If the IOC picked permanent hosts cities

[baron-pierreIV]

I think it funny how people say the Olympics are too expensive- but then nothing is said about the trillions spent on Defense every year.

For example, India and Pakistan can afford to point nuclear arms at each other, USA spends more than a thousand million dollars A DAY on defense- the Olympics suddenly start to sound very cheap.

It is just a matter of priorities.

uhmmm...kumquats and peaches

[August]

I'd really welcome the idea of a permanent host city. I think the Olympics are becoming too big for rotating host cities. As an alternative for a permanent host city I'd propose downsizing the games, which I wouldn't really like.

And I think there is only one possible permanent host city for the summer games, Athens. But that'd have some issues, I'm not sure Greece will ever host the Olympics again if the games keep on growing and Greece doesn't get a massive economical boost. And what about the Winter Games? I'd suggest Switzerland, as the IOC is located there, but that would mean both Summer and Winter Games in the Europe, which might be a problem.

But what about selecting rotating (semi-)permanent host cities from each continent. I mean there would be six host cities all over the world, each hosting the games every 24 years, as long as they are willing and capable for that. The rotation would be something like Europe - South America - Asia - Africa - North America - Australasia - back to Europe, etc. For the Winter Games it could be Europe - NA - Asia in twelve-year cycles. For sure that would also have white elephant issues, what to do with all the venues in those 23 years between games?

[politician]

Article here http://www.salon.com/2014/01/31/down_with_host_cities/ mostly about picking a permanent host city for the Super Bowl, but also pushing for the IOC to pick permanent host cities for the Olympics.

Ignoring the merits of the proposal for a minute, if the IOC did want permanent host cities, which should the choose?

The problem with permanent hosts is two-fold:

1. It identifies a small group of cities, all of which are already likely to be top-class world cities, to be perpetually responsible for the games and their preparation, ensuring the all the costs and benefits of the games accrue to a select-group of pre-determined sites.

2. It does not allow for flexibility given changing international circumstances; just because once city is an ideal host today does not make it one two decades from now.

[baron-pierreIV]

Greece is horrid in the summer.

I mean they can't even manage the smaller Mediterranean Games on a regular basis -- what more today's Olympics?? Get real, people!!

[politician]

I'd really welcome the idea of a permanent host city. I think the Olympics are becoming too big for rotating host cities. As an alternative for a permanent host city I'd propose downsizing the games, which I wouldn't really like.

And I think there is only one possible permanent host city for the summer games, Athens. But that'd have some issues, I'm not sure Greece will ever host the Olympics again if the games keep on growing and Greece doesn't get a massive economical boost. And what about the Winter Games? I'd suggest Switzerland, as the IOC is located there, but that would mean both Summer and Winter Games in the Europe, which might be a problem.

But what about selecting rotating (semi-)permanent host cities from each continent. I mean there would be six host cities all over the world, each hosting the games every 24 years, as long as they are willing and capable for that. The rotation would be something like Europe - South America - Asia - Africa - North America - Australasia - back to Europe, etc. For the Winter Games it could be Europe - NA - Asia in twelve-year cycles. For sure that would also have white elephant issues, what to do with all the venues in those 23 years between games?

It seems to me that the problem isn't a the lack of a stable set of permanent-rotating hosts, it's a lack of direct engagement by the IOC and the organizations claims of so-called political neutrality. As a political science professor I feel confident stating that political neutrality is a pipe-dream - you will never separate politics from the Games. Rather than acting as if we can, we should acknowledge biases and push for transparency to help ensure that the impacts individual biases have on game outcomes

[baron-pierreIV]

Giving a permanent home to the Olympics means that people from the farthest parts of the globe will FOREVER be disadvantaged to attend an Olympics in their lifetime and say, the Swiss or the Greeks, will forever have them in their backyard. That alone smacks of unfairness. Whereas if they are rotated as they are presently, then at some point in someone's lifetime, there will be a chance s/he can attend an Olympics at a fairly reasonable cost. That is the WHOLE POINT of making the Olympics universal -- and why 2022 should go to some city other than Oslo or Beijing because people in those other countries should get a chance to have an Olympics near them. That was my great-great-grandpappy's origiinal idea!!

[runningrings]

That is all good and well when there is ample bid cities - but what about 2020 and 2022 where the IOC doesn't have a great selection, and goes with the former host like Tokyo, and may very well do in 2022 with Oslo, and to a lesser extent, Beijing.

I'm all for new hosts, and particularly new countries, but within reason.

[baron-pierreIV]

That is all good and well when there is ample bid cities - but what about 2020 and 2022 where the IOC doesn't have a great selection, and goes with the former host like Tokyo, and may very well do in 2022 with Oslo, and to a lesser extent, Beijing.

