On their own terms, the Paris Games were a winner

The Paris Olympics were a pot-pourri.

Pot-pourri, of course, is one of many words English has adopted from French. These are the terms on which the Paris Games must be understood. The avant-garde opening ceremony foreshadowed the rest. These were unmistakably the French Olympics.

Zut alors! The colourful opening ceremony of Paris 2024.Credit: AP

The whole idea of handing the hosting rights to a city is that it can put its own stamp on the Games, and Paris did. If that meant there was too much je ne sais quoi, but too few toilets, what did anyone expect?

Paris was the first Olympics staged under the International Olympic Committee’s New Norm protocols, eschewing extravagant and often ruinous spending on infrastructure particularly, instead scaling the Games to the times.

Sydney, Beijing, London and Rio built vast Olympic encampments, all meant to be repurposed, but some now derelict and disused.

Paris built only two new stadiums. It meant that these were not just the Paris Games but the Games in Paris, spread across the city like campuses in a university town. It also meant that these were by far the most visually spectacular Games of all. The biggest star of these Games, if not swimmer extraordinaire Leon Marchand, was the Eiffel Tower.

Paris did not go to particular lengths to tart itself up for its Games; it doesn’t need to.Credit: AP

Brisbane 2032 still has not completely made up its mind whether to build or rebuild. Paris’ ingenious refurbishment will lend moral weight to the rebuild case. But Brisbane, for all its charms, is not Paris. That plot thickens.

Sydney 2000 represented a new threshold for the Olympics in terms of putting on a show. Athens, Beijing, London and Rio all took their cues from Sydney, improving and streamlining as per their means (and well beyond them in Athens and Rio). Because of COVID-19, Tokyo 2020 was an Olympics out of time.

Paris was a new watershed. Relatively, these were the austerity Games, but with Parisian elan. Paris did not go to particular lengths to tart itself up for its Games as others have. Paris doesn’t need much primping; a good spring clean was enough.

Perhaps there were fewer homeless than usual, but there were fewer people altogether, locals and tourists. The Olympics do not endear themselves to everyone.

Thousands of homeless people were removed from the Paris region in a pre-Olympics “social cleansing”.Credit: Getty Images

The usually imperial IOC made its presence less felt than in previous Games, a welcome effacement. Maybe it remembered that, historically, Paris tends to revolt against potentates. Hopefully, this is a new norm.

At times and in places the Spartan philosophy went too far. The athletes’ village plainly was one. Australia was one of a number of countries who took matters into their own hands, shipping in creature comforts. The medals table might suggest that a little adversity is good for the athletic soul anyway. But, of course, it’s not that simple.

The organisation, in parts, was looser than it might have been. Costs were cut, corners, too. For fans, the public transport arrangements were somewhat Byzantine. And would a little shade cloth here and there really have hurt?

Surprisingly, the stadiums were dry. This, though, may have been foresight rather than oversight. It meant they cleared quickly and without trouble. It’s not as if there wasn’t elsewhere to go to get a drink and a feed in Paris.

Security in Paris was plentiful, but sensitive in its enforcement.Credit: AP

Part of the magic of the Olympics is that it sprinkles fairy dust into eyes, and people generally bore the inconvenience with good humour. Did Paris as the vanguard of economy-sized Olympism depend on this, and will Americans show the same sang froid in 2028? Who knows?

Security, drawing on three forces, was plentiful, but sensitive in its enforcement. It never felt oppressive. A heavily armed soldier’s eye, when caught, usually twinkled. The Games passed by largely without incident.

Media facilities were more sparing than in previous Games, too. Some of the cutbacks were in the name of environmental preservation, but even if there was in this an element of greenwashing, how could we whinge? If I’m honest, the IOC has indulged media to an almost unconscionable extent previously.

There were glitches, because there are always glitches. It was one thing to open the Games on the Seine, another to stage some of them in its murk. That was an overreach.

The story surrounding champion boxer Imane Khelif reflected poorly on most involved.Credit: Eddie Jim

There were no drug busts. These will come later, do not doubt it, as the testers eventually catch up with the cheats. Instead, there was a bust-up between drug agencies, to wit WADA, USADA and the Chinese body. If tested for self-righteousness, all would fail.

Maybe they should all be tested for elevated testosterone levels, rather than the two DSD boxers who were caught in the middle of the Games’ most bizarre story. It reflected poorly on nearly all involved, but it did again highlight the intractable heart of the issue, that there is no perfect balance of diversity and fairness. Nonetheless, it is incumbent on all to persevere. No one should again be put in their position.

In a way, Australia were also working towards a new norm. It has spent as lavishly as ever on the Games. But it has been less naked in its ambition than previously, preferencing deeds over words. Chef de mission Anna Meares has been a sensible voice in this.

The outcome is Australia’s best Olympics yet in terms of gold medals. The swimmers stood up and the track-and-field athletes have put their best foot forward. In the usual give-and-take, likely medals in hockey, rugby and rowing did not materialise but were offset by a slew of medals in new-age Olympic sports. One of Australia’s sporting strengths is that it has always been an early adopter. It has borne fruit here.

Australia’s Kaylee McKeown, centre, wins one of her five gold medals, for the women’s 200-metre backstroke.Credit: AP

But a caveat for the triumphalists: more and more medals awarded at Olympic Games, twice as many here as in the Melbourne Games in 1956. So, Australia’s true bounty cannot be measured in raw numbers alone. And Australia sets greater store by Olympic success than most others, again sending the third-biggest team here. Australia needs to do well, ought to do well, and this time did well.

What Paris saved on the cost of hosting the Games it poured into their staging. This was adroit. It is not enough for modern sport to play out as a test of skill and courage; it must put on a show. Paris did. The crowds played their part – they were big, loud and generous to all-comers. It was hard not to come away from even the most humble sport – and there are plenty of them at the Olympics – feeling other than it was time well spent.

The one question I can’t answer is whether or not the Olympics were balm and tonic to a troubled world. Up close it’s impossible to see the wood for the trees. Most other places the news is still pretty grim.

But in their own right, and within the parameters of the New Norms, the Paris Olympics matched London as the best edition since Sydney. There’s a tale of two cities for you.

The Paris Olympic Games played out in the image of their host city. The best of it was truly spectacular. As for the not-inconsiderable faults and foibles, Paris seemed to know that, as is so often true of beautiful people of either – or should we say all? – genders, it would be more readily forgiven than, for instance, Rio.

C’est la vie.

Sign up for our Sports Newsletter to get Olympic Games updates and general sport news, results and expert analysis straight to your inbox.