Are the CWGs the Canary in the Coal Mine for Multisport Games in general?

[Sir Rols]

Whatever way you look at it, Victoria’s unceremonious dumping of the 2026 Commonwealth Games are nothing short of terrible and disastrous news for the CGF. And it’s not like they have much alternatives to ponder about now - Australia and Britain have been the ones keeping those games on life support for close to a decade now, and short of perhaps London stepping in as a stop-gap saviour for 2026, I can’t see how the CWGs can confidently even make their century. It’s all very well for the likes of Canada, India and NZ say they are “considering” bids in the 2030s - but they’ve shown little firm interest for a good while now and anything concrete has always evaporated when it came to the hard scrutiny of cost/benefit analyses. There’s no reason to expect they’d be any different with their 2030 musings.

But is this also a symptom that’s afflicting all the second tier games? Are they being priced out of usefulness?

The Pan-Ams are fast becoming just a hot-potato being shared by South American countries. Toronto’s near-recent edition aside, they might as well just become the South American or Latin American Games. The US hasn’t shown any interest in them for god knows how long.

the Asiad’s are fast becoming an event getting swapped between the Gulf sheikhdoms and China. Hello Trojena! 

When it comes to the IOC’s follies, the YOGs haven’t seemed to attract much enthusiasm either. On the winter side, they’ve started to become re-hashes of recent senior Winter Games, and on the Summer side we have the rescheduled  postponed Dakar Games (what were they thinking???) and then what? And even when it comes to the senior supposedly blue-riband Winter Olympics, well, they haven’t exactly been a bright spot for the IOC lately either. Thankfully, they have a seemingly solid three Summer hosts lined up already, but God help them if any of those falter or become mired in bad messaging or stumbles.

Frankly, I’m amazed the likes of the Universiades, the Francophone or the World Beach Games are surviving. What’s their secret - low, or evn no, expectations in them?

is there a future for second-tier multisport games? And should even the IOC be worried?

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Sir Rols

[Scotguy II]

Personally i think that they should ditch the youth olympics and just concentrate on the main events.

The SEA games seem to do well still, the latest in Cambodia seemed pretty cool and they choose the hosts way in advance.

I think the Victoria 2026 fiasco highlights the problems of regional games and spreading things out too far for this kind of event. Having it in just one city still is the best option for organisation and for those attending the events. My time at Glasgow 2014 shows that these kind of smaller games can and do work in the right circumstances.

Ditching the royals from the games would be a great move also.

The head of the NZOC has said that 2026 Comms will definitely go ahead, just not sure where. NZ is continuing spending money on its 2034 research.

 

[ulu]

A regional games could make sense when you're doing it in order to make use of existing infrastructure but Victoria was instead ignoring a bunch of existing infrastructure in favour of building infrastructure in the regions.

[Sir Rols]

23 minutes ago, Scotguy II said:

I think the Victoria 2026 fiasco highlights the problems of regional games and spreading things out too far for this kind of event. Having it in just one city still is the best option for organisation and for those attending the events. My time at Glasgow 2014 shows that these kind of smaller games can and do work in the right circumstances.

I think the Victorian example shows that the “regional games” concept might look good on paper, but can be hard to make work cost effectively in practice. Even Victoria, Oz’s second smallest state in area and second biggest in population, is just not densely populated enough to support the infrastructure and links needed to make such a concept viable or efficient. Maybe the likes of the Netherlands or Germany’s Ruhr region - both densely populated with efficient and closely-knitted transport links, could manage it, but I don’t think it’s a template that’s an easy fit for many other countries.

 

23 minutes ago, Scotguy II said:

Ditching the royals from the games would be a great move also.

Amen! Yeah, for the Commies in particular, the messaging has just become more and more troublesome. The historical links which once bonded them together have fast become an embarrassment.

Edited July 18, 2023 by Sir Rols

[Scotguy II]

The Commonwealth games have as we all know have struggled for a very long time and part of that does come down to identity. For most of its existence it has played heavily on the empire connection and the royal family.

The last time there was ever any credible bid race for the games was way back in 2003 when Delhi and Hamilton bid for the 2010 games and then back in 1992 when Adelaide and Kuala Lumpur bid for the 1998 games. Since then its either been given to a city or some silly bid races with the obvious evident winners.

