It’s down to Paris vs. Los Angeles now. And I don’t see the IOC giving the games to LA so France is going to get the Summer Games for the 1st time in a century.
Shit! 
Ridiculous. LA has hosted two very successful games. If Paris wins it’d because it out bribes Los Angeles.
Not to worry. Wait until The Big Cheeto hears of this.
Ivanka will stop importing from France and Melania will no longer wear Fürstenberg and Gucci.
Personally, I’d like to see it held in Paris. During the 2012 London Games, it was fun to watch the outdoor events (like the marathon) with all of those familiar tourist sites in the background. So for similar reasons, I’d enjoy the scenery during a Paris games.
But the IOC really needs to re-evaluate the requirements for hosting both the Summer and the Winter Games. They’re way too expensive and the facilities go to waste far too often. I’ve already seen photos of decrepit facilities from the Rio Games and that was just a few months ago.
LA pulled it off pretty well the last time—there’s even a perfectly good Olympic Colosseum they can dust off and reuse. Again.
Los Angeles has the advantage of having multiple universities in town, so some of the facilities are already in place and in use for NCAA and other competitions.
As a Californian, who did a lot of the events at the 1984 Games, and was hoping to see 2024, I can’t see the international community awarding Donald Trump’s America. Seriously.
I think the Olympics should be discontinued, because they are a concept whose time has come and long since gone.
Also, Trump would not like to see California (that did not vote for him and is opposed to him) to get any good publicity or to win anything.
I do not think that they should be discontinued, but maybe it might be worth considering doing what the Ancient Greeks did: Hold them always in the same place. Designate some place as the venue for the Olympics, and keep it.
I imagine that many people would object to that, thinking of the touristic income derived from the Olympics. And it is also true that some places actually benefited from being the host of Olympic Games (for instance, Barcelona got its whole transportation network overhauled and modernized for the 1992 Olympics and that has been a permanent boon for the city). However, the savings related to the organization of the games and the construction and maintenance of the facilities would be great.
Playing with this concept, which one would be the best option for a permanent home of the Olympic Games…? Hmmm… Maybe it might be fun speculating about it.
I haven’t thought hard about this, but my proposal for a fixed venue would be somewhere around the Mediterranean for the Summer Games (yeah, yeah, I know; I am biased towards my region of origin, deal with it 
), perhaps in Greece for the nostalgia value… And somewhere in Scandinavia for the Winter Games.
What do you think? Or perhaps I should open a new thread about this subject…
Clearly the best games ever were London 2012 (slight bias) and much as I’d love to say “bring them back here” every 4 years I think a permanent home is definitely way to go. I think it is heart-breaking to see all those expensive venues going to rack and ruin, such a waste. No logical or logistical reason why it couldn’t permanently be Greece. The only reason for the IOC not to do it is that it would diminish the self-appointed power of the IOC.
But that’s not going to happen, I’ve spent time in LA and Paris and I know which is more appealing to me. so from a purely selfish point of view I’d like to see Paris get the nod for much the same reason as said upthread and was the case at London. It’ll be easier to get to to than L.A. Easier to get round, more aesthetically pleasing backdrops and the weather will be less scorching. Paris is only a 2 hour train ride away for me in the UK so it would suit me down to the ground.
And all the competitors should be naked. ratings through the roof
And its weather improved as an unintended consequence of opening the Vallvidrera tunnels, but still, a lot of the expected benefits didn’t have much of a direct local impact. One of the items that had been touted during the selling phase was “there will be lots of construction work”, a very large amount of which was done by people and firms brought over from other countries. A lot of the facilities in Montjuic spend much more time empty than not.
Having permanent locations should bring down stress levels related to the whole bidding and construction process; the locations should be such that the facilities don’t stand empty and crumbling for three years and then there’s a flurry of “hold in place while I get paid” renovations, though.
Is the selection after the French elections? They may be even less interested in rewarding Le Pen than Trump, if that’s what it comes to.
The only way I could see a permanent location is if you have them in a neutral location–one that doesn’t have any team of its own. But that would probably make it a small country, and they would have a hard time handling it on their own, unless the other nations helped.
But, then, if you could get the other nations to help, then you’d go a long way in making moving locations viable, too. Set it up where the various nations get parts of the revenue, too.
But I think the best solution would just be to stop having it all in one place, period. Separate out the different types of sports and have them in different places. There is almost never any overlap, and, if there ever is some athlete competing in different types of sports (and not just different versions of the same type), you can schedule around that.
That way, existing structures can be used, possibly with upgrades. And they’d still get used, making upkeep easier.
The only downside I can see is that people wouldn’t be able to attend everything. But I’m not sure that’s a huge problem. More people will be able to attend from the host country, so that could offset this problem. And any really rich people who are upset can set up multiple flights. All that would be required is to space things out a bit so people could fly.
The rest of us would probably be happy to be able to attend some part of the Olympics every couple of years.
They released a report recently called Olympic Agenda 2020, in part to address the ballooning costs. One proposal is to allow shared bids from two countries, so if Norway and Sweden want to share hosting duties for the winter games, that will be possible. I think they’re also looking at using existing facilities for some events. (For example, for every summer games, they build a whitewater course for kayaking events. But that’s not something that’s going to get much use after the games are over.)
There’s a reason why women’s beach volleyball is one of the highest-rated events.
:o
Nah. I would, however, setup a few permanent locations. Perhaps one in North America, one in Asia, and one in Europe. Move the Olympics around and have all nations pay for all of them.
Stop staggering the Summer and Winter Games, and stop allowing professionals to compete, and I may go back to thinking of them as being dedicated to pure athletic excellence.