Are we losing the Olympic spirit?

The international Olympic movement is now more a machine than a movement and it is weakening our appreciation of the sporting virtues it is meant to represent.

Nothing has the potential to celebrate the virtues and values of sporting endeavour like the Olympic Games. Yet the modern Olympiad and the organisation that supports it have arguably become little more than a celebration of jingoism and a promoter of market values.

The athletes taking part deserve our highest admiration and a global platform on which to display their talents.

Yet among those who decide how their endeavours are showcased, sport it is increasingly treated as an extension of the market economy. Competition represents an opportunity to increase a community's collective wealth.

As someone who lives close to London, I am proud of what this great city will bring to the international pageant. In boldly announcing this week, however, that the Games will bring £13 billion into the national economy, Prime Minister David Cameron revealed the motivation that often sits at the heart of the bidding process.

The virtues that once defined sporting competition at the elite level now seem but a secondary consideration.

The success of any modern Olympiad is, at the end of the day, measured in terms of the potential monetary gain for the host nation and for those nations which produce winning competitors - especially in the big sports.

The global machine surrounding the Olympics may talk the talk of sporting virtue, yet in ever more overt ways it walks the walk of profit and indulgence.

Despite vigorous denials on the part of the IOC, doubts remain about the propriety of the host bidding process for each new Games, with perennial claims of bribery and nepotism. Even without these stories, however, the high price tag attached to hosting the Games likely works against the very sporting ideals the Olympics are supposed to reinforce.

By the time the last medal has been award, the London Olympics will have cost a reported £8.4 billion. They will be the most expensive Games ever - as, it seems, every new Olympiad is destined to become.

In his new book, What Money Can't Buy, ethics professor Michael Sandel poses a question which is exercising the minds of social and political leaders throughout the developed world.

In the wake of the global financial crisis and the ongoing problems with major currencies such as the euro, do we want a market economy or a market society? Do we want the market to serve us or to define us?

Are there some things in life, Sandel asks, to which we could attach a fee or price but should not, because in doing so we might actually devalue them? Is there more to measuring value than attaching a monetary cost?

We might apply Sandel's observations and questions to the modern Olympics.

Of course, ever since the introduction of professional sports in various national competitions, games of one kind or another have gradually been transformed into market commodities.

At the top-tier level, sporting competitions have been transformed from amateur pursuits, where the love of the game is all, into high-powered industries. Athletes are now but one part of a complex machine made up of event managers, player representatives and sports psychologists.

In some sports, athletes have become such a small part of the overall equation that they require ever more strident unions to represent their interests.

The Olympic Games are arguably just one part of this trend, but they are the standard bearer for what sport can and ought to be.

Sporting competition has an intrinsic value because it celebrates worthy human virtues such as the pursuit of excellence, focus under pressure, humility in victory and grace in defeat. These are just some of the values we hope our children will pick up from the first time they take part in a team or individual sport.

Increasingly attaching a monetary value to the Olympics – and by extension to the athletes who participate – devalues sport itself, especially as that financial value is becoming the prime marker of their worth.

The argument is made, of course, that huge investment is needed in providing infrastructure for competition and facilities for the hard-working athletes.

Yet money spent on providing facilities and support for athletes represents just a fraction of the investment in an Olympic competition. All manner of support 'industries' now suck up funds around the edges of the sport itself – including the huge industry that has grown up around the host auction process."

Driven by market pressures, host nations provide ever more elaborate opening and closing ceremonies, which people around the world often remember more than the iconic moments of competition.

Some emerging and former athletes fear that this 'circus element' of the Games is overshadowing the sport itself.

The Olympic Games will bring attention to London, at a time when the city and nation needs a boost in confidence. But the likelihood is that for us, as for most of the nations taking part, there will be a temporary spike in nationalistic spirit, plus a reminder that David very rarely defeats Goliath, especially where big money has been involved.