post-WWII, multiple networks cover Olympics, no super aggressive bidding to host?

With either the Feb. 1948 Winter Olympics in St. Moritz, Switzerland, or the Summer Games in London, England, let's say a court rules that it's a public event and multiple networks have a right to cover it. And let's say this tradition holds.

What changes do you see? :)
 
It is very doubtful that a court would rule that way and I am sure that there would soon be legislation that would allow the organizers of the games to sell the broadcast rights.

But to answer your question, I think that without networks having exclusive rights to broadcast the games the Olympics would be a much smaller event because it was the selling of the broadcast rights especially to the American networks that allowed for the Olympics organizers to finance the games.
I think it was after the 1988 Seoul games that the IOC took over the broadcast rights and only gave a percentage of the money to the local organizers.
Before that it was the local organizers that sold and received the money for broadcast game rights.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/mar/30/london-1948-olympics-austerity-games

' . . . the cash-strapped Attlee government, . . . earmarked just under £750,000 for the Olympics. . . . less than 0.01% of GDP in 1948. . . '

' . . . Not only was there no new Olympic stadium, there was no new velodrome, aquatics centre or handball arena either. Nor was there a purpose-built Olympic village: male athletes were billeted in RAF camps in Uxbridge, West Drayton and Richmond; female athletes were housed in London colleges. The organisers laid on bedding but asked contestants to bring their own towels. . . '
Hey, we're all in favor of you guys, but we do ask everyone to bring their own towel. ;)

And maybe with post-war prosperity, host cities could sometimes build one new venue. But not the idea that every blasted venue has to be brand spanking new.
 
It is very doubtful that a court would rule that way and I am sure that there would soon be legislation that would allow the organizers of the games to sell the broadcast rights. . .
You might well be right. But if a court does rule this way and if there are enough people believing the games should remain open to at least slow down legislation,

maybe the IOC eventually comes down on the same side to have a consistent standard, and also to receive credit for being the visible guys.

Yes, the games grow slower and in a sense remain "friendlier" for longer.
 
One study asked happiness questions in London, Paris, and Berlin in 2011, 2012, and 2013.
https://econlife.com/2016/08/cost-to-host-the-olympics/

"Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays?"

And they did find an uptick in happiness for Londoners for 2012. :)

PS I just don't want the government to be the only entity trying to measure happiness.

=============

PPS I think Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) is a cool cat and do largely agree with his theories, in spite of problems.
 
Last edited:
FYI, multiple networks covering the Olympics is normal in OTL. At least in Holland where Eurosport and NPO are broadcasting the Wintergames
 
Top