Permanent Locations for Olympics, World Cup, Etc?

[WrongVerb]

Came across this article that makes the case for a single permanent home to the Summer Olympics (http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013/09/two-words-olympics-island/6797/):


Montreal famously took 30 years to pay off its swollen $1.6 billion Olympic price tag. An estimated 150,000 people, mostly slum dwellers, are being displaced in Brazil ahead of the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro. The 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, are expected to be the most expensive in history. And in 2004, cost overruns helped lead to Greece's economic collapse.

John Rennie Short, a public policy professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County* thinks he has a solution. It's on an island.

Instead of investing billions of dollars in new Olympic host cities every four years, Short suggests it would be cheaper and easier to create a sort of Olympics island that can play host to the more expensive Summer Games, at a minimum, year after year. The IOC could essentially take over an island – maybe a Greek island, Short suggests – and turn it into a permanent venue. It would function more or less like an international city-state, overseen by the United Nations, dedicated to hosting the Olympics and its training in perpetuity.

I think it's an interesting idea and one that the world should take seriously. It certainly would go a long way towards removing the corruption that currently pervades the IOC. And why not expand the idea to have separate but permanent locations for the Winter Olympics? How about the Men's and Women's World Cup? (helping curb corruption in FIFA, as well)

Thoughts?

[RedTeamGo!]

As someone that went to the 2006 World Cup in Germany, the thought of having to go to some random island for the World Cup and being unable to travel around and explore Germany and surrounding countries during the times between US matches sounds dreadful.

The cool thing about the World Cup is that on top of watching world class soccer you get to explore a new setting each World Cup. It is extra incentive for spending a lot of money on a few soccer matches.

[Chip R]

We've discussed this in another thread and the idea has a lot of merit. The one that makes the most sense is rotate it - like the Super Bowl - between a few sites equipped to handle it. Same for the World Cup. But it won't ever happen because of the reason for it: Corruption. If you're a FIFA or IOC member who's been lining your pockets because of this process, why in the world would you want to stop it?

[dougdirt]

We've discussed this in another thread and the idea has a lot of merit. The one that makes the most sense is rotate it - like the Super Bowl - between a few sites equipped to handle it. Same for the World Cup. But it won't ever happen because of the reason for it: Corruption. If you're a FIFA or IOC member who's been lining your pockets because of this process, why in the world would you want to stop it?

Nailed it.

We can probably end the thread now.

[Kingspoint]

I like it better when new places get a chance to be corrupt every four years. It makes for better stories.

[BuckeyeRed27]

We almost had a winter Olympics in Kazakhstan and they lost to a city in China where it doesn't snow. I don't like having a permanent location, but we should probably do something different.

[Assembly Hall]

Aside from corruption, the World Cup will be just fine aside from it. The Olympics I aint quite too sure of, but to be honest, I could care less.

[Yachtzee]

I think a permanent site is a nonstarter, simply because part of the draw for these events are the pageantry put on display by the host country. I'm fairly certain the Olympics get some of their highest ratings during the opening ceremonies.

The Olympics and the World Cup could be hugely profitable for host cities if only they could root out the graft and corruption involved in site selection and the international community places a requirement on FIFA and the IOC that they have to provide a certain portion of the investment to bring the host site up to snuff. Imagine how much better off Brazil would be if FIFA and the IOC had to actually put up half the investment for putting on the events there. I imagine if FIFA's own money was on the line, they would think twice before deciding to build white elephant stadia in the middle of the rainforest.

It's funny how people put Los Angeles out there as an example of an Olympics that can make money, yet the IOC and host cities never actually follows L.A.'s lead. The 1984 Olympics weren't just about bringing in huge sponsorship and tv dollars. They also managed expenses by using existing facilities when possible. The Opening and Closing ceremonies, as well as track and field, were all held in the LA Coliseum. Meanwhile, the IOC and FIFA now pick hosts based on promises of building all new facilities from the ground up or requiring so many renovations to existing facilities that they might as well have been built from scratch. And of course much of the revenues for these events stay with FIFA and the IOC rather than being put into paying off the debts from putting on the event. The only way it will change is if there are rules in place that govern how money is distributed between these organizations and the hosts. I imagine FIFA and IOC fat cats might cut out the corruption if the decision of whether they get paid or not is dependent on whether the events are able to turn a profit for the host.

[Assembly Hall]

I think a permanent site is a nonstarter, simply because part of the draw for these events are the pageantry put on display by the host country. I'm fairly certain the Olympics get some of their highest ratings during the opening ceremonies.

