Olympic bid

[mugu]

It is great that India is going to bid for the 2016 Olympic Games and that the country would be hosting the 2010 Commonwealth Games. It is also nice to hear what economists have to say about our growing economy, what the GDP growth has been the past year, how much of foreign exchange reserves we have etc. But a few unpalatable truths have to be told.
First, a few misleading facts presented through interviews and media reports about the Olympic bid. Asian and African countries do not decide on Olympics, in the sense they can't form a bloc and vote. It is decided by the IOC where there is no country-wise representation. They are individual members; all countries need not be represented in the IOC (and they are not represented).
India will be required to spend a few thousand crore rupees just to get the bid going; in case it fails, the money is down the drain.
There will have to be a huge improvement in sports infrastructure, but more than that the rest of the infrastructure will count. For example, airports, roads, public transport etc
Kalmadi's claim that Olympics is totally funded by the IOC is absolute bunkum. Yes, they do provide a huge amount of money. But still several thousand million dollars will be required to get the Games on stage.
The host will not get the TV rights money; the IOC gets it and passes on a major share of the money to the host, rest is utilised for various programmes of the IOC including their Solidarity programme, contributions to National Olympic Committees, contribution to World Anti Doping Agency etc.
India's existing infrastructure is pathetic. We have only a handful of astro-turfs for hockey and another handful athletics tracks. Year after year, major athletics meets are held on mud tracks and `bajri' tracks, causing injuries to athletes. Hockey is held on worn-out synthetic pitches. Just by hosting a Commonwealth Games or an Afro-Asian Games or an Olympic Games, things will not improve across the country
Govt does not have funds to even pay off the incentive awards it announced for the medal winners at the last Asian Games and Commonwealth Games. The Sports Authority of India's annual budgetary allocation is around Rs 140 crores, much of it for salaries. Athletes have to beg and beg to get an amount of Rs 5 lakh to go abroad for their training. (Things have improved in recent months but red-tapism still exists, causing hardships to sportspersons)
From a distance Olympic Games look very good; hosting them will give the country added international exposure, it will add to the `feel good factor', but at what cost?
We have just three bronze medals from the Olympics, excluding that in hockey, down the years. Do you think just by hosting the Olympics, our standards will improve? Have they improved since hosting the 1982 Asian Games?
Sorry to disappoint all those who think India should join the big league just to show what a power we are in the world. For those who feel that articles in foreign publications reflect the `feel-good factor', please come and have a look at those poor people who sleep on the roads in the Delhi winter with just a bed-sheet to roll themselves on; please come and see people lining up the roads and railway lines to defecate in the morning, please come and see the garbage piling up everywhere, please come and see the conditions at the hospitals. Well, I can go on and on. But why spoil the mood. Let the Games come to our great country. Let the `feel good factor' get better and better.

[Dhruv]

First, a few misleading facts presented through interviews and media reports about the Olympic bid. Asian and African countries do not decide on Olympics, in the sense they can't form a bloc and vote. It is decided by the IOC where there is no country-wise representation. They are individual members; all countries need not be represented in the IOC (and they are not represented).

You are correct and most of them have been members for a long time and the committee is dominated by Americans and Europeans. Another thing also needs to be considered. The largest TV money, royalties whatever currently come from the US and so games in India or Asia for that matter are frowned upon because of bad TV timings. One of the reason why European and American games are preferred over Asian bids. 2016 may not and probably is not a valid target, however, not many countries have won the game on the first attempt and so 2020 is the actual real target. By the time the 2020 games are voted on (about 10 years from now), who knows what the IOC membership will look like so you can?t really make a decision on what may or may not happen 6 ears down the road,

India will be required to spend a few thousand crore rupees just to get the bid going; in case it fails, the money is down the drain.
There will have to be a huge improvement in sports infrastructure, but more than that the rest of the infrastructure will count. For example, airports, roads, public transport etc
Kalmadi's claim that Olympics is totally funded by the IOC is absolute bunkum. Yes, they do provide a huge amount of money. But still several thousand million dollars will be required to get the Games on stage.
The host will not get the TV rights money; the IOC gets it and passes on a major share of the money to the host, rest is utilised for various programmes of the IOC including their Solidarity programme, contributions to National Olympic Committees, contribution to World Anti Doping Agency etc.
India's existing infrastructure is pathetic. We have only a handful of astro-turfs for hockey and another handful athletics tracks. Year after year, major athletics meets are held on mud tracks and `bajri' tracks, causing injuries to athletes. Hockey is held on worn-out synthetic pitches. Just by hosting a Commonwealth Games or an Afro-Asian Games or an Olympic Games, things will not improve across the country
Govt does not have funds to even pay off the incentive awards it announced for the medal winners at the last Asian Games and Commonwealth Games. The Sports Authority of India's annual budgetary allocation is around Rs 140 crores, much of it for salaries. Athletes have to beg and beg to get an amount of Rs 5 lakh to go abroad for their training. (Things have improved in recent months but red-tapism still exists, causing hardships to sportspersons)

