Anywhere but the US. I don’t think we need the trouble or the expense.
Hungary or Germany would be nice.
I’ll go with Los Angeles mainly because I’m an ugly American who thinks the USA ought to be entitled to host the Olympics more often than it does in light of our disproportionate contribution to the ICO coffers from corporate sponsorships and television rights.
But putting that aside I think that Los Angeles would be the right choice because their bid seems to be borrowing from they playbook they used for the hugely successful (despite the Eastern Bloc boycott) 1984 games. To wit, it focuses on maximizing utilization of existing infrastructure. That, in combination with the extensive utilization of corporate sponsorship, was the reason the '84 games made a profit. If Los Angeles successfully hosts the 2024 games, it could be a model for future Olympic bids. (Although I’m not really optimistic that that will happen since the organizers of subsequent games don’t seem to have learned the lessons from 1984.)
BTW, I’m aware that one of the biggest complaints about that Olympics is that it has become over-commercialized. And it could be that being an American makes me less offended about commercialization than people from other countries. But the fact is that Commercial sponsorship does bring in a lot of money, and if your going to complain about the Olympics being too expensive than maybe you shouldn’t hold your nose up about an additional potential revenue stream.
Hungary deserves it. Also LA’s weather is much too hot. Yes, I know, 1984, but I think that Olympics was a bad choice, too.
Why does Hungary deserve it?
They’re the rising country (all 4 other countries have long been wealthy, Western, developed,) they’ve never hosted before, they are East European, they have a cooler climate, and are a newer NATO member.
Yeah, I know, my reasons are strange.
The Summer Olympics should just permanently locate in Greece. It would mean a lot fewer bribes for the IOC but it saves on the insane wasted infrastructure costs and it would be a boost to their economy.
Budapest. What can I say? I like the long shots. Plus I have some kin in the region who could benefit from it all.
Alessan nailed it for me. Which of those cities do I dislike enough to wish the chaos and corruption of an Olympics on them?
I was actually surprised by Boston’s choice and supported it. It does seem like an awful waste of resources. Keep 'em in Greece.
OK, how many of the “oh Budapest would be so great” people know what will this boondoggle cost Hungary? Though it would be mighty nice, if IOC were to act reasonably and adjust their usual extortionate demands of host countries.
One disadvantage – or is it advantage? – to LA is that USOC can tell the IOC: “We are in no position to compel anyone to build a billion dollars of new facilities just for you if they don’t want to, nor the California or US Treasury to guarantee you against losses. But we CAN offer to be economically efficient.”
Me, I’d love to see it wind up like the last go-around with the Winter Games, in which it’s IOC who winds up having to look for someone, anyone, to host it. Just to put them in their place.
I do ----- I had relatives in Sarajevo. They didn’t survive the ethnic disputes later but they thought it was worth the effort and debt.
LA. Because Ah love Amurrica.
I figure it’s up to the Hungarians to decide if hosting an Olympics is worth the cost.
I voted for Paris. Because . . . well . . . Paris.
Or Rome.