The Olympics and the World Cup could be hugely profitable for host cities if only they could root out the graft and corruption involved in site selection and the international community places a requirement on FIFA and the IOC that they have to provide a certain portion of the investment to bring the host site up to snuff. Imagine how much better off Brazil would be if FIFA and the IOC had to actually put up half the investment for putting on the events there. I imagine if FIFA's own money was on the line, they would think twice before deciding to build white elephant stadia in the middle of the rainforest.

It's funny how people put Los Angeles out there as an example of an Olympics that can make money, yet the IOC and host cities never actually follows L.A.'s lead. The 1984 Olympics weren't just about bringing in huge sponsorship and tv dollars. They also managed expenses by using existing facilities when possible. The Opening and Closing ceremonies, as well as track and field, were all held in the LA Coliseum. Meanwhile, the IOC and FIFA now pick hosts based on promises of building all new facilities from the ground up or requiring so many renovations to existing facilities that they might as well have been built from scratch. And of course much of the revenues for these events stay with FIFA and the IOC rather than being put into paying off the debts from putting on the event. The only way it will change is if there are rules in place that govern how money is distributed between these organizations and the hosts. I imagine FIFA and IOC fat cats might cut out the corruption if the decision of whether they get paid or not is dependent on whether the events are able to turn a profit for the host.

Love your take on the LA games. I just never understood why the IOC and now FIFA pick sites that are not already equipped to host. Seems to me, that should be the #1 criteria.

[Chip R]

Love your take on the LA games. I just never understood why the IOC and now FIFA pick sites that are not already equipped to host. Seems to me, that should be the #1 criteria.

For one thing, if they selected a site that was equipped to host it, there wouldn't be a lot to choose from. It gets political too. Before last year there had never been a World Cup in South America. How crazy is that? That continent is soccer crazy but no World Cup till 2014. And, of course, the more places bidding on something, the more likely it is that someone is going to go the extra mile to win the bid.

[BuckeyeRed27]

For one thing, if they selected a site that was equipped to host it, there wouldn't be a lot to choose from. It gets political too. Before last year there had never been a World Cup in South America. How crazy is that? That continent is soccer crazy but no World Cup till 2014. And, of course, the more places bidding on something, the more likely it is that someone is going to go the extra mile to win the bid.

Not technically correct. Uruguay hosted the first one. Brazil and Argentina have also hosted, but it had been since the 70s. The 1930 and 1950 World Cups were certainly different looking than today's version for sure.

[RedTeamGo!]

Didn't the famous US team that starred a Haitian dishwasher beat England in a World Cup in Brazil in the 50s?

[ukredleg]

Chile also hosted the 1962 World Cup. All I care about is that the games are on at a decent hour, the hosting country actually has a genuine interest and history in football and that there are no more damned vuvuzelas.

[Assembly Hall]

For one thing, if they selected a site that was equipped to host it, there wouldn't be a lot to choose from.

I tend to disagree with that statement.

[Chip R]

I tend to disagree with that statement.

How many countries have facilities ready to host an Olympics and/or a World Cup? Hardly anyone bids for the Winter games anymore. Canada, the U.S., France, Germany, England, maybe Italy and possibly Japan, China and Australia could host a World Cup without having to build a lot of new stadiums. As for the Summer games, L.A. could do it. Boston wanted to but thought better of it .Most U.S. cities capable of hosting the games would face a taxpayer uprising with how much it costs to host them and the logistical problems that come with them. Other places that could host have already done it recently so the IOC would be reluctant to go back so soon. If the IOC has the whole pool of nations interested in hosting all they need is a plan and a lot of money. You might get countries like North Korea hosting because they could raise the money and the population wouldn't protest.

[Assembly Hall]

How many countries have facilities ready to host an Olympics and/or a World Cup? Hardly anyone bids for the Winter games anymore. Canada, the U.S., France, Germany, England, maybe Italy and possibly Japan, China and Australia could host a World Cup without having to build a lot of new stadiums. As for the Summer games, L.A. could do it. Boston wanted to but thought better of it .Most U.S. cities capable of hosting the games would face a taxpayer uprising with how much it costs to host them and the logistical problems that come with them. Other places that could host have already done it recently so the IOC would be reluctant to go back so soon. If the IOC has the whole pool of nations interested in hosting all they need is a plan and a lot of money. You might get countries like North Korea hosting because they could raise the money and the population wouldn't protest.

I see what you are saying Chip. But I just think that having facilities in place should be the #1 criteria.

[Chip R]

I see what you are saying Chip. But I just think that having facilities in place should be the #1 criteria.

It should be but it obviously isn't. The #1 criteria is $$$$$.

[Assembly Hall]

It should be but it obviously isn't. The #1 criteria is $$$$$.

