Would you support a permanent Olympic host?

[LuigiVercotti]

Absolutely not - it would be the quickest way to kill the games off completely.

And don't forget the Olympics have seen these "financial crisis" many times over the last 120 years or so. The nature of these things anyway would be should the IOC decide now to award the games from 2020 onwards to one host city, by 2020 the world would be back in a period of growth anyway and the decision would look very stupid.

Also I doubt any city in the World could afford to host the games every 4 years. Venues would still need to be upgraded every decade or two whilst interest from Olympic tourists would surely plummet were the games always in the same city.

Why is it that the hypothetical argument for positioning the Summer games at a permanent venue receives such simplistic and specious antipathy based upon shallow arguments such as the above? I'm no fan, being fascinated by the cultural and political diversity offered by different hosts every four years (and as pointed out by others it'd rapidly kill off the debate and interest in the bidding process) of a permanent home, but to attack the idea on the grounds cited above is just (to paraphrase other posts) stupid.

Consider the 'we'll be back in economic growth and the Olympics have lost money before anyway' anti-permanent host argument. Can anyone guarantee economic prosperity 2 years down the road? 10? 20? 100? Of course not. Or how about the economic sustainability of a games in the context of first world nations versus developing or third world? Is it appropriate for the IOC and the local lobbyists to push for an Olympic games in one host city at the expense of the wider society's economic well being? I wonder how Athenian's feel now about the billions pumped into 2004 which have left little bar unused venues and crippling debt. And this all happened during a relatively prosperous era in the world's recent economic history.

Then, to undermine the point given above that the world will be back in growth in 2020 there is the claim that no city can afford to host the games every four years. Such a contradictory statement ignores the true economic cost of redeveloping new Olympic facilities every four years, as opposed to the permanent value of infrastructure built once and once alone. Economies of scale dictate that once the infrastructure has been put in place there'll be a divergent decrease in cost and an increase in benefit if continually reused. It would be economic lunacy for example to rebuild the Ruhr every four years, or rebuild Singapore harbour every four. But it's considered economically sensible to continually move a huge complex of sporting venues around the world on a quadrennial basis and then say this is the more profitable model.

And yes, venues would need to be upgraded for a permanent host city's venues, but the cost and frequency would be far more manageable than postulated above. Take for an example the MCG, main host stadium for the 1956 games. It has undergone at least two major upgrades in 54 years which were all paid for by a combination of members fees, ticket sales and government support. No one in Melbourne has seen the need to rebuild an entirely new venue for either the 96 bid nor the 2006 CGs. Berlin's Olympische Stadion has had a similar history of redevelopment, as has had the LA Coliseum. Rio's Maracana is looked to as another redeveloped and thus cheaper venue than the moving feast of building stadia after stadia necessitated by many proponents of the globally toured games.

Then there is the 'interest from Olympic tourists would surely plummet were the games always in the same city' argument against a permanent host. By that argument misinterpreting tourist values no one would be interested in returning to Olympia itself, the ancient home of the games, nor any other fixed tourist venue. Yes, there is a significant interest amongst tourists going to the games to experience new cultures, new people. But just as importantly Olympic tourists are going to the games to see the sport, to see Olympic tradition and history. These values will be on display at a permanent host without any problems, and if fact could be enhanced within that context. Remember the interest in Berlin's hosting of the IAAF world championships, with references to Jesse Owens having run at the same venue more than half a century earlier? Imagine how powerful the allure would be to see a new Cathy Freeman win in Sydney 20 years after the first, or a new Carl Lewis in LA.

The Olympics are an international sporting event and not all international sporting events need to be relocated time and time again to attract tourists. By the logic shown above events like the Tour de France, the FA Cup Final, the Indianapolis 500, the Melbourne Cup must be attracting less and less tourists because these permanent hosted events don't supply the same variety of locations as the travelling Olympic show. And in the recent context of the World Cup in South Africa not receiving the expected tourist numbers then there is no guarantee that Olympic tourism will continue to boom around the world.

