The Olympics and other international sporting events are often presented as moments in which the world comes together, putting aside differences for friendly competition. Yet, as the world watches from afar through television screens, the damage suffered by host countries is overlooked.    

In the last decade, Rio hosted two large-scale sporting events, the 2014 Fifa World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympics. While there was some initial concern for the city’s capabilities, promises of structural improvements left local inhabitants hopeful. Instead, the events exacerbated existing issues and created a plethora of new problems. In preparation for the event, locals faced displacement to pave the way for new facilities and also increased police violence, as police cracked down on poor neighborhoods to polish Rio’s image. After the events occurred, Rio was left with several unfinished construction projects, unused and crumbling facilities like the Macaraña stadium and large amounts of debt — leaving Brazillians disillusioned. The trajectories of many host countries mirror that of Brazil, making it clear that mega-events like the Olympics inflict more harm than good. 

The damage of sporting mega-events not only occurs in the days after the closing ceremony but also arises throughout the preparation process. Rio, an extremely densely populated corner of the world, displaced thousands of people in order to build the massive facilities needed for the games. This displacement has occurred with almost every major sporting event, especially in heavily populated areas. Before the 2008 Beijing Olympic games, one million people were forced out of their homes. The majority of communities facing eviction are poor and lack the resources to advocate for themselves. 

Human rights violations due to event preparation are not limited to poorer and more populated countries. Qatar, a small wealthy Gulf country that is set to host the 2022 Fifa World Cup, is a large destination for migrant workers. There is extensive evidence of abuse and exploitation of migrant workers who have been working on World Cup construction. Thousands of workers continue to face appalling conditions, abysmal or withheld wages, and restrictions on passports, among many other violations. The poor working conditions have even resulted in hundreds of deaths caused by the country’s desire to entertain the rest of the world. Still, Fifa executives and board members have not held the country accountable. While organizations like Fifa and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have the ability to take action against these host governments, they continually prioritize profit over human rights.  

The Olympics are used purposefully as a form of soft power. Through elaborate opening ceremonies and cutting-edge facilities, host countries are able to establish a level of prestige for themselves among the international community. During periods of heightened tension between the United States and Russia, the two often competed for soft power, using participation in large sporting events (or the boycotting of the events of each other) as a proxy for doing so. For nations that might be considered underdeveloped and lacking hard power, sporting events provide a ladder through which the power structure can be climbed. 

This may not always be ill-intentioned on the part of the host governments, but harmful consequences are repeatedly seen. Often, when countries bid to host an event, it’s during a time of prosperity. By the time the event approaches, the political and economic landscape could be drastically different. Brazil won the bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics in 2009 during an economic boom. In the following years, the country had fallen into a severe recession and was in the midst of a tumultuous political period; simultaneously, the country was burdened with an increasing budget for the upcoming Games. 

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has exhibited corrupt tendencies going back to its formation in 1894. The organization has been muddled with accusations of bribery and internal corruption as well. As of early March 2020 (when Covid-19 was emerging as a clear crisis), IOC President Thomas Bach said that “neither the word cancellation nor the word postponement was even mentioned” during an executive board meeting regarding the then-upcoming Tokyo Olympics. Though the virus did have a swift turnaround, it presented a clear enough threat at this point. Still, the IOC insisted that the Tokyo 2020 Summer Olympics would continue as scheduled. The board’s inability to express even the slightest concern during the pandemic’s inception indicates its tendency to prioritize the success of the event over the wellbeing of those involved. It was only when faced with pressure from athletes that postponing became a conceivable course of action for the organization.

As the previously postponed Tokyo 2020 games recently concluded, the reluctance to prioritize health has had its consequences. Japan is now scrambling to vaccinate its people as the virus surges, as it initially had a slow and late vaccine rollout. “Tokyo’s daily caseloads tripled during the Games…And as hospitals fill up, nearly 20,000 infected people are isolating at home, over 10 times more than a month ago,” as reported by AP News. If the wellbeing of Japan’s inhabitants was prioritized, the IOC would have further delayed the games and the Japanese government could have focused on improving its vaccine rollout and keeping Covid cases at bay. 

Even if a country is relatively stable and there isn’t an ongoing global pandemic, any underlying economic, political and social issues are further catalyzed by the preparation for these mega-events, many times triggering or exacerbating a crisis. Looking at future Olympics, for example, the same potential for disaster arises. The 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics are set to take place in Paris and Los Angeles, respectively. These two major cities are considered safe bids; they are advanced metropolitan centers seemingly capable of hosting large-scale events. However, the danger of these two locations lies in the already-existing and bubbling crises that are bound to burst once preparation takes full swing.  

Los Angeles holds the highest rate of unhoused individuals in the country, linked to the city’s severe affordable housing crisis. Additionally, the city suffers from gentrification, in which disadvantaged communities have become slowly displaced from their neighborhoods. With these ongoing housing issues, there is no room for further strain from Olympic planning. The NOlympicsLA coalition was formed in 2017 to actively call for cancelation of the LA Games. The group states that the city’s existing crises like housing, police brutality and worker exploitation will be further aggravated by the games. In a similarly urban city like Paris that also severely lacks affordable housing, the same problems are likely to arise. 

Two pivotal players are actively ignoring the question of wellbeing and human rights: the host country, which seeks prestige and the chance to gain international recognition, and the IOC, which scouts the highest bidder with little regard for non-monetary causes. The blatant disregard for human rights makes mega-sporting events like the Olympics and the World Cup unethical as they are. The harm they inflict upon host countries lasts far beyond the temporary spotlight. While it is vital not to diminish the labor of the athletes, teams, and staff involved, it is imperative that the conversation surrounding these events highlights the detriment inflicted behind the glamour. 

