Personally, I think this would be a good move for the IOC. It is obvious that bidding for and then hosting the games has gotten unduly burdensome, and while the IOC has taken some steps to address this recently, I think their may be more which can be done. Selecting the sites for the next two summer games (in first world cities which would be unlikely to repeat the Rio debacle) would give the IOC some breathing room to concentrate on attracting quality bids for the winter games, while possibly exploring other ways to make hosting the games more attractive. (Such as, for example, allowing regional bids as opposed to bids from individual cities.) I’m curious what other dopers think.
Yeah, this was what I was going to say. There aren’t too many cities willing to lose a crapton of money to host the Olympics anymore (particularly the Summer Games).
I’m completely in favor of this. Both Paris and Los Angeles already have a lot of the facilities and can do a London type games . No one wants a repeat of the Rio debacle. Plus, there is no reasonable likelihood of political issues unlike the bribery sites of the next two world cups in Russia and Qatar (if they keep it)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A good idea (though one probably borne out of necessity rather than any genius on the part of the IOC)
Paris would be ideal from my point of view as I’m only a couple of hours away by train and LA will do a sterling job as well I’m sure.
Yes, Paris and LA are immune from political bosses who see the Olympics as a chance to get monies for their favorite projects. Pork barrel spending is unknown there.
Rio debacle? It was a perfectly good Olympiad. The only debacle was the US swimmer having a fight.
How does allowing regional bids make the Games more attractive? They’re essentially saying that if a city the size of Los Angeles can’t afford the massive waste of money required to host the Olympics, the answer is to fleece the entire state of California.
I like the Olympics; I can remember watching them since I was 7. I like the idea of people from all over the world coming together to compete. I like that they’re a chance for archers, fencers, biathletes, and all those others who practice in obscurity for four years at a time to have a moment in the spotlight. I think there’s something about the Olympics that’s worth saving.
But the Games have gotten too damned big. Every host city thinks they have to out-do the previous one, which had to out-do the one before that, etc. Speed skating (the long-track kind) used to be outdoors; then someone built an indoor track (Calgary, I think) and it’s been indoors ever since. Can’t just have the white-water kayaking on an actual river; got to build one from scratch. Each one has to be bigger, better, and more awesomely everything than has ever come before. That can’t continue forever, and it’s already gone on longer than it should have. The answer isn’t to expand the size of the host region so they can keep paying the skyrocketing bills.
Well, and the pool going green. I was trying to think of others but most of the ones that come to mind are 2014 World Cup debacles, of which there were a shit-ton.
Dude, I love the Olympics. I think they just need to have permanent locations that they cycle through. I don’t get why a host city must be chosen all the time.
I would have the Olympics cycle through:
Los Angeles and perhaps Vancouver
London and Paris
Beijing, Seoul, and Tokyo
If the rest of the countries pay to help maintain facilities, these cities and regions could host all the Olympics. It leaves out S. America and Australia. Africa, too, but I don’t know what areas would support it.
They announced last year that they would be willing to accept joint bids. For example, if Sweden and Norway wanted to submit a joint bid for the Winter Games. (That both of these countries dropped out of the running for the Winter Games during the last go-around should have, and I think did, serve as a wake-up call that something’s gotta change.)
Frankly I think they should just build (or rebuild) a permanent Olympic site in Athens and have every summer Olympics there. Greece needs the money anyway. But then the IOC wouldn’t get all those bribes.
Besides Brazil losing 1-7 to the Germans, I can’t think of any.
[QUOTE=Dewey Finn]
They announced last year that they would be willing to accept joint bids. For example, if Sweden and Norway wanted to submit a joint bid for the Winter Games. (That both of these countries dropped out of the running for the Winter Games during the last go-around should have, and I think did, serve as a wake-up call that something’s gotta change.)
[/QUOTE]
The problem is that costs always skyrocket. The London Games ended up costing about 4 times what it was estimated at the time of the bid. The reality is that any large city on the Planet could easily host the games using existing infrastructure. Most of these already have big stadia, hotels, airports etc.
The costs start to skyrocket when people desire more spending in “improving infrastructure since the Olympics are coming”. Let’s build that big new airport we have been wondering about building, since Olympics. Our old stadium looks a bit run down, lets build a new one. Or three. We’ll support the Olympics if you agree to build a new road. Man forget about using the old stadium and sports arena, they are too spread out. Lets use the Olympics to regenerate development in some derelict part of the city. Economical or not. Look at all the jobs we’ll create.
Which is why I think posts like Novelty Bobbles’ up thread, extolling the virtues of LA and Paris are extremely naive. He somehow seems to think that LA or Parisian politicians will be immune from the temptation to use the Olympics as an excuse to get infrastructure projects and their assorted jobs and money rolling into the city. Look at London. The original estimate was about $ 4 Billion which rose to about an actual $16 billion because the Government wished to use the Olympics to develop the Lea Valley Area.
Just look at France, for Euro 2016, they spent several billion USD building 4 new stadiums and totally refurbishing 5, as well as building newer access roads and other transport insfrastruture. It’s a country with a first rate soccer league, they did not need to. And looking upon LA, apparently, they are spending billions in public money for a stadium for an American football team.
Its a bit of a chicken and egg problem though. To get support for hosting the Olympics you need politicians. Who will want large amounts of money for new venues and improvements.
Except you really can’t blame the Olympics if the city or country uses the event as an excuse to do things like develop the Lea Valley Area or to build a new airport. Those things will still be there and usable even after the Games. It’s the billions spent on various sports facilities (like a dedicated whitewater course) that are wasted.
Which is different from other places…how? Workers die during construction, workers died during the London Olympic build; which was given an award for safety. Accidents happen And lets not forget, the media tends to flat out lie, remember the 1200 Qatar deaths meme which was revealed to be pure unadulterated bull shit.
Huh? I thought no such thing thanks very much, I make no assumptions about costs or the influence of local politics…all I said was
Which is true. These are the only two bids on the table and I think they would both put on a good games. I’m on record elsewhere on similar threads saying that I’d be in favour of a single, permanent location for the games for many of the reasons already given. As that’s not an option on offer then deciding now to give the next two games to the two very good candidates is a good option (and Paris works for me for selfish reasons as well)
I would like to introduce (re-introduce?) the suggestion of a “man-made” Olympic Island, with rotating host nations. Let it be a vacation resort/tourist attraction during the off-season, and have a local municipality to run the day-to-day. They could host other international tournaments, as well.