Jump to content

Is Ioc's Way Of Picking Host City Penny-wise & Pound-foolish?


Recommended Posts

I put this out there...

After the scandals connected with the choice of Salt Lake City boiled over, the IOC decreed that IOC members cannot travel to the candidate cities -- a smaller, chosen body (the Evaluation Commission) would do the recon job. Further, to cut down on the extravagant spending of the interested cities, a SHortlist wold be made limiting the number to 5 or less.

Yet, just looking at the last two Summer races, is the more controlled and supposedly financially leaner way in which the IOC conducts the race really the wisest, fairest, and produces the best result.

For 2012, I think the five cities may have spent an average of $30 million each, leading up to that vote in Singapore. So at least $150 million was spent by the five finalists. For 2014, it is rumored that PyongChang spent about $40 mil, and Sochi close to $55 mil. For 2016, Chicago's war chest is about $45 mil, and I don't think the other 3-gov't-backed bids are any less. So even with 4 candidates, it's probably closer to $200 million when all is said and done. $200 million! Why, you already could have built TWO spanking stadia with that amount right there! Instead it's all going to brochures and film clips and who knows what other peripheral stuff??

But will they pick the right city? Wouldn't it have been cheaper and more expedient to have the 100 or so IOC members ACTUALLY visit the cities -- even with the IOC paying their travel expenses -- which they can certainly afford. So, say, even at 100 members, with their spouses, budgeted at $10K each, that alone would be just about $1,000,000 per city x 4 visits = just $4 million (or just for those who want to) -- compared to the nearly $200 million the 4 cities are spending to try to sell their candidacy via the filtered lens of the Evaluation Commission? What is $4 million to the IOC? Probably 20 days' interest on all their cash holdings.

What will each candidate city be spending in future races? Factor in inflation, and it will always be more expensive in the next round. And only one will be picked.

As for temptations for the IOC members, what's stopping the candidates from tempting the Evaluation Commission members? Instead, I think the cities should declare what gifts, items they want to give to visiting IOC members -- clear it with the IOC. And if illicit gifts are given and THOSE ARE ALWAYS FOUND OUT ANYWAY, drop the unethical city from the list. They will ALL comply if that is the penalty.

But picking a city from someone else's recommendation is really quite suspect. I wouldn't buy it.

Right now, the whole process is ASS-BACKWARDS!!

Your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do feel that the current model the IOC has established is by no means perfect, and probably will never be. I think IOC members should be allowed to visit the bid cities, as it can give them a true feel for what they have to offer. I think cities like mine suffer under this pretext, as the majority of IOC members have not been to Chicago, let alone knew much about it before this contest. I can understand their concerns for bribes, but there should be ways to enforce this, but not cut their travel.

The amount of money spent on the bids alone will only increase from here. Obama raised $745 million dollars just to be elected president. That is staggering, but in this age of media and organization costs like this will become more ordinary.

I think one of the main componets needed in the vote is to have more diversity and numbers. 100 or so people should not be the only ones to choose a host for the Olympics. I think a larger pool of voters would be more appropriate and fair (the group comprised of sports leaders and based on participation from countries in the Olympics. Sure, one would think bid expenses would go up, but having so many people would actually minimize the threat of bribery, as it would be more difficult to bribe 1,500 to 2,000 people - opposed to 100.

* I am no expert about how the IOC chooses its current delegates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the main componets needed in the vote is to have more diversity and numbers. 100 or so people should not be the only ones to choose a host for the Olympics. I think a larger pool of voters would be more appropriate and fair (the group comprised of sports leaders and based on participation from countries in the Olympics. Sure, one would think bid expenses would go up, but having so many people would actually minimize the threat of bribery, as it would be more difficult to bribe 1,500 to 2,000 people - opposed to 100.

100 or so may seem small but I think that is about right. The larger you make it, the more unwieldy it gets. It's also easier to keep track or who's doing what; who's getting rich all of a sudden, etc. :blink: And then those IOC sessions would again, only go to the mega-large cities that can host larger events.

They should just make the membership more diverse, with TRUE sportspeople, business people, TECHNICAL/Logistics AND CEREMONIES people -- and LESS Europeans. None of these shieks and Princesses and rich grandees with big plantations. How have they really benefited the Olympic movement anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should just make the membership more diverse, with TRUE sportspeople, business people, TECHNICAL/Logistics AND CEREMONIES people -- and LESS Europeans.

Perhaps Europeans should keep control whilst those from the colonies continue to use the word 'less' when they really mean 'fewer'. I think that's probably best. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...