As I said, I like the idea of the games shifting every four years, but this preference isn't based on quantifiable measurements which can be justified economically. It is justifiable when considering the social and political interest engendered in a globally wandering Olympics; we can all benefit by seeing the games shift from host to host just not in every concrete fiscally responsible way. A permanent host makes lots more sense than the simplistic and stupidly specious arguments offered here make. It's an idea worthy of contemplation and not a sweeping, unsupported 'just say no'. Leave that for the Reaganite approach to drugs

[Sir Rols]

Ah, don't be so hard on him Seb. We're a board for Olympic bid watchers with vested interests in seeing the games go to our favourite personal locations. I'd doubt there'd be much sympathy at the moment at all within the IOC or the world at large for a permanent host, much less here. It's natural we of all groups are gonna be much more knee-jerk against the notion.

I'm not a fan of the idea myself. It probably wouldn't "kill" the games, but it would probably be a whole different feel of an event if that happened. And it's nice that not EVERY fourth cold winter July-August in Sydney I have to get up at 3am in the morning to watch a swimming final or whatever.

[LuigiVercotti]

Ah, don't be so hard on him Seb. We're a board for Olympic bid watchers with vested interests in seeing the games go to our favourite personal locations. I'd doubt there'd be much sympathy at the moment at all within the IOC or the world at large for a permanent host, much less here. It's natural we of all groups are gonna be much more knee-jerk against the notion.

I'm not a fan of the idea myself. It probably wouldn't "kill" the games, but it would probably be a whole different feel of an event if that happened. And it's nice that not EVERY fourth cold winter July-August in Sydney I have to get up at 3am in the morning to watch a swimming final or whatever.

I agree about having vested interests in keeping the games shifting from city to city, and that like you I enjoy the twists and turns in debating what goes where when etc etc. And yes, a permanent host would result in the Olympics having a different feel (in some ways better, in some ways worse). But I find simplistic, irrational and plain uninformed opinion without any consideration of both sides of the argument worse than worthless. Many of us here (and you know who they are) post with an opinion supportable by both real world experience and sound documentary evidence, with some degree of honesty re biases or personal interest on display. Those who just post a grab bag of unsupported 'facts' with no due diligence in examining the topic deserve short shrift. And that goes for any serious debate we have in this forum.

And by the way, if the games did have a permanent host you and I both know that the world would have to adjust to Eastern Australia time anyway

[OneTimeOnly]

well, LA actually had the flying saucer.

Also, if the IOC owned and rented the collapsible stadia (as might be the case for the 2012 basketball arena), then rotating the hostings would be less burdensome for prospective hosts.

L.A. had a man with a jet pack on his back. I don't remember a flying saucer.

[LuigiVercotti]

L.A. had a man with a jet pack on his back. I don't remember a flying saucer.

It was in the closing ceremony from memory...then again the after affects of Lionel Ritchie also performing at LA84 has damaged way too many brain cells to be sure of that.

[baron-pierreIV]

L.A. had a man with a jet pack on his back. I don't remember a flying saucer.

Closing. Check out the OR.

[FYI]

Tulsa should be the permanent host.

[baron-pierreIV]

Tulsa should be the permanent host.

Summer, Winter, Fall and Spring!!

[SkiFreak]

It was in the closing ceremony from memory...then again the after affects of Lionel Ritchie also performing at LA84 has damaged way too many brain cells to be sure of that.

The LA games are the first one I watched (I was 5). I remember Sam the Eagle doing a lap around the track and the lighting of the cauldron during the OC, but I don't remember the CC much. Maybe Lionel Ritchie did fry my brain.

[stir.ts]

Yes, if there is outdoor air conditioning.

[baron-pierreIV]

The LA games are the first one I watched (I was 5). I remember Sam the Eagle doing a lap around the track :

No, Sam actually only ran about 1/8th track (from the Opening to one side exit) to meet Rocketman. After that, he exited. Sam (or the person inside) would've died running a full lap around the track in that costume on a 5 pm Los Angeles July afternoon!!

Actually, Ritchie's performance was one of the more restrained pop performances in an Olympic CLosing so far. U gotta check out Chap 9 of my book!!

[stir.ts]

Lazy 80s Eagle.

[SkiFreak]

Lazy 80s Eagle.

Apparently this is a true fact: BC has more eagles then the whole United States.

[Athensfan]

I voted no, but I agree that the point is worth discussion. Something needs to be done to curtail the ever-expanding costs, number of white elephants, environmental impact, etc.