It's appeal mainly is to those sports where they are not included within the Olympics such as Squash, Lawn bowls, t20 cricket and netball.

 

[StefanMUC]

Questions to those of you from Commonwealth countries:

What does the CW actually mean to you? How do you benefit from it? What is its practical purpose (apart from the ceremonial continuation of the Empire, as far as I see it)? Is there anything apart from the CWG that you would miss if it stopped existing?

Maybe the demise of the CWG is just a symptom of the overall irrelevance of the Commonwealth?

[Sir Rols]

2 hours ago, StefanMUC said:

Questions to those of you from Commonwealth countries:

What does the CW actually mean to you? How do you benefit from it? What is its practical purpose (apart from the ceremonial continuation of the Empire, as far as I see it)? Is there anything apart from the CWG that you would miss if it stopped existing?

Maybe the demise of the CWG is just a symptom of the overall irrelevance of the Commonwealth?

I remember making a long, considered answers to a similar question not too long ago. I would have copy/pasted that, but buggered if I can find it now. But I’ll try to paraphrase a bit what I’d said then.

When I was young, for Australia, it was a LOT more important and prevalent. There was still a lot of Commonwealth-tinge to how we were educated and saw ourselves in the world. Nowadays, that’s largely faded. Australia’s a far more multicultural country now, so many don’t have personal cultural ties, our politics and culture is more independent, and while the British monarch is still our official head-of-state, that’s more questioned now. There’s also more criticism of our colonial legacy, particularly with regard to our indigenous population. That said, we still have ties of language and many shared cultural experiences, so I think there is still some, even if just slight, residual feeling of some affinity with Britain.

The old Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings (CHOGMs) used to be a bigger deal, particularly in the era when it was dealing with the issue of Apartheid in South Africa. It has largely faded in recent years (do we still have them? I can’t remember when the last one was). These days, the focus for Australia is more on international meets like G20 or APEC (or even G7 or NATO, when we score a special invite).

Sport is one area where a lot of the old ties remain. Our biggest sporting rivalries tend to be with Commonwealth countries or in Commonwealth sports, like The Ashes cricket series versus England, or Rugby versus NZ. We like to follow and beat Britain in the medal tally at the Olympics (and I dare say, they like to beat us - which they’ve been doing far too much lately).

Personally, regarding the Commonwealth Games in particular, I was a lot more focussed on them in the past. I member fondly watching Auckland ‘90, Victoria ‘94, Kuala Lumpur ‘98. For travel reasons, I missed most of 2002 and 2006. When I joined GamesBids, I keenly followed Delhi 2010 and Glasgow 2014. I started losing interest after that, even if I did watch some of Gold Coast 2018 and Birmingham 2022 and enjoyed the bits I watched. 

My question to you (and other Europeans) is: How important or a big deal is the European Games to you? Are they a big highly anticipated event? r just another sports meeting.

Edited July 18, 2023 by Sir Rols

[Scotguy II]

For me, the first Commonwealth Games I remember well was Kuala Lumpur 1998, then Manchester 2002 was a huge deal in the UK as it was so soon after the successful Sydney Olympics for the UK team, 2002 was everywhere. Then we had the huge Melbourne event and that was the year I joined Gamesbids. In 2007 Glasgow won the 2014 gams so of course being my home city this kept the games in my mind. I didn't care much for Delhi 2010 as that was the year I moved to NZ so other things took my interest, but then I attended Glasgow 2014 and it was just an unforgettable experience. 2018 I didn't follow much and i have to admit that I did not watch any of Birmingham 2022.

The commonwealth itself for me as always been about Royalty and trying to preserve parts of what was once the empire, although i know its not that anymore, it still reeks of that to me. I remember the 2002 ceremonies being all about the queens jubilee, with parts being sickening to watch back now. As a Nationalist Republican, I never liked/like the commonwealth in its current form and would personally prefer that after the Queens death that an elected head of the Commonwealth was chosen rather than the new king.

The thing that i liked growing up about the games was that Scotland competed as it's own country, unlike the Olympic Games.

[StefanMUC]

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

 

My question to you (and other Europeans) is: How important or a big deal is the European Games to you? Are they a big highly anticipated event? r just another sports meeting.