Yes is costs a lot of money to host the games and the IOC pays you nothing to upgrade infrastructure. You have to do it yourself. You will only get part of the TV money and the other sponsorship money and so there are no guarantees that the host city/country will make back the money it spent. But suppose we do get the games, and we do spend the money to upgrade the infrastructure the roads, highways, airports, hotels etc and build/upgrade the stadiums and all which we really need to do anyway, (unless you think we shouldn?t do that) we should get atleast 75-80% of that money back unless the Olympic movement collapses and/or labour in India becomes enormously expensive. The Aussies claim they got more money than they spent. But in a case that is not ideal we will build/upgrade the infrastructure at 20-25% of the actual cost instead of a 100% of the cost. A bargain if you ask me.

Ofcourse, the question is : Do we need the infrastructure? I think yes Olympics or not we will need to build roads, airports, stadiums, housing for athletes (which should later be used as either govt housing or given away as low cost housing or maybe even sold at cheaper rates to the middle and lower middle class or a mix of all three) and other related infrastructure to improve the day to day life of people. So if can get a subsidy for building this why not take full advantage of it. The ideal city would be something like a Mumbai, where you could upgrade the intra-city traffic system and build low cost housing (the athlete villages) upgrade the airport, roads etc. Delhi would be a waste of time as the infrastructure from the Commonwealth games and the prior Asiad should be sufficient. Calcutta or Chennai would be other candidates but I think Mumbai would probably be the best choice if you are going from the development of a city aspect as I think it more than any other city in India really needs big money to upgrade the standards of living of its people.

As regards your other points unfortunately there is no magic wand that can be waved to rectify all the problems India has and its large population of poor people. It will take time and a sustained effort to help improve the general living conditions for all and a lot of tough decisions need to be made and that is a discussion for another thread and another place. Actually, we have had a bunch of discussions on that so I am creating a new forum for all that.

Economic Discussion Forum
If there is enough activity there are I guess there could be I will leave it as it is. If not I can always merge it with Chit Chat forums.

[mugu]

Dhruv you are right when you say that Mumbai or Chennai would be better choices for upgradation/addition of infrastrtcure for something like the Olympics. If we bid for the games, that is. Do wee need the stadia? Yes, we do. Do we need the rest of the infrastructure? Yes, we do. But by sinking, let us say, a 1000 crores for some stadia and other facilities in Delhi (or Mumbai or Chennai) are we going to improve our sports standards? No, I guess not. We have to set the base right and spend money for setting that right. We live on a shoe-string budget for sports. Suddenly we have started bidding (and getting) multi-discipline games. What did we get out of hosting the Afro-Asian Games? Some goodwill, yes. Form people who came on free trips. The infrastructure was already there in Hyderabad for the 2002 National Games. The lone addition was the astro-turfs for hockey. Nowe, we are going to host the Commonwealth Games in Delhi. Very minimal infrastructral upgaradtions are planned, for sports facilities. The bulk of the money will be spend on air fare for all participants, their hotel accommodation, conduct of the games etc. We are even paying 7.2 million dollars to train the athletes of the other countries including those from England, Australia etc. What will we gain? Some goodwill, some prestige, good reviews around the world. What would our sportepersons would have gained? Plenty of medals and very little else. The same weightlifters, the same wrestlers will then go to the Asian Games and draw a blank as they did in 2002. Tomorrow, in Delhi, they are starting an Asia Cup women's hockey tournament. All the foreign teams are being put up in five-star hotels; the Indians are still at the Nehru Stadium dormitories. Hope you get the point that I am trying to make. We spend a 1000 cores for Indian sport in 10 years and suddenly we will spend 2000 crores for conducting a Commonwealth Games. The Commonwealth countries will applaud us, we might get the 2016 Olympic Games. And our sportspersons will still stay in dormitories and dharamshalas. At the same time the IOA officials would have become big wigs in the international fora.

