The Olympics, the Law and the Contradictions of Olympism

Abstract

London 2012 promises many things.¹ It is of course a truism that each edition of the Olympic Games promises to be an unrivalled sporting and cultural spectacle that is a genuinely global mega-event with unequalled penetration.² At the same time, a central tenet of the rhetoric used in Candidate Cities’ bid documentation when trying to secure the hosting of the Games has focused upon a number of key, though less global, themes, many of which have revolved around the issue of legacy. Legacy has become a somewhat overused term, or in the words of the London Assembly’s tautology, a ‘hackneyed cliché’;³ however, Olympic bid narratives are riddled with such references. One of the key legacy issues in the London bid was that hosting the Games would improve sporting participation rates, with the Chairman of the London Organising Committee Lord Coe acknowledging that this claim was fundamental to the success of the bid. Further, the aim of creating a grassroots sporting legacy for Londoners through the provision of a vastly improved capital and coaching infrastructure has been specifically acknowledged and supported by the Mayor of London.⁴