They’re a non-event, I’d say. Very low media coverage again this year here from what I saw. Most sports have long standing Euro Championships running in a well established format, the addition of the EG felt artificial and superfluous not the least because of the very dubious first hosts. 
 

Last year’s championships bundled together in Munich (or 2018 in Glasgow) were a completely different story, no big ceremony frills, focus on sports, but to be honest also not at the anticipation level of a CWG I guess.

 

[yoshi]

2 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

I remember making a long, considered answers to a similar question not too long ago. I would have copy/pasted that, but buggered if I can find it now. But I’ll try to paraphrase a bit what I’d said then.

When I was young, for Australia, it was a LOT more important and prevalent. There was still a lot of Commonwealth-tinge to how we were educated and saw ourselves in the world. Nowadays, that’s largely faded. Australia’s a far more multicultural country now, so many don’t have personal cultural ties, our politics and culture is more independent, and while the British monarch is still our official head-of-state, that’s more questioned now. There’s also more criticism of our colonial legacy, particularly with regard to our indigenous population. That said, we still have ties of language and many shared cultural experiences, so I think there is still some, even if just slight, residual feeling of some affinity with Britain.

The old Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings (CHOGMs) used to be a bigger deal, particularly in the era when it was dealing with the issue of Apartheid in South Africa. It has largely faded in recent years (do we still have them? I can’t remember when the last one was). These days, the focus for Australia is more on international meets like G20 or APEC (or even G7 or NATO, when we score a special invite).

Sport is one area where a lot of the old ties remain. Our biggest sporting rivalries tend to be with Commonwealth countries or in Commonwealth sports, like The Ashes cricket series versus England, or Rugby versus NZ. We like to follow and beat Britain in the medal tally at the Olympics (and I dare say, they like to beat us - which they’ve been doing far too much lately).

Personally, regarding the Commonwealth Games in particular, I was a lot more focussed on them in the past. I member fondly watching Auckland ‘90, Victoria ‘94, Kuala Lumpur ‘98. For travel reasons, I missed most of 2002 and 2006. When I joined GamesBids, I keenly followed Delhi 2010 and Glasgow 2014. I started losing interest after that, even if I did watch some of Gold Coast 2018 and Birmingham 2022 and enjoyed the bits I watched. 

My question to you (and other Europeans) is: How important or a big deal is the European Games to you? Are they a big highly anticipated event? r just another sports meeting.

I think the Commonwealth Games are still relevant to us, even if the Commonwealth itself as an organisation isn't so much - I don't remember anything about any CHOGM. Any international friendship or contact is worth having though, but yeah G7, NATO etc are bigger. I can see why some are saying its time is up though.

Of course sport is a huge deal to both of us, and the ties remain. England v Australia is always special, whatever the sport, & one of the main reasons why I like the CWG & hope they don't die is that they also let the Home Nations get their moment as themselves, something they only usually get at football, and the Channel Islands/IOM etc who don't even get that. You can see how much it means to the athletes to fly the Scottish, Welsh or Jersey (say) flags. It also gives a chance to other sports. 

I don't remember much about 2006 & 10, although I vividly remember the opening ceremony in Melbourne. Wouldn't remember 18 much if it hadn't been for being able to watch a load of it in a hospital waiting room. They're always great fun though, especially 2022 which was so embraced by a city that deserved its moment. That's another good thing, the chance for other cities to show themselves off. I hope they can be saved. 

As for the European question, it depends which one. The Games in Krakow were a complete non event, I don't think I even saw any coverage. The Championships in Munich got a lot more coverage, I'd say comparable to a non-UK Commonwealth Games only with fewer sports. I think there's a future for those, and that it'd get a lot of interest if held here. 

[FYI]

12 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

When it comes to the IOC’s follies, the YOGs haven’t seemed to attract much enthusiasm either.

Those were/are a waste of time & resources from the very beginning. Nothing more than Rogge's pet project. We already have very young competitors at the regular Olympics, so this "youth Olympics" is so very redundant. They also don't garner any international recognition, either, at least not here anyway. Can't imagine that they produce much of a revenue source for the IOC as it is. Get rid of them already & actually put that emphasis on the set of regular Olympics, which are now headed into very dire straits, especially the Winter Games.

