Jump to content

What Will Be The Biggest Impact: Rio, Chicago, Tokyo Or Madrid?


Cauê

Recommended Posts

Hola everyone,

All in Madrid are waiting for you.

Madrid is the 12th city of the world in quality life.

Madrid has one of the best night life of Europe.

Madrid has some of the most important museums of the world.

Madrid has the best public transport of Europe.

Spain is the prefer country for European tourist and Madrid was last year the city most visited.

The people in Madrid is marvellous, more than 400000 of them was in a party in the Cibeles square last sunday for Madrid2016.

Say Madrid is say Real Madrid, the best Football club of the world and the best basketball club of Europe in the 20th Century.

We are falling in love for the Olympic games.

We love you.

Olympic games of 2016 for Madrid.

Hala Madrid!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4????? In 32 years?????

My God... :o

Why again in 2016? Absurd.

If it's against IOC rules, then they would've said so -- right??

Why? Because Chicago offers a MORE COMPACT plan where you don't have to travel 50 mins to get to your venue...unlike our Rio where our car ran out of gas going from the Village site to the Indoor Volleyball venue because it was sooooooooooooooo faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rio bid is the riskiest, but it's also the bid with the biggest potential upside. I think a Rio Olympics would be more compelling than the alternatives. Rio clearly has the most enthusiasm behind its' bid, and its' argument for the hosting the games most clearly fulfills the Olympic mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A meritocracy only operates fully when there's a level playing field. Economically and culturally there isn't: the bid process is skewed in favour of nations with larger corporates bases upon which to draw, and a decidely eurocentric notion of youth, sport and culture.

Rather than meritocracy, selection of an OG should be based on two criteria:

  1. Which cities could realistically deliver a first-class Games (the candidate cities, in other words)
  2. Which city, based on a range of subjective qualitative criteria convince enough IOC members to support their bid.

If it was a meritocracy ever, 2012 would be Paris, 2014 would be Pyeonchang, 2008 would've been Toronto....

The argument mightn't be fair with regard to the world cup, but it's what a lot of people feel, including me. Would I want to see Brazil host so something massive again so soon? Not if I had the choice, I'd rather Rio waited and hosted 8 or 12 years later.

The concept of universality is great, but more important is the notion of a meritocracy. Gold medals aren't given to just anyone because their nation hasn't won one before. The same goes for the bidding process. Rio must prove it's better than the bids which happen to be from countries that have hosted before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A meritocracy only operates fully when there's a level playing field. Economically and culturally there isn't: the bid process is skewed in favour of nations with larger corporates bases upon which to draw, and a decidely eurocentric notion of youth, sport and culture.

Rather than meritocracy, selection of an OG should be based on two criteria:

  1. Which cities could realistically deliver a first-class Games (the candidate cities, in other words)
  2. Which city, based on a range of subjective qualitative criteria convince enough IOC members to support their bid.

If it was a meritocracy ever, 2012 would be Paris, 2014 would be Pyeonchang, 2008 would've been Toronto....

When I used the word "better" in my last post I didn't mean in purely technical terms and nor did I mean that this meritocracy should only take into account technical aspects.

In other words, I don't disagree with anything you've just written.

My post was purely in response to those who bang on and on and universality as though it were the only thing that matters. It wasn't aimed at clearly reasonable members like yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. :)

When I used the word "better" in my last post I didn't mean in purely technical terms and nor did I mean that this meritocracy should only take into account technical aspects.

In other words, I don't disagree with anything you've just written.

My post was purely in response to those who bang on and on and universality as though it were the only thing that matters. It wasn't aimed at clearly reasonable members like yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rio bid is the riskiest, but it's also the bid with the biggest potential upside. I think a Rio Olympics would be more compelling than the alternatives. Rio clearly has the most enthusiasm behind its' bid, and its' argument for the hosting the games most clearly fulfills the Olympic mission.

Finally a coherent comment :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rio bid is the riskiest, but it's also the bid with the biggest potential upside. I think a Rio Olympics would be more compelling than the alternatives. Rio clearly has the most enthusiasm behind its' bid, and its' argument for the hosting the games most clearly fulfills the Olympic mission.

It's true.

Perfect :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, let me say that this topic would have made more sense in the General Bid thread.

