Prof. Daniel Jackson
Professor of Media and Communications at Bournemouth University.
Dr. Alina Bernstein
Senior lecturer at the School of Media Studies of the College of Management Academic Studies (COMAS) and the Steve Tisch School of Film and Television, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Prof. Michael L. Butterworth
Director of the Center for Sports Communication & Media, Governor Ann W. Richards Chair for the Texas Program in Sports and Media, and Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at The University of Texas at Austin.
Prof. Younghan Cho
Professor of Korean Studies in the Graduate School of International and Area Studies at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies.
Dr. Danielle Sarver Coombs
Associate Professor in the Department of Business and Computing, Ravensbourne University London.
Dr. Michael Devlin
Associate Professor of Advertising at Texas State University.
Dr. Ana Carolina Vimieiro
Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at The Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Brazil.
Ahead of the 2024 Paris Games, many observers worried that the Olympic flame, though not extinguished, had been considerably diminished. Reflecting on the 2020 Tokyo Games, The Atlantic wondered “whether the modern Olympics—an international spectacle that has become increasingly synonymous with overspending, corruption, and autocratic regimes—are worth having at all.” Audience and media reactions to the 2022 Winter Games in Beijing had been, at best, lukewarm, and survey data in the United States anticipated the smallest television audience among Americans since Gallup began measuring such data in 2000. Within the host nation, a majority of the French population expressedeither “indifference” or “concern” just days before the Opening Ceremony. In short, expectations for 2024 were muted; as veteran Olympic broadcaster Bob Costas stated, the Olympics need “to get their groove back.”
With the closing of the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games we can conclude that reports of the Olympics’ demise have been greatly exaggerated. The Opening Ceremony became the most-watched television program in French history. Canadian viewers watched more than 24 million hours across CBC platforms, an all-time record. Streaming of BBC coverage in the United Kingdom was more than double than what it had been for Tokyo in 2021. And, for the Olympics’ largest Broadcast partner, NBC, viewership in the United States was 82% higher than Tokyo and became the “most-streamed Olympics of all time.” By any commercial measure, Paris 2024 was a massive success.
The enthusiasm for the 2024 Games isn’t merely about robust television ratings and streaming numbers. It appears, too, that general enthusiasm for the Olympics was sparked by incredible athletic performances and the spectacular backdrop one of the most photogenic cities in the world. Indeed, the Games were distinctly Parisian, something made clear by an Opening Ceremony that leaned heavily into French art, history, and style. Neither an unwelcomed downpour nor critics who lamented the allegedly blasphemous references of the opening spectacle dampened the general public’s enthusiasm. Really, how could the ceremony be seen as anything but triumphant after Celine Dion’s powerful return to performing—while standing on the Eiffel Tower!—and the Olympic cauldron floating as a balloon above the City of Light? The Opening Ceremony was not universally beloved, but it was interesting, and it set the stage for a series of record-breaking, head-scratching, and meme-generating performances.
The Olympics and Paralympics were fun, but that is only part of the story. That the French public warmed to the Games doesn’t negate its prior skepticism, especially when considering the expense of nearly $10 billion USD—which, notably, is considerably less than what was spent in Tokyo in 2021—and the choice to direct important resources away from other public needs. Most controversially, Paris spent around $1.5 billion USD on one project: an effort to clean the River Seine so that it could be used in Olympic competition. E. coli and other contaminants were still present enough to delay the triathlon events and, following the men’s event, at least one swimmer reported an E. coli infection (though it was not clear whether came from the Seine). Concerns regarding the river placed a brighter spotlight on environmental issues in general, with critics noting that, in spite of organizers’ efforts, the Olympics are a “sustainability nightmare.”
The Paris Games also occurred in the context of national elections and political shifts that have given rise to the right wing “New Popular Front” in France. Thus, while athlete activism was much less visible in 2024 than it had been in recent Olympiads, visible protests in Paris came from other groups dissatisfied with the convergence of capital and political interests that all too often seem designed only to reward those who already hold considerable wealth and power. Dissatisfaction with French officials was exacerbated by the government when it upheld a national ban on Muslim women wearing hijab and prohibited the religious expression during the Olympics. Such a ban would appear to violate the International Olympic Committee’s charter, which declares, “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Olympic Charter shall be secured without discrimination of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” Nevertheless, the policy remained.
The political, cultural, and environmental concerns provoked by the Paris Olympics leave us with something of a paradox: the 2024 Games were equal parts athletic spectacle and commercial excess; a demonstration of breaking boundaries and reinforcing historical exclusions; and a source of ephemeral global unity and a reminder of persistent division. In short, the Olympics may indeed have gotten “their groove back,” but at what cost?
Building off our report of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, this report endeavors to answer this question, drawing upon the expertise of an exceptional and international collection of scholars. As editors, we represent multiple nations—Brazil, Israel, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States—and, although our expertise coalesces around the disciplinary traditions of communication and media studies, our contributors come from a range of academic perspectives, including education, kinesiology, history, political science, and sociology. We hope you will enjoy reading them as much as we have in assembling them.
