world atlas

Regarding Kenya. I don't know if Sebastian Coe/IAAF (well I'm more used to call them by their old name) did adopt the current Bach/IOC policy. for many reasons Kenya is not part of the "safe" list where the IOC and other sports federations can hold their main/biggest championships peacefully with the focus is only on sports. Kenya is still facing many developing world problems like poverty, inequality, corruption ..etc. these wikipedia articles can give you some insight of the nation current situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Kenya and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Kenya in other words Kenya might be considered by some organizations "not ready yet" to host a first tier sports event. also they lag behind regarding LGBT rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Kenya being gay is still illegal, and there is very little acceptance for LGBT people by the Kenyan society. Nairobi was bidding for the 2025 championships but the Stadium, Airport, Roads and Transportations are not up to par with previous hosts. sports-wise they had a recent doping problem: https://athleticsweekly.com/blog/searching-for-a-cure-for-the-kenyan-doping-epidemic-1039962029/ nevertheless despite not having top notch facilities and infrastructure, Kenyans can deliver a very good tournament organizational wise. but World Athletics needs to make sure other governments and NGOs won't use their championships to drive the focus to the problems and challenges that are facing Kenya. and that the international media in general and the sports media covering the event would focus only on athletes and sports achievements. and use the event to introduce other people and nations form around the world to know the African and Kenyan cultures and achievements. so if World Athletics are ready to face the challenges and the risks they can go ahead and award the 2027/29 championships to Nairobi.

now we reach the Winter Olympics future and the rotation pool idea. unlike summer sports which can be played anywhere in the world year-around and most of them are known for most of humanity and are popular in many parts of the world. most winter sports reach is limited to its homelands where it were invented and other parts of the planet that have long winters and alot of snow. even if the IOC focused on Climate Change as the main reason to create the rotation pool I see a much bigger picture of the winter sports as a whole present and future. I have two suggestions the first is somehow wild but this forum is made for such ideas nevertheless if such ideas adopted and implemented it could change the world of winter sports. 1- the IOC and winter sports IFs collaborates to create a "Winter Sports Host Association". every IF start a dialogue with all its member states about all possible venues of every sport under their jurisdiction to identify all possible hosts of their championships around the world. every IF creates its own pool of hosts that contain all the venues and locations that can host the championships of their respective sports. in their turn the IOC creates it's own Winter Olympics hosts pool that includes all possible arrangements for the multi-sport event. this association could grow to a forum that is a platform for all stakeholders (IOC, national winter sports federations, international winter sports federations, host cities and regions, athletes, sponsors ..etc) to discuss all things winter sports calendars, best locations for their sports, venues conditions, athletes welfare, spectators issues, marketing and development ..etc. any city/region/venue can apply any time to join the IF pool thought a bid by their national federation. if they meet the basic requirements they will be added to the pool after that they can bid for a specific tournament and go through another evaluation to assess if they are the best option for that specific year event in the same way the old bidding process work. 2- my second suggestion is more in line with what the IOC currently propose lets call it "Olympic Winter Games Hosts Association". the first step is an initiative by the IOC to identify all possible locations for winter sports around the world in collaboration with winter sports IFs then start a negotiations with all NOCs that can host winter sports events. in their turn every NOC would work to identify all possible venues for all of the winter sports in their territory and start the negotiations with the leaders of possible host cities and regions and the venues operators. after that every city/region in collaboration with their respective NOC make a bid to join the initial pool list. after the IOC or specifically it's winter olympics host commission confirm the initial list an new era would start. any new city/region can apply to join this pool of hosts in a way similar to the old application phase they need to meet the basic requirements. but unlike the old bidding process these basic requirements are not purely technical, for example it could include: - the minimum temperature during the last 10 years rule and the availability of the natural snow with a comprehensive study on artificial snow making in a sustainable and environmentally friendly way. all participants should agree that there would be a re-evaluation of the snow availability and minimum temperature every 5 to 10 years and that they may be removed from the list if they do not meet the criteria anymore. - venues availability and its use a comprehensive evaluation should be made by the sport IF to determine if the venue is suitable for their sport and if it can be used in a sustainable way. - environmental impact and issues should be discussed with local population, government and NGOs to ensure that there won't be any environmental opposition locally and internationally. - in case of rotation or even without it there should be guarantees and a defined