Should we blame it on Rio or on the IOC model?

With the start of the Olympics just one month away, comparisons between the Rio Summer Games promised in 2009 and what has actually been delivered in 2016 are gaining ground. 

In addition, they are quite depressing. By the belief that the country would be among the five largest economies in the world, the promise of cleaning up the Guanabara Bay, and the bike path collapsed into the sea in Rio de Janeiro, we are left with a feeling that the city will not benefit from the Olympic Games.

Then, should Rio take the entire blame?

The Olympic legacy became subject of debate at the turn of the 1980/90s, in an effort to reverse a serious image crisis the International Olympic Committee (IOC) was going through at the time. Within the context of a Cold War, hosting an Olympics was synonym of headache for the host city. Not just because of the large investments required to hold a complex event comprising over 30 sports, but also because a good part of the competitions were being boycotted by the Americans or Soviets.

Montreal-1976 was an example of how things can turn out badly. The population had to pay massive debts (the so-called Olympic fee was only withdrawn in 2006) and the life in the city saw not much improvement after the "Olympic spirit" landed over there for a few days during the Summer of 1976. 

Then, IOC changed its approach to address the impacts the event bring to host countries. First, by replacing the word impact by the word legacy, impact may come across as negative while legacy carries a softer connotation.

Then Barcelona-1992 became the outstanding example of the Olympic legacy to this day. Once decadent, the city was rebuilt for the Games and benefited from several other external factors to increase significantly the flow of tourists who inject millions in its economy every year. The Games revitalized the Spanish city, but one cannot help but wonder if the increase of tourists after 1992 was also due to the creation of the European Community, more affordable air tickets, and people's desire to travel overseas. The Olympic Games alone did not give rise to the phenomenon of tourism in Barcelona, but it has certainly helped.

So, after Barcelona, are there any other good examples of the Olympic legacy?

Athens is the 2000s version of Montreal. An event held in a big city of a relatively well-developed country, but with costs that surpassed the capacity to absorb the structure created for it. Ten years after the 2004 Olympic Games, Athens coexists with several abandoned structures, monstrous public debt and a bankrupt country with no prospect of reconstruction. However, within the same period, the city managed to double the number of tourists and is making good use of the public transport infrastructure created for the event. The glass is almost empty, but it has not dried out.

London is the closest version to the ideal Olympic legacy built in Barcelona. The population benefited with the Olympic Park, which was once a degraded area of the city. Following Athens example, the British city set up many temporary facilities for the Games. Thus, the chance of having a white elephant was limited to the Olympic stadium, which will finally be reused by West Ham. In fact, the football club has recently reported to sell more than 50 thousand ticket booklets for the next season. Is there a better example of Olympic legacy than this?

But the glass is not always full. The billions of pounds spent on the London Olympics were promised to foster people's interest in sporting activities. The number of people taking part in sport in the country jumped from 14 million to 15.5 million between 2005 - when England was elected to host the Games - and 2015. However, this number has slumped by 400,000 last year. The British are starting to question the legacy of sporting activity, alarmed by the increased rate of childhood obesity and sedentary lifestyle.

Can we consider a potential failure of Rio 2016 is solely the country's fault or does it go beyond that?

A city that still expects for the subway line connecting downtown to the Games venues by August 1st, or which has failed to implement any sustainability project related to the event, and has even declared a state of emergency to get federal assistance to pay for civil service is obviously a city that has failed because of its own mistakes. We could not deliver the project we sold in 2009. 

So, isn't it about time for IOC to review its legacy discourse? Is there any country or city in the world able to host an event, which involves more than 30 sports simultaneously and requires a structure of such magnitude that will be unfeasible to pay for?

Just as Rio failed to fulfill the promises made in 2009, the promise of an Olympic legacy that IOC is trying to impose to the host city of the "greatest sporting event on Earth" also seems nearly impossible to deliver. 

The Olympic Games is one month away, and we know that it will be spectacular. However, we also know that the price for such event is getting increasingly harder to afford. As in the 1980s, when IOC had to review its concepts, it is time for the committee to find a new discourse other than legacy to make countries interested in hosting the Olympic Games in their cities.

Get all the latest Rio 2016 information on Máquina do Esporte.