Sooner or later the well is gonna dry up.

[Yachtzee]

How many countries have facilities ready to host an Olympics and/or a World Cup? Hardly anyone bids for the Winter games anymore. Canada, the U.S., France, Germany, England, maybe Italy and possibly Japan, China and Australia could host a World Cup without having to build a lot of new stadiums. As for the Summer games, L.A. could do it. Boston wanted to but thought better of it .Most U.S. cities capable of hosting the games would face a taxpayer uprising with how much it costs to host them and the logistical problems that come with them. Other places that could host have already done it recently so the IOC would be reluctant to go back so soon. If the IOC has the whole pool of nations interested in hosting all they need is a plan and a lot of money. You might get countries like North Korea hosting because they could raise the money and the population wouldn't protest.

A World Cup? A lot of countries have a good number of soccer stadiums to host a World Cup. Some of them may need to be updated, but that shouldn't cost as much as the current way they do things, which is to give it to countries who plan on just building whole new set of state-of-the-art stadia, regardless of whether the locale actually needs a new stadium. The other option for the World Cup is to follow the Japan/South Korea lead and allow more joint bids so that countries like Switzerland and Austria or the Netherlands and Belgium, who don't necessarily need 10 stadiums that seat 50,000 fans, might be more inclined to bid.

For the Summer games, I think that, again, there are plenty of large cities around the world that have the basic sporting infrastructure to host a games by merely updating many existing facilities and then building new ones only if necessary. It might also be wise to consider allowing cities to enter joint bids to spread some of the costs out. I also think the IOC should take a lot of the money they bring in through sponsorships and create an investment fund that can be used to provide capital to help defray the costs for host cities. With all the sponsorship and TV money the Olympics bring in, there should be absolutely no reason for the IOC to put all the burden of hosting a games on the host city.

The Winter Games should definitely be one where host cities are required to have facilities in place before a bid, just because it's so ridiculous to give the Winter Games to a country that then has to basically tear up the surrounding mountains and forest just to build facilities where there is no guaranteed need for such facilities. Sochi isn't just a disaster because of how much Putin spent on the games, but also because there's no guarantee that Sochi will ever have consistent snow and cold weather to justify having a ski area and a luge/bobsled track there. I think the IOC should just consider rotating between existing sites like Vancouver, SLC, Lake Placid, Innsbruck, Garmisch, Cortina, Turin, Grenoble, Lillehammer, Sapporo/Nagano, . . . have your pick of previous hosts. If a new site wants to be considered, they need to have a site study done and have, at the minimum, a ski area that can host the alpine events already in place.

[Chip R]

A World Cup? A lot of countries have a good number of soccer stadiums to host a World Cup. Some of them may need to be updated, but that shouldn't cost as much as the current way they do things, which is to give it to countries who plan on just building whole new set of state-of-the-art stadia, regardless of whether the locale actually needs a new stadium.

But isn't that the problem? Doesn't FIFA basically mandate countries build state of the art stadiums for the World Cup? For example, let's say England won the bid to host the World Cup. Theoretically they could host it ASAP since they have plenty of stadiums with over 50K capacity that could have games in it. Just going off Wikipedia, there's City of Manchester Stadium; Emirates in London, Old Trafford in Manchester; St. James Park in Newcastle; Stadium of Light in Sunderland is 49K. That's not even including Wembley. But if FIFA has their way, they would mandate England build several new stadiums.


I also think the IOC should take a lot of the money they bring in through sponsorships and create an investment fund that can be used to provide capital to help defray the costs for host cities. With all the sponsorship and TV money the Olympics bring in, there should be absolutely no reason for the IOC to put all the burden of hosting a games on the host city.


There is. Money. As I said before, if you're a IOC member who's been lining your pockets because of this process, why in the world would you want to stop it? If you are using money that is going into your pocket for facilities construction, that's less money for you so why would you want to do it? It's similar to how MLB wants the public to fund stadium construction except that the corruption angle doesn't play there. I thought when the Marlins were having trouble getting financing for a new stadium that MLB should have loaned them some money to do that. As it turned out it wasn't necessary but in theory it's not a bad idea.

I think we agree that countries who either have the facilities or just need upgrades on current ones should host the World Cup and the Olympics - especially the Winter games. But I guess I'm the cynic that is saying it isn't going to happen because FIFA and the IOC love their kickbacks so much they have no reason to change the status quo. Maybe have their bribes more under the table but other than that, why would they change things since the current system has served them so well?

[Assembly Hall]

Liked that last paragraph Chip. Maybe it is time to step up to the status quo? I sure as hell believe this country will.