Jon Walker: What will the Olympics mean for people who’ve paid?

Jul 11 2008 By Jon Walker

Tessa Jowell, the Minister for the Olympics, has been busy talking up the 2012 games. In response to claims that the sporting extravaganza will do more harm than good to the capital, she produced a newspaper article with a list of goodies that the games will produce

Apparently, they will “transform one of the most deprived parts of the capital”, build five international sporting venues, regenerate a 500-acre urban park, restore eight kilometres of waterways, build 9,000 homes and create 120,000 square metres of business accommodation, when the massive media centre created specially for the Olympics is turned into offices once the event is over.

But it doesn’t answer the question on my mind, which is what will the games do for us here in Birmingham and the West Midlands?

We have heard plenty in the West Midlands about opportunities for businesses to win contracts and possible benefits to tourism, but it’s all been a bit nebulous.

But £8.2 billion in Olympic funding, £6 billion from the Treasury and £2.2 billion from the national lottery, comes from all of us. Londoners are contributing an extra £1 billion themselves via higher council tax bills, but most of the money is national funding. What about those contracts? Well, the Olympic Delivery Authority believes in transparency, and is publishing the details of firms it employs on the London2012.com website.

Of 600 contracts awarded so far, 21 have gone to West Midlands firms - about 3.5 per cent. Roughly 8.3 per cent of all VAT registered business are in the West Midlands. Meanwhile, 305 have gone to London businesses – about 51 per cent. London is home to 15.2 per cent of all VAT registered businesses.

There’s more to come, as around 7,000 contracts to firms in sectors as diverse as engineering, media and retail are expected to be awarded before the end of the games. One tangible benefit we can expect is that some of the football games will be played at Villa Park. As far as I can work out, that is official.

But the other much-hyped benefit – that the American athletics squad may use Birmingham as their training base – is only an aspiration.

Indeed, an inquiry by the Commons Culture Media and Sport Select Committee warned this week: “There are no guarantees as to which areas National Olympic/Paralympic Committees will choose for their athletes, or indeed whether they will locate themselves in the UK at all.” As for tourism, the inquiry said: “The very fact that the Olympic and Paralympic Games are hosted by cities and not countries inevitably limits the extent to which areas outside the host city can expect to benefit.

“From a tourism perspective, there are some limited short-term benefits to be realised outside London. However, we doubt whether these are as great, or as certain, as the Government has suggested.”

It is even possible that visitor numbers across the country could drop during the games, as tourists stay away “founded on the perception amongst potential visitors that, rightly or wrongly, the UK would be overrun with Games-related visitors in 2012.”

The committee did say that Britain as a whole would benefit from the boost to its reputation if it delivered a successful games.

Apparently, we have an image problem in parts of the world, where people believe “London is always in a pea-souper fog and our men wear bowler hats”.

The Games will allow us to portray Britain as a land of “diversity, inspiration, sustainability and youth”, although it still seems to be London which is expected to benefit most.

But while our image abroad is an important issue, we are moving back into the realm of the vague and theoretical. London gets five international sporting venues and 120,000 square metres of business accommodation. What, exactly, do we get?

Am I just a killjoy? Answers on a postcard please, but do include some specifics.