[Nacre]

Although the Pan-American Games don't get a lot of media attention, I think that they are still very viable. There are a bunch of things that the Pan-Ams do that make them more palatable that the Commonwealth Games . . . at least to Canada.

• The continental games are tied into existing sporting networks much better than the Commonwealth Games. (IE Olympic qualification via the Pan-Ams, Asian Games and African Games. And the various European Championships.)
• Community sports facilities are more acceptable, reducing the need for new construction.
• The Pan-American Games are only intended to matter to the host city/region, the athletes and people interested in the sports on offer. No one expects them to attract huge television audiences or massive crowds of tourists, so there's less room for disappointment when they don't.
• Continental integration is more in line with the ideology of our times than the legacy of the British Empire is.

Edited July 18, 2023 by Nacre

[Sir Rols]

1 hour ago, Nacre said:

Community sports facilities are more acceptable, reducing the need for new construction.

To be fair, that should also apply to the Commies. It was one of the selling points of the Victoria ‘26 plan, and was the ideal of many of the reforms the CGF introduced to make them a lot more manageable (and supposedly attractive) to prospective hosts.

1 hour ago, Nacre said:

 

• The continental games are tied into existing sporting networks much better than the Commonwealth Games. (IE Olympic qualification via the Pan-Ams, Asian Games and African Games. And the various European Championships.)
• The Pan-American Games are only intended to matter to the host city/region, the athletes and people interested in the sports on offer. No one expects them to attract huge television audiences or massive crowds of tourists, so there's less room for disappointment when they don't.
• Continental integration is more in line with the ideology of our times than the legacy of the British Empire is.

I agree with these. The irrelevance of the Commies to continental and world qualifications has long been a weakness and criticism of them. A Commonwealth Record has long lost its prestige or any relevance, and when push comes to shove and the Commies have clashed with a major event - a world championship or whatever - the stars usually ditch the Commies in favour of the event that counts.

And as to the other points, yeah, it all attends to the declining relevance of the Commonwealth itself. And with the Queen gone, there’s absolutely no impetus or reason for that to turn around. 

[Sir Rols]

10 hours ago, StefanMUC said:

They’re a non-event, I’d say. Very low media coverage again this year here from what I saw. Most sports have long standing Euro Championships running in a well established format, the addition of the EG felt artificial and superfluous not the least because of the very dubious first hosts. 

 

9 hours ago, yoshi said:

As for the European question, it depends which one. The Games in Krakow were a complete non event, I don't think I even saw any coverage. The Championships in Munich got a lot more coverage, I'd say comparable to a non-UK Commonwealth Games only with fewer sports. I think there's a future for those, and that it'd get a lot of interest if held here. 

 

3 hours ago, FYI said:

Those were/are a waste of time & resources from the very beginning. Nothing more than Rogge's pet project. We already have very young competitors at the regular Olympics, so this "youth Olympics" is so very redundant. They also don't garner any international recognition, either, at least not here anyway. Can't imagine that they produce much of a revenue source for the IOC as it is. Get rid of them already & actually put that emphasis on the set of regular Olympics, which are now headed into very dire straits, especially the Winter Games.

This was what I was getting at when starting this thread, rather than a post-mortem into the CWGs per se (that’s being addressed in other threads as well). It was more to provoke some discussion about the future of second-tier multi sports games.

I always thought the Euro Games were a bit dubious considering the wealth of established continental championships in European sports already existing. It still seems to be an event in search of a purpose.

The YOGs, yeah, are a Rogge vanity project, and again don’t seem to be exciting anyone or getting much attention.

And things like the Universiades? To be honest, if it wasn’t for GamesBids (and I suspect it’s mainly the ceremonies crowd who follow them), I wouldn’t know the Universiades existed.

Which brings me back to the question - is there a future for these second tier events? Are we past the era of Peak Games interest? Is the changing and evolution in media and sports consumption, and a greater awareness and focus on sustainability and financial viability of sports facilities, sounding a slow death knell for lesser tier big events?

And are the Olympics themselves even immune? It sure seems the Winter Games are already facing a cost-to-benefits hurdle now.