There is a possibility for an ethical future of international sports. This, however, would require a mutual and corruption-free effort on the part of organizers and host countries alike. Considering that it’s unlikely that the international community will reach this stage in the short-term, nations around the world should focus on healing their existing crises, rather than exploiting their inhabitants for show. 

In the final days of 2015, the governments of South Korea and Japan surprised the world with a deal addressing the issue of Korean “comfort women”. This term describes the thousands of women and girls from Japan’s Pacific-Asian colonies during World War II who served as sexual slaves to Japanese soldiers stationed in the front lines. Foreign Minister Kishida of Japan conveyed Prime Minister Abe’s apology for the women’s treatment and announced that Japan would provide official government funds totaling ¥1 billion ($8.3 million) for a victim’s foundation. Foreign Minister Yun of South Korea announced that both sides would refrain from accusing and criticizing each other internationally regarding an issue that “is resolved finally and irreversibly.” With 2015 being the 50th anniversary of the normalization of Japanese and Korean relations, this was a major breakthrough that analysts predict would change the geopolitics of East Asia by strengthening the anemic Korean-Japanese alliance at the expense of China’s attempts to isolate Japan and increase influence in Korea. However, this decades-old issue is unlikely to be solved heading into 2016.

The issue of comfort women represents the lack of closure regarding Japanese war crimes and grievances during World War II. More than 200,000 teenage Korean girls were taken from their homes and served at front line military bases, where they became victims of institutionalized rape. Each girl had to serve dozens of men per day and according to one testimony, a girl that resisted was “[t]aken to the courtyard and in front of all of us, her head was cut off with a sword and her body was cut into small pieces.” While Korea was the main country where the military recruited girls, women from China, the Pacific islands and South East Asia were also victims.

The crime committed against comfort women is horrific, and the attention surrounding the issue only amplifies the lack of justice regarding Japan’s conquests. Unlike the German war crime tribunals, there was little participation of victim countries in the Japanese ones, as these tribunals largely focused on grievances against the West. Many neighboring countries believe that Japan has not properly accepted and acknowledged its wartime guilt. This is only strengthened by some Japanese politicians arguing that comfort women were necessary (in order to maintain troop morale and discipline during the war) and continuing to visit the Shinto Yakesuni shrine, which many see as a symbol of Japanese militarism. With Japan led by nationalist Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who is intent on strengthening Japan’s military and endorsing textbooks that reduce the extent of Japanese war crimes, tensions between Korea and Japan have increased in the past few years—and comfort women have become the crucial point of tension.

The recent deal between both sides is the most progress made in recent history. The last time the Japanese government made an apology was in the 1993 Kono Statement, which was issued by the Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono. However, Japanese conservatives rejected the statement, making the move seem insincere. Since then, conservatives have made further affronts regarding the issue; for example, Shinzo Abe has long attempted to reduce the significance of the victims’ claims and even to pass a resolution in 2007 suggesting that there was no proof of coercion (playing into the far-right narrative that comfort women were prostitutes). However, after both sides made the recent deal public, Prime Minister Abe called President Park and offered Japan’s “sincere apologies and remorse from the bottom of his heart.” (It is important to note that Japan only apologized to Korea despite the fact that the women originated from all across Asia.) Both sides clearly want to improve economic and security relations, especially concerning North Korea and the rise of China.

While the governments have settled this issue, it does not mean that it is buried in the dustbin of history. In order to be resolved, the people of both countries must also agree to the compromise. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case; a day after the announcement of the deal, protests began in front of the Japanese embassy. Some of the surviving Korean victims are voicing fierce objections to the deal, which they say is insincere (since the Japanese government has not admitted legal responsibility) and invalid (because they were not aware of the negotiation proceedings). Furthermore, the opposition party leader Moon Jae-in stated “the deal amounts to a treaty in which the people’s rights are surrendered.”

Complicating the issue further, the Japanese government conditioned their funding on the removal of a bronze statue of a comfort woman sitting in front of their embassy in Seoul. With 7 in 10 Koreans against the removal of the statue and a civic group pledging to erect additional statues, this condition is becoming a major point of contention. President Park came on national television to ask for the country to understand the need for compromise, but it seems that the issue has only been inflamed.

The significance of this deal goes beyond the South Korea-Japan bilateral relationship. It sets a precedent for other countries such as the Philippines and China to levy similar requests. It may also signal a serious attempt by the Abe government to finally resolve war grievances at the inter-governmental level. Geopolitically, it demonstrates Japan’s attempt to repair its image in East Asia amidst plans of militarization and a more assertive foreign policy. For South Korea, it is an attempt to mend a crucial relationship and deflect concerns in Tokyo and Washington, DC that Seoul is drifting into the arms of China. Seoul’s interests lie with developing a closer relationship with Beijing; China is their largest trading partner and wields the most influence in North Korea, the South’s greatest security challenge. Yet through the US alliance system, South Korea’s security partner in the local region is Japan, and DC is most likely pressuring both governments to cooperate in light of China’s rise.

The next few months will be a crucial test to determine if Seoul and Tokyo can use this deal as a vehicle to repair a strained relationship. The number of living victims is decreasing rapidly, and intensifying protests and a tug-of-war relationship between China, South Korea and Japan make 2016 a crucial year to see if compromise will be sustained.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.