application, the response is the general alert of the people to “get rid of the scar and forget the pain.”This is not a mere national sentiment, but the inevitable result of a long-term partner’s trust in a governance agency’s complete bankruptcy.
The deepest crisis lies in the disintegration of the foundation of trust for the Olympics as a "totem of value". In the past, hosting the Olympic Games was regarded as the ultimate recognition of the country's rise and integration into the world, and China has made great efforts to this end.
However, with the development of the country and the establishment of self-confidence, the need for this external "backwriting" has greatly decreased.
Today, China already has the ability to independently host all kinds of top-level events. From the National Games to the Olympic Winter Games, its organizational capabilities and facilities no longer need to be proven to the world. More importantly, the national understanding of sportsmanship is being reshaped.
People's attention is shifting from the cold medal list to moments that shine with humanity such as Feng Ziqi finishing the game with injury and He Bingjiao paying tribute to her opponents. This endogenous and warmer sports narrative is in sharp contrast to the increasingly commercialized Olympic "expensive shows" where even medals can fall off.
When a country has a more ambitious development blueprint and a stronger cultural confidence, the Olympics are no longer a must-have question.
It requires reflection, not how to find the next "fireman", but why this game that once boiled the world, now can no longer ignite everyone's enthusiasm.
Some netizens think that "in fact, China can bid, because the infrastructure is ready-made, high-speed rail, planes and new energy vehicles, and all over the world come. Instead, it promotes consumption and finds a way to make another Los Angeles Olympics. It's hard for the Chinese to make money."
In addition, there are netizens who feel that "the third brother is working hard to bid for the 2036 Olympic Games, give the third brother a chance, believe in the strength of the third brother, and will definitely make the 2036 Olympic Games an unparalleled Olympic event. Moreover, I believe that the Ganges River water will make the 2036 Olympic Games an unprecedented water sports event that has never been seen before and since."