[Dhruv]

Ahh yes that I agree with, but unfortunately the way sports bodies in India and for that matter around the world are made up (not unique to India as some might think) unless you get someone who is really interested in bettering the cause of the sport there is little to no progress made. So.... How do you actually change the way sports bodies are organised and how they spend their money and treat domestic players Good question.

[sunnyd]

Well as Mugu mentioned, most athletes in India don't get sufficient funding and the government is having trouble paying the bonuses to the medal winners.

Well India should follow Canada's lead in setting up a charity fund which will give funds to underfunded athletes. In Canada, a woman called Jane Roos has started a "See you in Athens fund" to help athletes who live below the poverty line. She also did this for the previous Olympics. Since we have the second largest population in the world, I'm sure a good amount of money can received and used to help the athletes get access to better coaches and training facilities.

[PKBasu]

mugu, I think everything needs to be considered in comparative perspective. When India attained independence 57 years ago, its literacy rate was 14%, the college enrolment ratio (as a % of population) was among the lowest in the world and 70-80% lived in abject poverty. Just 4 years before Independence, 3-5 million people had died in a famine, another in a long line of regular famines that had occurred at regular intervals during British rule (the first big one being in 1777).
Over the past 12 years (since the formal opening of the economy), India's exports of goods and services have quadrupled (including a tripling in merchandise or goods exports). It's literacy rate rose to 65% in 2001 from 52% a decade ago (incidentally, Korea's literacy rate was above 60% by 1960, a legacy of Japanese colonial rule; Japan and the US were the first countries in world history to achieve universal literacy, Britain didn't achieve near-universal literacy until the 1930s; all British colonies had a problem with literacy, but especially the countries of the Indian subcontinent).
There still is poverty in India, of course, but the proportion of poor people is declining steadily. It is often forgotten that China is a poor country too (albeit with a per capita income that is now about twice India's; but that's why India is bidding for the 2016 or 2020 Olympics, by which time its per capita income will be where China's is likely to be in 2008). One big similarity between the two is that about two-thirds of both countries' population lives in rural areas. And agriculture has performed much better in India than China over the past decade (India is also a lower-cost producer of every agricultural crop than China). Ironically, the communist country is now building up larger income disparities than the capitalist democracy.
In my view, the benefits of hosting the Olympics are transparently obvious (I'll address that in another post). But it should be largely driven by private-enterprise rather than by the government if it is to really achieve its full potential. In India, the external sector's finances are spectacularly strong (as reflected in the rupee's performance over the past 20 months) and the corporate sector is in robust health (as reflected in their earnings performance over the past decade -- profit growth for the listed corporate sector averaging about 20% annually over that period). But the government's finances remain problematic.

[BSharma]

There is a discussion going on about this subject in the "India bids for 2016/2020 Olympics" in the Other Sports forum. Perhaps Dhruv or PKB may want to merge both of them.

[BSharma]

There are both the upside and downside of holding Olympic Games. In my opinion India would benefit immensely from holding the Games. I imagine that it would be 2020 or later before India will get the Games.

Here are links to some interesting articles on the economic impact of holding the Games in 1992, 1996 and 2000. It is always a good exercise to learn from other people's experience and before we state that India would be worse of by organising the Games, let us learn from others and see what can work and what will not. As PKB said, it is important for the private sector to play a big role.

Business and Economic Benefits of the Sydney 2000 Games - A Collation of Evidence; A Report by Pricewaterhouse Coopers (A long report)

STUDY PROJECTS ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF 2010 GAMES BID

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF HOSTING THE 1996 SUMMER OLYMPICS by Jeffrey M. Humphreys and Michael K. Plummer

An Economic Analysis of the Barcelona 1992 Olympic Games: Resources, Financing and Impact

[mugu]