plan to use the venues year around for multi-purpose city venues or when possible for snow venues by hosting local, continental, international sports competitions or other cultural, economic and social events. - there should be a good interest in winter sports in the host nations, with venues hosting national, continental, and international events regularly that are well attended with fans and spectators that knows the sports its rules and athletes and follow it passionately. - local issues are important the situation of the citizens, social, economic, environmental issues that face the nation, human rights record, government local and international policies to ensure it's the right time for the country to host and that the IOC won't face any criticisms locally or internationally because of the host nation/s. for the pool I think it's time for at least the Winter Olympics to make the shift from host cities/regions to host countries. any NOC in the list should have one city/region at least and can add more venues at any time but new locations should enter the application phase in a bid to the IOC's winter host commission to join the pool under its NOC supervision. for example the USOPC could have SLC initially in the list but Denver can bid any time later to join the pool and this apply to all other NOCs. any new NOC can apply to join the pool at any time. in the candidature phase the IOC winter olympics commission invite all the NOCs in the pool to make bids for a specific edition around 10 to 7 years before the games. the pool should include both the countries that have all the facilities to host alone and the countries that have some facilities and wants to be a co-host. there are five technically viable hosts outside Europe : Canada, the US, Japan, Korea, China. possible initial pool members from Europe: France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Norway. the list of NOCs that can only be a co-host: Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia and maybe Czechia. other NOCs that can join later: Sweden, Spain, Russia also Georgia, Ukraine,Turkey, Finland, Bosnia and Herzegovina can try to join if they meet the requirements. in the Candidature phase for a specific editions that only the NOCs in the pool can bid for the projects and proposals could be flexible and open for all possibilities. for example France can make different proposals every time they bid one edition could be centered around Albertville the next time Annecy could be the main city then they could host with Italy another time with Switzerland and so on. it won't be a fixed list of cities that host again and again in the same venues. so my idea of the "rotating" pool that it would be a list of the countries that meet the basic requirements to host Winter sports events/ Winter Olympics. there is the accommodation issue how much new "Olympic Villages" they need to build and it's always part of the legacy problem even under the old system. if its the time to scrap the olympic village tradition and accommodate the athletes in some type of hotels and hostels so what about the spectators? where will they stay? the IOC needs to find a way to accommodate all participants the athletes, delegates, media, spectators, volunteers, employees not so far away from the competition venues. the problem comes if the capacity of the existing hotels and other accommodation options is not enough. I can't think of any solutions right now but this issue needs to be resolved in the near future. I really wish to see my first idea ( a pools/lists of all possible hosts of all winter sports competitions ) see the light some day. but for now the IOC is working on proposals similar to my second suggestion and they could reach the exact same idea in the end and make it a reality or could reach another but similar plan when the future winter hosts commission conclude its current study and re-evaluation of winter sports/winter olympics present situation and its future. Fraser Bullock ( the COO of SLC 2002 and CEO of the Utah-SLC bid for 2030/34) said the rotating pool idea could take years to materialize and I agree with him. we won't see the final rotating pool proposal from the winter hosts commission until after a few years from now maybe well into the first term of the next IOC president. ---------------- from now until the end of Bach presidency in 2025 the highlights regarding the bidding process could be just the selection of the 2030 host or maybe a double allocation for 2030/34. as I said before Sapporo has the perfect conditions and all the required facilities to host anytime they want. if they did not host the 2030 games they will host many times in the future as long as the winter olympics still exist it's just about when they prefer to do so. if some miracle happend and Vancouver returned and the IOC really wants to go there either in 2030 or 2034 so be it. the 2030 selection or 2030/34 double allocation could happen at the 2024 Paris session since at the 2025 session all the focus would be on the IOC presidential election. for 2036 first I think they accelerated the 2032 process for two reasons one of them that John Coates worked with both sides Brisbane and the IOC to finish all the required guarantees and documents as fast as possible before the Tokyo game. the other was the field of bidders they had which were all undesirable they just wanted to take a break from the " dialogue" with them. the only other credible and somehow serious effort would led them to be under a referendum mercy so it was like give it to the safest and most credible bid then take a long break after they guaranteed the stability of the summer games until 2032. currently they do not have any "safe" option that reached an advanced stage for 2036 also Bach ended his duty by selecting the 2032 host which means the next summer host won't be confirmed until the 2027 session at the