While I believe that Rio hosting the 2016 Games would have an impact on Rio, I do not see it having a major impact on the rest of the world. The foundation of Brazil's bid is proving that they are a "major player" on the international scene. It is about asserting their desire for attention and respect. Brazil is not trying to demonstrate "the triumph of the little guy", they are trying to prove that they are "one of the big guys." I can see how this might be in Brazil's best interests, but I do not see it as a gift to the world.

Chicago 2016 is about repairing some of the damage that has been done to the relationships between the United States and the international community. The focus of the bid is not on celebrating ourselves, but celebrating the rest of the world -- embracing diversity with sensitivity and warmth. That is why the theme for the bid is "Let Friendship Shine." I do think this is a worthy goal for an Olympic bid and I think it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the Olympic Movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Athensfan,

Changing the image of USA in the world is more important than opening the doors of the Olympic Movimente to the new continent?

First question: The image of USA is already better with Obama.

Second question: If the image of USA has suffered in the last years with President Bush, which the South Americans have about it? Use the games for it, is the typical American arrogance.

USA for the 9th time for this reason is absurd...

Sorry for my English, but the essence of the message is transmitted here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Athensfan,

Changing the image of USA in the world is more important than opening the doors of the Olympic Movimente to the new continent?

First question: The image of USA is already better with Obama.

Second question: If the image of USA has suffered in the last years with President Bush, which the South Americans have about it? Use the games for it, is the typical American arrogance.

USA for the 9th time for this reason is absurd...

Sorry for my English, but the essence of the message is transmitted here.

the US could have hosted the olympics many times, but every city is like a new country, a whole new new culture, I would go against if the games was held to cities in the same region of other Olympic cities but the past bids has been very spread out. if Chicago doesnt win, there could be a possible New England bid, I guess the only US region which haven't bidded yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caue --

There's a difference between "changing an image" and repairing relationships. There's a difference between celebrating yourself and celebrating others.

If anybody is trying to "use" the Olympics to "change their image" it is Brazil -- Lula has come out and said so repeatedly.

Finally, several of the U.S. hostings have been because NO OTHER COUNTRY WANTED TO HOST. It's not like we were stealing the Games, we were the only ones willing to take them.

I want Rio to host and I want the Games to visit new frontiers, but I do not think that 2016 is the right time.

There are three reasons:

1.) All Brazil's focus is on gaining recognition as an international player. As near as I can tell, the Olympics are only a tool that Lula can use to that end.

2.) The enthusiasm generated by the 2014 World Cup is likely to cast a shadow over the Olympics which are far less popular in Brazil.

3.) The attitude surrounding the bid is extremely unappealing: "You better give us what's rightfully ours."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q. What Will Be The Biggest Impact: Rio, Chicago, Tokyo Or Madrid?

This is a difficult question.

-If Rio won the Olympics then of course the 'New Frontier' angle would carry a lot of weight and create impact in terms of marketing and identity.

-If Chicago won, then the games would be viewed as another 'victory' for Barack Obama. It would be like a reward from the world given to his home town. Again, this would give huge marketing potential.

-If Madrid won, it would be a celebration of Mediterranean, Latin, Hispanic cultures. This too would have huge marketing potential.

-If Rio won, then it would be a hi-tech, futuristic type games which would appeal to a digital age. Again, the appeal of the Orient would have marketing potential.

Each city brings it's own unique flavour to the games. However, I think Chicago's games would be the most visible worldwide due to Barack Obama and the 'Obama-effect'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think another reason why the US has hosted so many Games is the inconsistent financial performance of many OCs. Particularly after LA 1984, the US's reputation has been they can pull in the money much more easily than anyone else. China's proved otherwise, though.

And the TV ad marketing/broadcasting rights cannot be underestimated, particularly for SOGs. Though Brazil is now the only country besides Canada and Mexico to make a compelling case in this regard. TV Globo is like the 5th largest TV network in the world or something.

It'll either be Rio by a large margin, or a close vote between Rio and Chicago. Obama might seal the deal--one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^

Interesting perspective. I suspect you're exactly right. Either Rio will run away with it or it will be very close between Rio and Chicago and either one could win. I suspect that if Obama had not gone to Copenhagen, it would've been the former scenario, but I'm not so sure anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...