Interesting insights into the way PKB and BS assess the issue. But let me make a few more points clearer so that there is no confusion about the argument I am trying to make.
I agree with PKB that we have made progress since Independence; all around. I am not going to dispute those figures. I am a novice when economics comes into the discussion.
But to quote PKB: ``But it should be largely driven by private-enterprise rather than by the government if it is to really achieve its full potential''. This is where the problem comes in. Private enterprise is limited to sponsorship of cricket matches, some tennis, a good amount of golf, a very minimum level of hockey tournaments, some football and very negligible other sport.
Presuming that Olympics will bring in the big corporate players/multinationals things will improve somewhat. Yet, the country would be spending close to four billion dollars if we were to conduct the games. We should be spending sommething close to 20 million dollars or more during the bidding process alone (forgetting for a moment all this talk of Asia and Africa joining together and we sitting back with just Kalmadi and Co making a few trips here and there and lo, presto, we get the Olympics).
I am looking at it from a purely sports perspective and not in terms of the country trying to enter the big league, trying to match strides with China etc.
If we are talking about sports, can we compare ourselves with China, a country which is already firmly in the No 3 slot in the Olympics standings, threatening to move into No 2 or even No 1? Can we compare our basic sports infrastructure with that in China? Not just in one city that is going to host the Olympics but across the length and breadth of the country?
So, if we are going to spend those millions or billions, should we spend them in trying to host the Olympics or Commonwealth Games or should we try to improve our infrastructural facilities in our main sports centres? The fact that Anju Bobby George is still waiting for a gym costing around Rs 60 lakhs in Bangalore and the fact that the Sports Ministry just ordered cleaning machines to clean the astro-turf at the National Stadium in Delhi (on the eve of the Asia Cup women's hockey) should give you an idea about what infrastrtcure we are talking about. Our athletes still sleep on the floors in dormitories while participating in National-level meets; barring the elite athletes most of them do not have proper running shoes.
Does it mean that the infrastructure built for Commonwealth Games and Olympic Games will not benefit Indian sports?
No, it will surely benefit. But to a very limited extent, not comparable with the level of spending. For, it will be concentrated in Delhi. And not many federations come to Delhi to organise events (post-1982 Asiad being the benchmark). Moreover, the Sports Authority of India finds it impossible to even maintain the infrastructure got up for the 1982 Asian Games.
We had the National Games in Pune more than a decade ago. The infrastructure there is rotting. Pune has not hosted a major event for quite some time. We had the National Games in Imphal, I think in 1999. Nothing much has happened there since. We had the National Games in Kerala in 1987. The infrastructure there has outlived its utility. There are no funds to create new facilities.
Just imagine what a few million dollars can provide to such centres like Punjab, Kerala, Bengal, Karnataka, Maharashtra etc in terms of infrastructure. We will keep waiting for the funds to come in from normal channels and will have a situation like the one in Kerala now with no synthetic track of competition-condition available in a state that produces athletes by the hundreds (or at least used to). P. T. Usha's private initiative has gained some support but it is still a drop in the ocean.
Then, we suddenly bring in Commonwealth Games, at a cost of 420 million dollars and now we talk of the Olympic bid. I believe Amsterdam has some 350-400 astro-turfs for hockey; Qatar has a synthetic track every eight kilometres or so. We can count similar facilities on our fingertips.
There are no change rooms worth the name at a stadium like the Nehru Stadium in Delhi, leave alone a gymnasium or a swimming pool. There is hardly any sports sciences back-up to our elite sportspersons. Sports equipment is perennially in short supply, athletics implements, shooting ammunition (despite what the officials might say and what the politicians will tell the media), weightlifting equipment, mats for gymnasia etc etc. A very limited number of sportspersons have been provided govt funds to go abroad and train; the others are waiting for their share. Private support is minimal. India can't run its sports through private enterprise despite all the talk about such funding the past couple of years. In the US, I guess, sports is solely private-supported.
And, straying a little away from the sports topic, all the feel-good factors are just that for the rich and the very rich, not for the common/poor people. The figures will not show whether there had been a change in their life-style. Nearby the flats where I live in Delhi people have been living in jhuggis for the past 12 years and more. Their condition is the same; their children still play on the streets in mere underclothes or a shirt in the biting cold of Delhi (if they can afford even that). Ask them about GDP, ask them about what the Wall Street Journal had to say or what Bill Gates had to say about the Indian economy, they will not know. They are looking for their bread for the day. TV debates show that employment generation has stagnated despite all the talk of several `feel-good factors' and people reeling off figures. Since, as I said, I am a novice when it comes to economics, I won't be able to say why the `feel-god' factors are not percolating down to the man on the street.
But my argument is not related, at least not solely, to the condition of the poor, but to the very need of spending a large amount of public money for an exercise like the Commonwealth Games when our own sports infrastructure/standards/sportsmen will be better off with a one per cent share of those millions/billions.

[BSharma]

mugu, often I feel the same kind of frustration as you do about the way India's sports ministry and many sports officials go about doing their job. I do not want to paint all the sports officials and the sports ministry people with the same brush because there are many who do a good job.