I'm all for new hosts, and particularly new countries, but within reason.

What? Of course there will be fewer candidates for the Summer Games. And remember, the world is still coming out of a recession. Of course, everything's nice & great in an ideal world. But it rarely is, is it?

And 2022 doesn't have "ample" candidates? What planet are you on, man?

[Lord David]

LMFAO! :-D

Don't be silly, even an every 4 year Athens host would be producing a bid book in which it tries to out do the last edition!

[Kenadian]

I don't think it will ever happen. Not in my lifetime, anyway. And while I see the benefits, I prefer things the way they are. The variety gives us both a cultural experience and, when done right, allows a city to benefit in a once-in-a-generation kind of thing. Barcelona reaped huge benefits as a tourist destination. Vancouver got a wealth of new transportation links. London got a revitalized East End. And even Montreal benefited from 1976 with new venues and sports facilities all around the city that are still in use today (and I'm not talking about the Olympic park).

Certainly, a permanent host would forever change the way we experience the Olympic Games. Ceremonies would have to be global in nature or focus on the history of the movement, and not the culture of the host country. Branding and Look of the Games would either not be as varied or could even become just one permanent look/brand/mascot. And sponsors would probably demand more visibility at the Games and in the venues, not just around the Games. We might even see a permanent split of the Games with the Olympic Games held in the summer months in Athens and the revived Nordic Games held in the winter months in Oslo. And of course, Gamesbids would lose its central purpose.

But with a permanent host city, the tricky parts could be worked out. The Olympic Village could be used as a resort for tourists or student dormitories in the four years between Games. The stadiums and venues would need to be well built and well maintained but funding could or should come from the IOC and its partners alone and not the host country.

But again, I don't see it happening. Not when countries are willing to shell out that kind of money. And all you need are two or three of them to want the Games to get a good race on. You don't really need a dozen or more competitors when there's only one prize.

[olympikfan]

I read this one

http://www.mndaily.com/opinion/columns/2014/02/09/find-permanent-sites-olympics

[hufus]

I do think there should be a city that is on permanent standby for 3 olympiads, which is awarded by having every sporting federation have their world championships (or *a* world championships, like U17s or whatever for FIFA), so that if a city is as dangerously underprepared as many have been, the standby city can host.

Obviously, Melbourne would be an excellent choice for the 2016-2024 standby city

[LDOG]

Not going to happen for thousands of reasons, the top one: television time zones. Permanent venue in Athens would piss off asians, ocenians and even american broadcasters.

[Trylon]

Yeah, it's all fun wondering what city while be selected for which games. However, at fifty billion dollars for the current revival at Sochi, we are now in realms that many cities and nations can ill afford. Fifty billion for a two week event is staggering by anybody's standards and even if the venues can be reused for other events, those events will never match the Olympic games nor would those events garner the attention. Fifty billon bucks. Where does it stop and is it right or even moral to spend that sort of loot when more basic human survival needs go unfunded?

[olympikfan]

Lets see what would be the Pros and the Cons?

Pros: no more power for the IOC they would have to do something.

[baron-pierreIV]

Yeah, it's all fun wondering what city while be selected for which games. However, at fifty billion dollars for the current revival at Sochi, we are now in realms that many cities and nations can ill afford. Fifty billion for a two week event is staggering by anybody's standards and even if the venues can be reused for other events, those events will never match the Olympic games nor would those events garner the attention. Fifty billon bucks. Where does it stop and is it right or even moral to spend that sort of loot when more basic human survival needs go unfunded?

The $50 billion was NOT directly all for the Games. It went to infrastructure (like to road/railyway link to Rosa Hutor from Sochi/Adler - $8 billion) which Russia was pouring in, in an over-all plan to develop Sochi as a year-round plan. Maybe $20-25 bil in graft. You CANNOT attribute all that to an extravagant Games. It was Russia's decision to spend that much; not the IOC's. And Russia has the cash to spend; so it should be nobody's business that they spent that much on their Games. I wouldn't judge them for it.

[mr.bernham]

Alternate IOC history:

From 1900-1912 the games are held in the IOC headquarters of Paris, France, after WWI the IOC decides to promote international friendship and understanding by allowing other cities to host the games. The cities in order of hosting were: London, Chicago, Rome, Barcelona, and Paris. After WWII and the beginning of the Cold War the IOC headquarters move from Paris to Lausanne, Switzerland and the Summer Games are selected to be held there along with the Winter Games. In 1991 with the Cold War over the IOC opens back up to international host cities, Paris hosts the 1996 games, Berlin 2000, LA 2004, Tokyo 2008, Moscow 2012, Madrid 2016, Buenos Aries 2020...

