Making the IOC a Laughing Matter

In today's economy, it seems like money has found a way to the center stage of almost every major even in the world. The election of the location for the 2016 Summer Olympics is no exception. Major countries from all over the world spend millions of dollars just to be considered by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) for the bid. With such a trouble world economy, is that kind of spending worth it? This is the question that Jim Caple, a senior writer for ESPN.com, raises in his ESPN.com column article titled, "Bidding war? What is it good for?" He effectively uses a relaxed and humorous tone to relate with his audience of sports enthusiasts and athletes. He then uses this connection to spark debate about whether or not it is worth the money and effort to move the Olympics to a new location every 2 years. By using mixed media and including an interactive box where readers can post comments about the issue, Caple effectively creates an alluring page that keeps the reader actively engaged in the issue.

Just keeping the article humorous and informative would not have been enough to start any real sort of debate however. Caple knew this and therefore chose to incorporate a box at the bottom of the website that would allow readers to comment on the article and express their opinion. This made the article fluid in nature, changing every time someone would visit the page. In essence the page was inviting people to start talking about the issue right then and there.

As a suggested solution to the issue, Jim proposes that the Olympics should be held in the same two places: Lillehammer Norway for the Winter Olympics, and Athens Greece for the Summer Olympics. To support his position he argues that hosting the Olympics isn't worth the effort and that countries really shouldn't want the financial burden that accompanies it. He supports this statement throughout the article by applying different connotations to words and makes it obvious to the reader that he is doing so by using quotation marks around the word. At the beginning of the article he says, "sending your head of state to the IOC is considered as much of a prerequisite in an Olympic bid as a well-placed 'contribution.'" By implying that the process is corrupt anyway, he shows how pointless it is to spend millions of dollars to try and change the committee's mind. He also uses quotation marks around words such as "volunteer" and "honor" to sarcastically emphasize his point that hosting the Olympics is neither worth the cost nor the effort, both financially and organizationally speaking. Caple uses irony as well in a few instances to further convince the reader of his point. Referring to the cities that are not chosen to host the Olympics, he writes, "These cities are the winners. The loser is the city chosen to host the Olympics." By convincing people that hosting the Olympics isn't worth it, he supports his argument that it would be better to keep the Olympics in a set place; if people don't mind not hosting the Olympics in their country, they won't mind keeping it in the same place either.

One of Caple's most effective tools was the tone that he chose to use throughout the article. By using jokes, humorous allusions to scandals of past Olympics, and clever figurative language, he was able to relate perfectly to the common sports fanatic. To open the article he says, "Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics reached its peak this week when the most respected, influential and famous person in the United States traveled to Copenhagen to make the Windy City's case before the International Olympic Committee: Oprah. Oh, and President Obama will be there as well." This joking way of starting the article hooks the audience in right away. By using humor, the reader continues to read in order to hear the next punchline. By keeping the article in a funny and almost mocking attitude, he was able to increase the effect of his argument that the bidding war itself has become ridiculous.

Part of the humor that Caple incorporated into the article used allusions that referred to controversies in the sports world both past and present. He mentioned that Sochi, the location for the 2014 Winter Olympics, might spend $33 billion dollars on the Olympics and parenthetically joked saying, "what, are they using the same folks who built Yankee Stadium?" This reference will be effective for those who remember that the Yankee Stadium cost nearly $1.5 billion dollars to build, the second most expensive stadium in the world. This linked his argument with a relevant and acknowledged controversy, giving his point more credibility. If spending billions of dollars on a baseball stadium is ridiculous, how does a country justify spending millions of dollars on something that odds are won't even happen? Many of his intended audience would be familiar with this and would get a good laugh from it, further helping him connect with his audience.

Although Caple's major appeal was to pathos, he also mixes in well-placed appeals to logos to support his argument. He effectively creates within the reader an emotional response to how much money and effort is going into merely selecting the location of the Olympics and then suggests a simpler, less expensive solution. While he does use humor, the main emotion he tries to create within the audience is that of stunned disbelief. He mentions that, in the process of choosing the location for the 2014 Winter Olympics, Russia transported an entire skating rink to Guatemala as part of its bid for consideration. This example would cause the reader to stop and say, "What a waste! Did they really do that?" He uses facts such as this combined with figurative language to masterfully combine an appeal to pathos and logos. One particularly vivd example of the figurative language he used is seen when he says, "And when the years of hard work end, when all the political leaders, celebrities and power brokers have twisted the last elbow, slapped the last back and greased the final palm, three cities will not be chosen and all their efforts will be in vain." He paints a picture for the reader of just how much effort goes into this process with little to no return on the investment. The kairos of the issue makes these facts all the more effective. Not only was it written right as the IOC was about to choose the location for the Summer 2016 Olympics, but he raises the question: In the middle of recession, should we be spending this kind of money?

While Caple was successful at starting a debate among his audience and bringing people's attention to the issue, if he truly wants a change to occur, he chose the wrong audience to convince. Convincing the average sports fan that the Olympics should always be held in the same place will do to create awareness of the issue, but the members of the International Olympic Committee (i.e. the people he would need to convince) are far from being the average sports fan. The IOC consists of military leaders, royalty, influential members of major corporations, and political leaders from all over the world--a group not well represented among avid ESPN.com patrons. So if his purpose really was just to inform the sports fan community of the issue and to start a debate, then he was effective in his purpose. If he actually wants to persuade people to change the way the Olympics are organized, he needs to aim a little higher.