In my opinion, before India can win an Olympic bid, the country will have to prove to the IOC voting delegates that:

1. the central governement will fully back the organisers
2. the country has the means, manpower and technology to host the Games
3. the organisers have a track record of hosting well-run major international events
4. the infrastructure of the country and the host city are proper and well maintained for the thousands of international tourists that will come for the Games
5. the host city has or will develop sports facilities of international standard
6. the sportsmen and sportswomen can win many medals in several different events

So far, India can fulfill the first two criteria. The Afro-Asian Games were a success but the credit goes to Mr Naidu and the people of Hyderabad. I imagine that New Delhi will be the host city for the Olympics, and the Asian Games in 1982 were far too back in the past to be viewed for recent track record. The Commonwealth Games in 2010 will be used as the yardstick but it will come two years after India submits the bid for the 2016 Games (the bids for the 2012 Games were due last month), and hence India's legitimate chances are for the 2020 Games.

India needs a lot of work in criteria # 4,5 and 6. magu, I think you have a complaint about them, and what PKB and I are saying is that the private sector can do a better job than the public sector in developing the country's economy and infrastructure. Perhaps, PKB who trained at one of the best business schools in the world (Philadelphia) and now runs his own business in a country (Singapore) where privatization has worked wonders, and I (who has lived for over 28 years in USA - a country where private industries have flourished and are the economic back-bone) view events differently than many people living in India and see the solutions in a different way. Many people in India look up to the government to do the work even though the private sector in India has done better than the public sector.

For India to win many medals in the Olympics, the country will have to develop the sports infrastructure - well maintained stadia and training facilities, good coaches, proper nutritional, medical, physiological and psychological guidance, good junior and senior programs to identify, develop and maintain talented athletes, financial incentives for people to go into sports, a large mass of sports fan who will watch and encourage the players, sports writers who will cover all sports and not just cricket, etc.

I feel that India is moving forward and if the development occurs properly then there is no reason why India cannot host the 2020 Games. The Olympic Games can be the stimulus that India needs to develop the country's infrastructure.

[PKBasu]

To address (briefly) several of the points raised by mugu:
- Of course, we all recognise that India is far behind China when it comes to sporting achievement. Sports are one area in which the communist states have done very well (E Germany, Romania, Cuba, China) by hook or by crook and often at the expense of other aspects of development (true of all the communist states, with the exception of China; in my view, China's autocracy is also headed for a huge final reckoning within the next 5-10 years, probably soon after the 2008 Olympics).
- But I don't think it is appropriate to compare India's achievements with that of communist states. Even among democracies, we have admittedly not been a sterling performer in the past, although our recent performances (in absolute terms) have shown a distinct improvement on the past: in the last Asiad and Commonwealth Games, we came back with a better medal haul than ever before -- and a better overall rank than at any time in the past two decades (we used to do better in overall rank in the 1950s Asiads when there were fewer countries participating -- eg, no China).
- Cricket's BCCI is showing what professional private sector management can do (although the quality of private personnel leaves something to be desired...occasionally). The hockey and cricket teams are now sponsored by Sahara; LG and Samsung (Korean companies) are heavily involved in sponsoring cricket and hockey. Even the AIFF (poor cousin football) is benefitting from private sponsorship (although results have proven slower).
- You will find on another thread that 2003 was unquestionably the greatest year for Indian sport. In shooting, yachting/sailing, snooker we had world champions; we now have the world's #2 in chess, a bronze medalist in world track & field, the #2 cricket team in the world, the world junior squash #1, last year's MxD champion at the AO and Wimbledon (tennis), junior Wimbledon doubles winner...the sheer volume of achievements is staggering and unprecedented. There is little doubt in my mind that prosperity (and the strength of India's external balances) is a key contributing factor to this. We will have more of the same over time, and by 2016 we will be at least as much of a sporting nation as Canada was in 1976.
- We Indians love to decry the lot of the poor (with good reason). There is no doubt that India's development strategy in the past was too capital-intensive (and so didn't generate enough jobs). But all sample surveys show that poverty (as a percent of the population) has declined sharply in the past two decades (I will reluctantly admit that the best performance has been in West Bengal, where the World Bank estimates that the percent of the population below the poverty line has been declining by about a percent a year over the past three decades and now stands at just 20%: my frequent visits to different parts of India also bear this out; the poor are still very much with us, but they are a declining proportion of the population; I've seen this in Hyderabad, Bangalore, rural Rajasthan, rural Bengal, even Benares and rural eastern UP -- which genuinely surprised me -- as well as Delhi and to some extent Bombay; Kerala's social indicators are legendary, but I have not had the good fortune to visit Jay's and god's own country for the past three decades!).
Apologies for not being brief. But my basic point is that India can comfortably afford to host the Olympics. Its foreign reserves are equal to nearly 17 months of import cover now (the highest import cover of any significant nation on earth): spending US$1bn to import everything required to create a magnificent set of Olympic stadia will make barely a dent on these reserves...and of course most things will not even have to be imported. For a poor country with inadequate physical infrastructure, hosting the Olympics is a wonderful way to upgrade the quality of that infrastructure. One only wishes it could be spread out across the country -- and not confined to the host city. (Delhi actually has pretty good infrastructure; Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai need more upgrading...).

