As Greece falls, it is not the country’s ancient ruins that "provide the starkest symbol of decay," according to Emma Reynolds of NEWS.COM.AU. It is the "state-of-the-art facilities" constructed just more than 10 years ago for the Athens Games, many of which "lie abandoned, dirt encrusted on seats and grass sprouting through cracks in the floors." Greece was just another nation that "wanted a piece of the pie." But how far did the 2004 Olympics "contribute to its current desperate situation?" Even before the Games, there were "questions over Greece's ability to host." La Trobe University Sports Economist Liam Lenton said, "With all these events, the governing body sets bidders against each other so the winner bids over the odds and makes a loss. They get caught up in the excitement. ... Greece was no different. The nation spent seven years building a brand-new airport, stadiums, a subway system and a tram service." The Greek finance minister "claimed at the time that there had been a 'net economic benefit' to the country." It is "hard to quantify." The spending on infrastructure and organization was declared to be around €8.5B. But unlike Sydney, which "planned for future events at its Olympic Park, there has been no ongoing use of its swimming pools, stadium and boating facilities, with the crumbling monuments a testament to waste." Mark Stewart, from RMIT University's School of Economics, Finance & Marketing, said, "I co-authored a paper that found no national tourism benefits for Greece. In fact, our stats showed that the Athens Olympics increased tourism in Italy -- people looking for Mediterranean sun tried to avoid Greece, went to Italy instead." What the "mega-events" did achieve was a "'feel-good factor,' and governments were able to 'harness the hubris' for political gain." The IOC "made a cool" A$1.3B from the Games, and writer Peter Berlin argues in Politico that it therefore owes Greece, and could have "stepped in to help prevent the nation's slide" into $349B debt (NEWS.COM.AU, 7/15).