[Nacre]

I think that part of the question of "does the media cover it" is our expectation for what kind of media will cover the event.

For the Olympics the entire world media is interested, and people who don't normally care about triathlon will watch. Conversely there isn't much coverage in the general media of triathlon at the European Championships or Pan-American Games . . . but there also isn't much coverage of the World Triathlon Championships. Yet no one thinks that the world championships for the various sport are going to disappear, and they absolutely are covered by triathlon-oriented media and are followed by triathlon athletes and fans.

Is our expectation that the continental championships and other second-tier events (like the Commonwealth Games) should be covered by the world media like Olympics are? Or is our expectation that they should be covered by the fringe media for the various sports featured in that event? I think the former is doomed to fail, but the latter is currently successful.

[Sir Rols]

42 minutes ago, Nacre said:

I think that part of the question of "does the media cover it" is our expectation for what kind of media will cover the event.

For the Olympics the entire world media is interested, and people who don't normally care about triathlon will watch. Conversely there isn't much coverage in the general media of triathlon at the European Championships or Pan-American Games . . . but there also isn't much coverage of the World Triathlon Championships. Yet no one thinks that the world championships for the various sport are going to disappear, and they absolutely are covered by triathlon-oriented media and are followed by triathlon athletes and fans.

Is our expectation that the continental championships and other second-tier events (like the Commonwealth Games) should be covered by the world media like Olympics are? Or is our expectation that they should be covered by the fringe media for the various sports featured in that event? I think the former is doomed to fail, but the latter is currently successful.

I’d argue that media coverage and interest are absolutely vital to the sustainability of second tier events.

A dedicated world championship, like the World Triathlon Championship, doesn’t need saturation coverage. It‘s a limited, dedicated event usually hosted by a location that’s already equipped to host it and with local interest and participation in it, and attracts modest crowds. It is not disruptive to day-to-day life, or require much in the way of significant government support and funding to take place.

A multi-sport games, on the other hand, is an exponentially bigger undertaking - even in locations well equipped with existing facilities like a Melbourne, an LA or a Paris or London - they still require substantial extra investment and government funds, and can strain existing transport and accomodation infrastructure. Broadcast income is THE major avenue to cover or get a return on this funding. They can be a spur to providing improved transport and community facilities, but still need to excite a tax paying public to get behind them and support those investments.  

The question is whether old style saturation media interest is even achievable now in the era of decentralised, streaming and narrowcasting media consumption?

Edited July 19, 2023 by Sir Rols

[Sir Rols]

A very good analysis (some factual errors regarding Olympic bidding in the first paragraphs notwithstanding) of the sustainability of the big events model from The Guardian:

Commonwealth Games crisis shows model for hosting big events is broken

 

Edited July 19, 2023 by Sir Rols

[FYI]

2 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

Which brings me back to the question - is there a future for these second tier events? Are we past the era of Peak Games interest? Is the changing and evolution in media and sports consumption, and a greater awareness and focus on sustainability and financial viability of sports facilities, sounding a slow death knell for lesser tier big events?

Like you mentioned with the Pan Ams, the U.S. isn't even interested in those. We've only hosted them twice, & the last time was in 1987 in Indianapolis. And the last U.S. bid for them was San Antonio for the 2007 Pan Ams, which went to Rio in the end. But the Olympics? The USOC is always gung-ho to throw their hat in the ring. 

I think it's also important to note, that not everyone watches these multi-sports events solely for the sports aspect, especially the Olympics. I know I don't (although I do watch the Olympics from beginning to end when they're on). I also enjoy the locale that they take place in, the different cultures, the politics involved, etc. which is what led me to GB's to begin with many years ago. So in that sense, these second-tier events just don't cut it for me. I find them as counterfeit, per se. It's already bad enough that my friends & collegues poke fun at me for liking the Olympics too much. Can just imagine if I also went to them with all the different types of multi-sports events, too, they'd roll their eyes at me out the door.

To the athletes, though, I'm sure it's a different story. It's their chance to compete & practice while on their way to the Olympics. But even there as you mentioned with the CWG's, they're rather focusing on the different, individual world championships instead. So in those two aspects, I'd say yeah, they're redundant & pretty much irrelevant now.