[mugu]

1) PKB said: we all recognise that India is far behind China when it comes to sporting achievement
Yes, indeed we all know that. But that never was my point. My point is if someone is saying that China is going to host the 2008 Olympics, they have a standing in the world of sport, forgetting for a moment their sports infrastructure, scientific back-up etc. They have ventured out to host an Olympics only after ensuring a) they have the basic infrastructure across the country; b) they are among the top three or four in the world of sport.
2) ``in the last Asiad and Commonwealth Games, we came back with a better medal haul than ever before''
The same `by hook or crook' methods which the communist countries are being accused of to gain medals might have been used by India at the last Asian Games. I don't give too much importance to the rich medal haul in the Commonwealth Games except for the women's hockey gold, two athletics medals and a few shooting medals. CWG weightlifting for example is below our own National standards. And they give three golds each in each weight category. Easy way to swell medals tally.
3) ``Cricket's BCCI is showing what professional private sector management can do''.
If you have a golden goose (the game of cricket) any organisation can manage the sport. It need not have any particular organisational skill. Having said that it must be admitted that the BCCI is one of the better managed sports bodies in India. But basically it comes from the money and the media focus that cricket generates.
4) ``The hockey and cricket teams are now sponsored by Sahara; LG and Samsung (Korean companies) are heavily involved in sponsoring cricket and hockey.''
Cricket teams were earlier sponsored by Wills/ITC. Cigarette advertisements restrictions put a halt on that. Hockey had, in spells, some promoters including Sahara, Kuber etc in the past. Nothing big. The steady payment now is of course welcome. But that is to be expected only in a competitive environment where the television medium has helped sponsors gain huge mileage.
5) ``You will find on another thread that 2003 was unquestionably the greatest year for Indian sport. In shooting, yachting/sailing, snooker we had world champions; we now have the world's #2 in chess, a bronze medalist in world track & field, the #2 cricket team in the world, the world junior squash #1, last year's MxD champion at the AO and Wimbledon (tennis), junior Wimbledon doubles winner...the sheer volume of achievements is staggering and unprecedented''
On the look of it, at first glance yes. But we had snooker/billiards world champions in the past too; V. Anand had been world champion and world No 2 in the past too; the cricket team cannot be said to be No 2 in the world now (not by any stretch of imagination) just because they drew a Test series in Australia; world junior squash No 1 is almost irrelevant (we have had several world carrom champions, too!). And as for the Wimbledon title, there are others who have won junuor singles titles in the past, why rave about a girls doubles title? Leander and Mahesh have won Grand Slam titles galone in the past, why should an mxd contribute towards what is being called ``staggering and unprecedented'' achievements?
6) The economic field is your domain PKB, not my cup of tea. I look at things happening around me, day in and day out, watch some TV, read some papers. I keep asking colleagues about the `feel-good' factor and they see nothing good, nothing new, nothing special.
7) ``But my basic point is that India can comfortably afford to host the Olympics. Its foreign reserves are equal to nearly 17 months of import cover now (the highest import cover of any significant nation on earth): spending US$1bn to import everything required to create a magnificent set of Olympic stadia will make barely a dent on these reserves...and of course most things will not even have to be imported. For a poor country with inadequate physical infrastructure, hosting the Olympics is a wonderful way to upgrade the quality of that infrastructure.''
I never questioned India's ability to host the Games, though that point will surely come at some stage when/if India is granted the Games. Since economics is your field, the foreign exchange reserves you are talking about, is it some money which we have as some sort of a reserve, ready to be spent at the time of a crisis or is it a notional figure. something in the bank, but not really liquid cash?
My questions were: 1) should we spend that much money for just bidding for the Games, 2) should we contemplate spending that much money in organising the Games when we barely have faclities to allow our own sportsmen to do their day to day bit (not talking about those in the camps), 3) should we try to first create bare minimum infrastrtcure, matching the size and population of our country, across the lenth and breadth of the country and then go for such multi-discipline games? 4) should we not try to attain a minimum proficiency in sports before bidding/hosting an Olympics? 5) should we be concentrating all on a sudden in hosting such multi-discipline games when our anual sports budget is around Rs 200-300crores for sports? 6) do we really think that we will be able to substantially add to our collection of three bronze edals so far from the Olympics (outside hockey) by the time the 2009 bid comes up? 7) should we spend a few billion dollars at all for hosting the Olympics when such money can perhaps be better spent for something very essential for the common man, a few hundred hospitals, a few thousand schools, a few thousand wells, some welfare scheme for the old and unemployed...