A single host could easily become complacent and wouldn't necessarily organize the Games well. Plus, the only place that I can imagine people agreeing on is Athens (Greece being the birthplace of the Games) and Athens obviously has its problems. I loved the Games in 2004, but the country clearly doesn't have what it takes to become a "permanent" Games host. Any other city would be politically unworkable. I can't think of a politically neutral "permanent" winter host.

I have thought about the idea of rotating both Summer and Winter Games between four permanent Olympic cities each for a total of 8 cities. I'm think of choosing one Summer and one Winter host from Asia, Europe, North America , and the southern hemisphere. Every 16 years the Games come back. There's transportation in place, Olympic parks, villages, etc. Instead of voting on a new host every four years, the IOC could go through 3 complete 16-year cycles and vote on a new slate of 8 cities every 48 years.

Much as I see some merit to this idea, I recognize that it probably isn't workable either. For one thing, even 16 years is a long time. Would an Olympic layout still be functional 16 years later?

The other big issue with permanent hosts is funding. A country, city, private investors might be willing to fund a one-off extravaganza, but are they going to be willing to do it every 16 years?

Then there's still the issue about deciding who the lucky 8 will be. There would have to be the mother of all bid campaigns to secure those 8 spots (4 for Summer and 4 for Winter). There would also have to be a rule stating that 8 different countries would have to be represented between the 4 Summer and 4 Winter hosts (i.e. if your country wins the right to host a Summer Games, you will not be considered as a potential Winter host.)

Like I said, it's probably not workable, but I think it's better than choosing a single permanent host and it would definitely reduce waste, spending, etc.

Love to hear your thoughts...

[SkiFreak]

Love to hear your thoughts...

Another alternative is to get more cooperation between the various sport organization committees and perhaps hold major events in a country/city within a ten to fifteen year period. Let's use Brasil as an example - sure, there wasn't any cooperation between the organizations when it came time to choose Brasil or Rio, but if it were like this:

2007: Pan American Games

2014: FIFA World Cup

2016: Olympic Summer Games

At least some of the venues get more use out of them this way, but then the problem arises, what happens after 2016? Will a bunch of the venues have padlocks installed like in Athens?

[Sir Rols]

Another alternative is to get more cooperation between the various sport organization committees and perhaps hold major events in a country/city within a ten to fifteen year period. Let's use Brasil as an example - sure, there wasn't any cooperation between the organizations when it came time to choose Brasil or Rio, but if it were like this:

2007: Pan American Games

2014: FIFA World Cup

2016: Olympic Summer Games

At least some of the venues get more use out of them this way, but then the problem arises, what happens after 2016? Will a bunch of the venues have padlocks installed like in Athens?

Well, to a certain degree that's already the strategy that cities like Seoul and Rio and maybe soon South Africa have taken to be able to join the ranks of the Olympic capables.

But it's still no guarantee. Remember Athens used events like the 1997 IAAFs and its existing stadium to "build" its way to hosting.

[FYI]

I have thought about the idea of rotating both Summer and Winter Games between four permanent Olympic cities each for a total of 8 cities. I'm think of choosing one Summer and one Winter host from Asia, Europe, North America , and the southern hemisphere. Every 16 years the Games come back.

Then there's still the issue about deciding who the lucky 8 will be. There would have to be the mother of all bid campaigns to secure those 8 spots (4 for Summer and 4 for Winter). There would also have to be a rule stating that 8 different countries would have to be represented between the 4 Summer and 4 Winter hosts (i.e. if your country wins the right to host a Summer Games, you will not be considered as a potential Winter host.)

Let's just settle this right now!

Summer:

NA - Tulsa

Europe - Leipzig

Asia - Baku-ku

Australia - Hobart

Winter:

NA - Nunavut

Europe - Transylvania

Asia - DOHA

Antarctica (the Penguin Winter Games)

[baron-pierreIV]

Let Paul decide.

[Sir Rols]

Let Paul decide.

Sounds fair to me!

[DannyelBrazil]

Let Paul decide.

I can imagine Paul deciding between too boxes with yes and no and our nicknames casted in each box!!!

BTW, I vote no.

And if yes, SOG in Athens forever.

Summer, Winter, Fall and Spring!!

Spring Olympic Games???

Sounds funny... A competion of 100m picking flowers...