I’m sure the Rio bid was acceptable as well as the others on the shortlist, otherwise I doubt they would have been considered at this stage. With that in mind, I don’t see why the US with 4 summer and 4 winter games should get a new one in a loooooooooooooong time. There are many other countries that should be given a chance before the US, as long as they can muster acceptable bids. Maybe in 40 years?
Not sure the IOC can afford that to be frank. The US is still the biggest market and where most of the sponsorship monies come from.
It’s a strange feeling here as a lot of people are very happy that Chicago did not get the Olympics. Ratings are down and I’m not sure there is really that much of a desire to host the games again.
It is, however, a blow for both Daley and Obama as they really were expecting Chicago to win.
You may well be correct. Still, by 2016, Brazil will be even more the regional power than it currently is so I’m sure they’ll cope. The show that they’ll put on will certainly have a bit more life to it than the rather sterile, albeit impressive, one that Beijing did.
frets about London 2012
Might not be in 2016, especially for sports that the US generally doesn’t care all that much about.
True but 2016 is only 7 years away. I can’t see things changing that dramtically such that another country will replace the US from a sponsorship point of view.
As an aside, I see the World Cup as the bigger event.
You are probably completely right. I admit that I don’t know jack about the politics and related skulduggery behind the olympic games. As with most things in life the money decides, my response was based on my admittedly naïve view of fairness. The US is clearly overrepresented in the number of hosted olympics, and it’s not due to a lack of other great alternatives, as far as I know. That said, I’m sure Chicago would do a great job at hosting the olympics. I do not mean to imply that it was a poor bid.
So do I, but from a personal anecdote point of view the Olympics can have a much broader appeal. I know a few folk who every four years obsess about the gymnastics eg my Mum and her elderly pals who couldn’t give a toss about any other sport, ever, unless it’s Wimbledon.
Heh, reminds me. When the GB women’s curling team won gold at Salt Lake City I watched it in my packed local way past opening hours. 99% sure that’s the only time any of us have ever watched curling.
I doubt that bribery pays nearly as much a role as some people seem to think. What advantage would cities like Sydney and Athens have if that were the case? If you look at past winners, the single biggest pattern is regional diversity so long as the country has adequate resources to do a decent job. The US as the biggest market also gets an extra say with two winners in just 12 years. There is a clear pattern of extending the Olympics to different parts of the world. Seoul in 88 and Beijing in 2008 and now Rio. In between it cycles between the rich countries of the world. USA, Spain, USA, Australia, Greece and Britain. Even within that there is a tendency to give it to somewhat smaller countries like Greece and Australia as well as countries which have never hosted before like Spain.
I wouldn't be too worried about crime and poverty in Rio either. It's not as if they will be holding events in shanty towns. Rio will probably be a minor fortress during the two weeks of competition and I doubt there will be much crime. This means a lot to Brazil and it's a middle income country with a fairly large economy. They will probably be able to put in more resources than Greece or South Korea in 1988.