earliest. there will be just a few months between the new president election and the Milano/Cortina games so I'm not expecting much from the 2026 session. right now the IOC are focusing on Paris 2024 after that the most important event would be the 2025 presidential elections. the most important question for us here is if there would be any suggestions regarding the future of the bidding process from the presidential candidates. who is the next IOC president ? is he/she from the current close Bach allies in the IOC? or other member that may have a different views and plans for the future of the Olympics? would they continue with Bach legacy? go back to how it was before Bach? or have some new and different plans altogether? regarding the bidding process would they keep the dialogue/targeted phases for the summer games and continue exploring and then implementing the winter olympics hosts pool idea? also would they continue to play it safe by awarding the games to a handful of " safe" countries like what Bach did?or they would be brave enough to start new adventures by going to new regions in the world and face all the controversies, problems and criticisms that could come with that? the most important questions in the world of the Olympics from now till the 2025 IOC session are about the identity of the next president. then in the first few months and years of their presidency questions and speculations would be what would be kept and what would be changed from Bach era. especially regarding all the new norm stuff. ------------

Before I add my suggestion for the winter games rotation I want to share my view about the new norm. I can't understand why some people are so fiercely against any new ideas that are out of the box such as the new norm bidding process and the winter olympics hosts rotation pool. they just believe in the old system and think it should continue regardless of its deficiencies and problems. first let's go back to 2013 when Bach was elected as president. he inherited a heavy legacy from Rogge when giving major sports events to new frontiers was a trend. the first challenge he faced was the 2022 bidding process which started at the end of Rogge era. at the time and for the next decade the IOC faced a lot of challenges that are unnecessary unwanted and unneeded. Corruption, Construction of new venues, environmental challenges, and a lot of critical reactions from governments and NGOs about human rights situation in some of the host countries. the IOC is a sports organization and such challenges drove them away from their main purpose. here where the new norm agenda comes to the surface. Bach, Coates, Samaranch Jr, Dubi and others worked to produce a new bidding process that eliminate the possibility of selecting a "challenging" hosts and making sure that the IOC leadership select the safest possible host in every cycle they got tired of journalists asking them about human rights, environmental issues, political issues. NGOs accuse them of corruption and condemning the way they choose a host, government officials refusing to attend the games, and the worst NOCs and athletes threatening to boycott the olympics. and in some instances they had to follow and supervise a lot of new construction projects that were necessary for a successful delivery of the games. some of the projects were delayed, others weren't ready before the games, and others (Sochi 2014) had corruption issues with the Russian government and construction companies contracts. all that plus a lot of white elephants in many cities after the games. as aforementioned the IOC is an international sports organization that has no authority over governments and they can't change policies or intervene in any local issues or any government foreign policies but they can choose who host their events. the olympics that they had more problems with and had the most challenges Sochi 2014, Rio 2016, Beijing 2022 were elected democratically by the majority of the IOC members. to limit the risk that changed and now it's in the hand of the IOC EB to avoid any problems by choosing the safest candidates. the legacy of these policies will be seen in the near future like Vancouver 2010 and London 2012 the focus in the lead up, during, and after Paris 2024/ Milano-Cortina 2026/ LA 2028/ Brisbane 2032 will be on sports and athletes without any unrelated issues intervention as it should be in such events. that is my understanding of the the new norm and what Bach and the other leaders in the IOC wants. I'm personally not fond for this new reality and much less enthusiast for the next few hosts France, Italy, the US, Australia hosts many sports events in almost all summer sports regularly and in many sports like Tennis, Cycling, Athletics, Motorsports ..etc annually. so they are well known for the average sports followers unlike when some event held in a new lands especially a world championships or an Olympics which get much more attention so people get excited to see a different culture and environment. -------- There is a new reality facing the IOC it's not any more about who convince the majority of the IOC members that their bid is the best. the merit of the bid is the priority not only technically but also regarding the environment, human rights, political aspects and the international relations of the bidding country/countries. and that includes avoiding any unwanted drama that could spoil the party so everything goes well in a peaceful way by focusing on sports, competitions, athletes and other cultural events held during the games. so the new norm is about the quality not quantity. as PR campaign they may show how many nations are interested to host the olympics to show how it's still a lucrative business but they know well that only the safest selected few will host it in the end. I focused on the unannounced reason that led to the new norm agenda that has long