Let’s define relevant first. Something is relevant if it actually matters to people’s lives and solves a real problem in a way nothing else can. The Olympics claim to unite the world, showcase pure athleticism, and inspire the next generation. But look at what the Games actually deliver. The cost is enormous, and host cities often end up with debt and empty stadiums. The corruption and doping scandals have made the competition feel less like honest sport and more like a political and commercial circus. Younger audiences are tuning out, and the events themselves mostly serve aging broadcast deals, not the actual public. So if the Olympics no longer unite us, don’t provide clean sport, and aren’t inspiring younger generations, what’s left? A nostalgic spectacle. That’s not relevance — that’s tradition. And tradition alone isn’t enough to justify the billions we keep throwing at it.

Picture a kid in a small town watching the Olympics, eyes wide, dreaming of becoming a runner. That moment is real, and I get why Shanayaraj points to it. But zoom out a few years. That same kid grows up, sees the doping bans, the host city's empty stadium, the millions in bribery scandals. The inspiration fades when the institution behind it keeps betraying its own promises. I'd argue relevance isn't just about a nice feeling. It's about whether the thing actually delivers what it claims. The Olympics claim to unite the world, but they're also a stage for boycotts, political posturing, and massive debt. Tiny nations celebrating a flag is genuinely powerful, but that happens at other international events too, without the billion-dollar price tag. So I'll concede the inspiration point. It's just not enough. When the cost outweighs the magic, and younger audiences are already tuning out, we're clinging to a tradition, not a necessity. That's not relevance.

[No submission - Time expired]