[Lord David]

The $50 billion was NOT directly all for the Games. It went to infrastructure (like to road/railyway link to Rosa Hutor from Sochi/Adler - $8 billion) which Russia was pouring in, in an over-all plan to develop Sochi as a year-round plan. Maybe $20-25 bil in graft. You CANNOT attribute all that to an extravagant Games. It was Russia's decision to spend that much; not the IOC's. And Russia has the cash to spend; so it should be nobody's business that they spent that much on their Games. I wouldn't judge them for it.

Funny, because actual Russians on the Skyscrapercity.com Sochi 2014 page are questioning the figure of $51 billion, that I myself and some others have brought up. They simply refuse to believe in any form of corruption in relation to the Games.

I've stated several times that Russia supposedly could do it for $12 billion, yet some there still question this $51 billion figure and such. Surely the corruption was there and cost overruns were well over the proposed budgets.

I get all this money went to the investment of infrastructure in Sochi and so forth, but if I were a local, or Russian, I would think that $51 billion were a tad too much, even if 75% were supposedly from private sources. $12.75 billion, well that's what they initially said they could do it for and this is the supposed $25 billion coughed up by the Russians themselves. I understand not judging them for how much they spent, but I'm sure many Russians are angered and/or worried of the effects of this mega games and how much it could cost them in the long run.

And as stated on Skyscrapercity, I wouldn't be surprised if the official report were to conveniently discard the $25 or so billion supposedly taken away due to corruption, just to bring the supposed final figure down.

[Sir Rols]

Well, they would. We all get defensive of our home games.

As for the figures. You know as well as we all do the accounting's always creative. Of course the official report will hive off anything deemed general non games-specific infrastructure.

[Rob2012]

The two main Russian contributors to the Sochi threads on SSC are xenophobic, homophobic twats. I wouldn't take their opinion on anything seriousy personally. But it was fun seeing one of them go mad about the American referee in the ice hockey game - nearly going so far as to say it was fixed - and then go very quiet when it was pointed out to him the rule about the goal not being affixed properly.

[Lord David]

Well, they would. We all get defensive of our home games.

As for the figures. You know as well as we all do the accounting's always creative. Of course the official report will hive off anything deemed general non games-specific infrastructure.

Yes, I'd expect the official report to indicate something around the $25 billion mark, or less. But to deny that there was no corruption whatsoever and that their Olympics is perfect is just silly.

Some claimed that Nagano would qualify as the most expensive Games ever. I understand that the accounts were officially destroyed by officials, but surely a city with far more infrastructure than Sochi to begin with, with a more competent government, dealing with late 90's dollars wouldn't have produced a Games which cost over $51 billion.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sochi delicately avoids the subject of finances and state how much the venues cost alone.

[baron-pierreIV]

There is a basic dishonest streak with most Russians--especially those sharing in the great Putin Renaissance of Russia's glory. You can take the boys out of the Communist veil, but you can't take that shady, duplicitous part of their nature out of them.

[When I worked at the UN in 1983, as part of the orientation for new temporary staffers for the 1983 General Assembly season, there were two young Russian guys in our group. They refused to make eye contact with anyone. They were either so insecure and/or, being undercover KGB agents, they were just so burdened with duplicitous feelings; just refused to reveal any humanity or vulnerability in their facade. ]

[Mainad]

How would a permanent Olympic host site be funded? I hope the IOC wouldn't be expecting the country in question to keep shelling out x number of billions of whatever in order to put on a different show every 4 years? It's a big enough strain on a country's resources to even host ONE Olympics let alone the whole bally lot of them EVERY 4 years! True, the venues would always be there and ready for use but they would need constant maintenance in between Olympiads and that would cost money too. How much of all this would be funded by the IOC and how much by the permanent host? Seems to me it would prove an enormous ongoing cost for both of them!

Forget it. Let's keep things as they are. Ancient Olympia is dead and gone. Peope now expect to see the Games in different locations against different backdrops. Variety is the spice of life and the Olympic experience would just be incomplete without the excitement, intrigue, bitchiness, back-stabbing, cut-throat competition between various different cities in order to receive the ultimate accolade of being allowed to host one!

Long Live The Olympic Bidding Process!

[Rob2012]

I think we all know the problems that would come up if a permanant host were selected. That's why the OP said "Ignoring the merits of the proposal for a minute, if the IOC did want permanent host cities, which should they choose?"

I don't think Zeke was meaning this to be a serious thread really!!

[runningrings]

There is a basic dishonest streak with most Russians--especially those sharing in the great Putin Renaissance of Russia's glory. You can take the boys out of the Communist veil, but you can't take that shady, duplicitous part of their nature out of them.

You can't seriously put this to "shady" communism? Do you really think the American brand of neoliberalism is encouraging of an honest and transparent society? Nope - if anything, it is American style capitalism that the Russians have pegged themselves to that is responsible for said Sochi corruption.