negative impact on the games which start when the IOC announce the host and last many years even decades after the games ends. I agree with the IOC regarding the bidding process time problems such as the public and private money wasted for more than two years of marketing and promotion during the bid campaign and the waste of time and effort of many people involved in a failed bid while they can use this time to do more impactful work that has long lasting impact in other aspects of their life. people around the world are becoming more aware that money wasted on such bid campaigns can be used much more wisely and have a much better impact in many aspects of life instead. some people argue that bid campaigns have their merits and benefits but I personally tend to the other opinion that the cons overwhelm the pros and that the wasted money,time and effort can't be overlooked. now let's go back to the selection of the last few Olympics in the Bach era. first the 2022 bidding process when they were left with Beijing and Almaty. the old bidding process was rigid and not flexible so they could not extend it or open it again for any new bidders and they were obliged to select a host in their 2015 session. so they could not try to start a negotiation with any other suitable and ready city ( ex. SLC or Vancouver) to rescue them from the Beijing vs Almaty dilemma after Oslo withdrew. also the evaluation was pure technical and doesn't take environmental, social and political aspects into consideration. so they could not reject Beijing and Almaty because of human rights concerns or Krakow because of the LGBT situation in Poland. this could apply also to countries that have other issues for example they couldn't tell India, Indonesia, brazil and others that their priority should be on social issues like poverty, inequality, helping their citizens in many natural disasters they face regularly, building basic infrastructure related to Healthcare, Education and Transportation, provide jobs and homes for many citizens in need ..etc instead of spending billions on the Olympic two weeks party as their leading politicians wants. this could trigger a backlash from these countries on how politics should not intervene in sports. but in such global events the IOC knew that the reality is different and spotlight would be on these issues in the lead up and during the games. and many other governments officials,NGOs and media will blame the IOC even if their event has nothing to do with these problems. so how not to blatantly reject bids from such countries? what they are doing is either tell them that behind closed doors or just ignore them as they did for 2032 the IOC is an international sports organization they can not adopt any political views or support some countries/organizations against others and need to have a good relations with all of it's NOC members in the name of sports. so when they reject a good bid technically because of social or political issues they prefer it to be behind closed doors or indirectly instead of the face to face way. for 2024 looks like they wanted Paris/France to host a summer olympics after a 100 years. it's just the time to host the olympics again in Baron Pierre hometown and the birthplace of the modern olympic movement and it seems that Bach is fond of Paris/France. for 2028 it's USA time. the US is a main partner for the IOC and maintaining the popularity,viewership and sponsorship by hosting the games there from time to time is a priority. requesting an excellent bid ( in the IOC eyes) coming in a perfect time to wait to enter a new separate bidding process would be time wasting because LA would be the favorite anyway. 2026 was a miracle, let's remember how it happened. when Rome 2024 withdrew their bid because then mayor Virginia Raggi didn't support it. mayor of Milan Giuseppe Sala stepped in and offered his city to replace Rome in the bid for 2024 and we all know that was not possible under the old bidding process. in the next few months Giovanni Malago (CONI president and IOC member) and Sala tried to partner with northern Italy regions Piedmont, Lombardy and Veneto to make a bid for the 2026 games. first it was to be called Alpi 2026 (Southern Alps/Northern Italy). but then Piedmont withdrew so the new idea of Milano Cortina 2026 was born less than a year before the 2019 IOC session when the IOC were in a dire situation seeing other candidates dropping like flies. Malago and Sala along with Attilio Fontana President of Lombardy, Luca Zaia President of Venteo and then mayor of Cortina d'Ampezzo led the new effort with other regions and cities in northern Italy. the idea of the opening ceremony in San Siro and the closing in Verona Arena (which they included in their bid book) was a sign of this collaboration between the two regions of Lombardy and Veneto that made this bid possible and later the games a reality. like the Paris 2024 bid it was led by politicians benefiting from that referendums on such matters isn't part of Italy's political culture unlike their northern neighbours. for 2032 there were many undesirable candidates for the reasons aforementioned. the best on the table were Australia and Germany and we all know that the IOC doesn't like to be under the mercy of the Germans and their binding referendums. so why wait for years to know if the germans will eventually make an official bid or not and if any other serious and credible bid would come later when they have Brisbane. regardless of the role John Coates played for them. Brisbane 2032 was an example of the safe and perfect bid that the IOC wants at this stage. technically viable, supported by Brisbane, Queensland and the Federal Government and it looks like the majority of Australians are either supporting or neutral towards the games. with low to medium ecological, social, and political risk in the long term. this is Bach policy, just