[PKBasu]

mugu, there is nothing "notional" about foreign exchange reserves. All of the US$105bn belongs to the Reserve Bank of India, and can be "spent" on whatever India chooses to import. A very prudent level of reserves (i.e., what most countries strive toward) is about 6 months' import cover (about US$37bn for India today). So India currently has about US$68bn of "excess reserves". This is why the RBI has been aggressively liberalising the "capital account", encouraging Indian corporates, mutual funds and individuals to invest part of their savings overseas or spend on travel abroad etc.
On the other point about poverty etc., India's single most untapped economic resource is tourism. Last year was the best year for Indian tourism in almost a decade, with an increase of more than 15% in foreign visitor arrivals. But the whole of India received less than half the tourists that Singapore alone received, and about a third of what Malaysia received. There is enormous scope for growth here -- through better use and upgradation of aviation and hotel infrastructure, all of which create jobs. The Asiad in Delhi (1982) dramatically increased the number of hotel rooms available in that city, and the benefits are still flowing through. The Olympics would generate a multi-year tourism boom for India -- and once discovered, India as a destination would naturally attract more and more visitors. Tourism is a huge employment generator (ask the Scots, the Andalusians, and even the wistful Kashmiris); in fact the WTTC (world travel and tourism council) claims an eighth of all jobs in the world is linked to tourism. You can take this with a small pinch of salt, but the basic point about job-creation is correct.
One good anecdote about foreigners' spending might illustrate its poverty-reducing capacity: when the 40,000 foreign peace-keepers were deciding to leave Cambodia in the mid-1990s, the government protested that it cause GDP to halve -- because the income earned (and spent) by the UN peacekeepers was equal to the income earned annually by all of the 6 million citizens of Cambodia. In a poor country with inadequate infrastructure, the benefits of any additional growth in infrastructure are manifold (building the infrastructure generates jobs, those people then spend; bringing in more tourists generates spending with multiplier benefits, etc.). Hosting the Olympics contributes to both infrastructure-building and tourism-enhancement on a multi-year basis.
(My NRI children have recently spent a night each in the new ITC Sheratons in Mumbai and Kolkata, as well as a few nights at the Taj Ganges in Varanasi, and they were thrilled with the experience; the absence of quality hotels and other infrastructure is a huge disincentive to tourism into India).
And on the small point about the BCCI: before the 1987 cricket World Cup, nobody had demonstrated the enormous commercial potential of mainstream cricket (apart from Packer's rebel tours). Credit should be given where it is due. mugu may not agree that India is #2 in cricket at the moment (there's another thread in the Other Sports forum to discuss this...), but India did finish #2 in the ODI World Cup (and #1 in the last ICC Champions Trophy) apart from being the first team in a decade to have a winning test record (home and away) against the world's best team, Australia. I call that being #2.

[PKBasu]

And mugu please tell me when we last had world champions in shooting, sailing and snooker; world #2 rank in cricket, chess and billiards; Asia and Afro-Asia titles in hockey; myriad Slam titles in tennis; a world championship bronze in athletics, etc....ALL in one year. And please don't denigrate squash by bracketing it with carrom. Squash is played all over the world, and is a fast-growing recreational activity globally. It was dominated by Scotland (or Britain), Australia, Egypt and Pakistan in the past; that an Indian won the junior title at the British Open was an unprecedented and considerable achievement.