award it to the safest and most credible candidate that won't lead you to controversies in the lead up and during the games and the earlier the better. ----------------- for 2030 and 2034. in Sapporo the idea to bid for the games again started after Tokyo won the right to host 2020 and Beijing 2022. since Sapporo has the capacity to host any time I don't know what is their reason to target 2026/2030. do they think it's time for Japan to host the winter games after Tokyo 2020 or because their neighbors Korea and China hosted recently they think it's their turn now. Katsuhiro Akimoto was elected mayor of Sapporo in 2015 just a few months before Beijing was chosen as the 2022 host. Sapporo was preparing to host the 2017 Asian Winter Games, later during that games Akimoto declared that Sapporo would bid to host the 2026 winter olympics then they withdrew that bid and started the current 2030 effort. it's a political initiative that is supported by businesses and it seems that they are still struggling to convince the general public. they have the most suitable city to host a winter olympics so if not 2030 they can host any time later so I think they could host it 3 or 4 times from now till 2100. for the Vancouver 2030 last minute effort that is indigenous-led. maybe it's from local or Canadian perspective the First Nation idea is something good or different in some way. but I'm not convinced about what is the relation between a global sports event like the winter olympics and the reconciliation between the Canadian Government and the First Nations of Canada/British Columbia? it's a local issue that has nothing to do with a global sports event that is for the whole world with athletes and delegations from more than 100 nations that have different cultures and histories. what's the relation between winter sports and athletes and the Canadian reconciliation effort ? they are not part of the Canadian history and have nothing to do with what happened during the last few centuries in Canada and the relation between early European colonizers and the later worldwide immigration after Canada became an independent country and the First Nations. the past can't be changed and the land won't return to the indigenous nations and tribes, better to showcase the new immigrant nation diversity and thats includes the indigenous people. for the the reconciliation efforts they can use many local cultural event or a Canadian Games with a focus on what is known today as Canada from the earliest human settlement and First Nations earlier culture and accomplishments and their later interaction with the Europeans and other newcomers. for such First Nation initiative a Pan American Games could be better suited since most American Nations have a similar history and are all mix of the first settlers (indigenous people), Europeans who discovered these lands and settled around 600 years ago and later immigrants from all over the world who came later after the independence of the American nation states. now we reach Salt Lake City. similar to Sapporo the bid is led by politicians and businesses and supported by Utah Governor Spencer Cox and SLC Mayor Erin Mendenhall but unlike Sapporo it's popular and supported by locals, Utahns, and Americans. it seems that there is some opposition but it's not big enough to challenge the bid. since we know the conflict with LA 2028 and the possible sponsorship loses if SLC host the 2030 games so the USOC prefers 2034 it has been always the question of double award. if it was any other candidate I wouldn't see a reason for a double award, it's more about when North America would host again. the US a main partner and participant and where winter sports is popular and have history didn't host for a while and by 2034 it would be 32 years since they last hosted. also it would be 24 years since Vancouver hosted, so when will the winter games go back to North America? when Bach said that they will award 2030 alone ( assuming it will go to Sapporo) I wondered why would they keep SLC waiting till 2027 session or at least till the Milano-Cortina games after the election of the new president. what will the SLC-Utah bid committee do until then? why not just award it to them now or reject them if they want someone else? Bach policy during his tenure is clear. the games will always be awarded to the safest and most credible bid whenever that bid come. some people add China to the possible Olympic hosts list in the near future because understandably they are technically capable. but seeing how things changed in the last decade and how social and environmental issues, human rights and international relations become more prominent and given a lot of spotlight in the lead up and during the games also knowing that Bach and his colleagues didn't want Beijing for the 2022 games but the rigid old bidding process forced it on them I think it will take long time before they have a new chance and that's depends on either regime change in China or new IOC leadership that has different views on such issues. I think the problems the IOC faced with Sochi 2014 and Beijing 2022 were some of the main drivers for the emergence of the new norm agenda such as the flexible and open dialogue which allow them to wait until a good candidate come and give them a chance to initiate a dialogue with any city they prefer at any time if all of the candidates don't meet the expectations and the transfer of power to selecting host cities from the IOC members to their Executive Board. so if they continue with Bach policy the only possible hosts in the foreseeable future are cities and regions in Western Europe, the US and Canada, New Zealand and Australia, Japan and South Korea. and that will continue until a new leadership are ready to host anywhere else in the world and be brave enough to face controversies and criticisms. ------------------

The Torch : Torch Tour :