2 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

And are the Olympics themselves even immune? It sure seems the Winter Games are already facing a cost-to-benefits hurdle now.

Like I just mentioned above, the USOC seems always eager to bid. The problem as of late has been finding viable cities/countries in democracies willing to completely take the Olympics on. NOC's always seem keen enough to want to bid. But it's the NIMBY attitudes in these cities that don't want them. But that doesn't mean that these very same naysayers don't watch the Olympics when they're on (because that's evident with the big ratings that the Olympics still draw). I imagine that lots of them do, actually.

It's just the huge burden & big cost of having to host the darn thing that's turning many people off these days. And to be honest, I can't say I blame them. It's like, sure I'll go to the neighbor's down the street big house party for a couple of hours. But don't ask me to throw one the following weekend, though. The IOC has also let the Games get too big for their own good, too. Maybe it's about high-time that they start looking at some serious cut-backs for the sake of the Games as a whole.

[Sir Rols]

13 minutes ago, FYI said:

I think it's also important to note, that not everyone watches these multi-sports events solely for the sports aspect, especially the Olympics. I know I don't (although I do watch the Olympics from beginning to end when they're on). I also enjoy the locale that they take place in, the different cultures, the politics involved, etc. which is what led me to GB's to begin with many years ago.

So true. And that’s what makes the Olympics in particular such a lucrative and valuable sponsorship and advertising product. It reaches out beyond the traditional football match-of-the-day target demographic. It’s also been documented that the sponsors/advertisers love them because they also draw a higher female audience than traditional sports coverage. So I’d certainly agree that a huge part of the appeal of the Olympics and other multi-sport events is the X Factor beyond the sport.

20 minutes ago, FYI said:

The IOC has also let the Games get too big for their own good, too. Maybe it's about high-time that they start looking at some serious cut-backs for the sake of the Games as a whole.

 Yep. In the era of Peak Games - say, the 1990s-2000s - the IOC and others just let their games grow, and now they’re left with behemoths that are just too unwieldy, costly and hard to justify by anyone beyond authoritarian states or megalopolises. As much as it would be painful and unpopular to many (I’m sure I’d be one who’d be sad and outraged to see some sports go), they really need to bite the bullet and seriously trim the sports roster. The trouble is, no two people I’m sure would agree what to trim. I’d be happy to say farewell to golf and tennis, for example , but I’m sure others would be outraged. Still, the IOC (and CGF, OCA etc) ned to be ruthless and tough.

I don’t know what they can do about thje winter games. It’s not that they have too many sports, per se. More that most of the sports (unless perhaps you’re Canadian or Scandinavian) are niche recreation activities practiced by mostly rich people at remote resorts developed for rich people. I can’t see a lot of “community facilities” benefits.

 

[Nacre]

The problem with the winter games is trying to lump all of them together in one spot. There are very few places in the world where ALL of the winter sports are popular and lots of places where ice events are popular but don't have mountains, or vice-versa. 

Ice skating in Dutch Golden Age paintings

The IOC needs to formally separate the hosting duties of the mountain resort(s) and the city with the ice arenas. Let the Dutch host the ice events, with the Swiss hosting the mountain events two weeks later.

[FYI]

35 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Yep. In the era of Peak Games - say, the 1990s-2000s - the IOC and others just let their games grow, and now they’re left with behemoths that are just too unwieldy, costly and hard to justify by anyone beyond authoritarian states or megalopolises. As much as it would be painful and unpopular to many (I’m sure I’d be one who’d be sad and outraged to see some sports go), they really need to bite the bullet and seriously trim the sports roster. The trouble is, no two people I’m sure would agree what to trim. I'd be happy to say farewell to golf and tennis, for example, but I'm sure others would be outraged. Still, the IOC (and CGF, OCA etc) ned to be ruthless and tough.

Definitely agree with golf. It's not even a "sport", more like an elitist past-time for (older) pudgy guys that aren't even "fit". Plus, it hardly has been on the Olympic roster at all anyway. What, like a couple of Olympics back at the begining of the 20th century, & then brought back for last two Olympics? Get rid of it (again). 

And while tennis is quite a bit more "athletic", it still comes off as a snobbish sport. They still have their Wimbledon & French open. That should be good enough for them.

[FYI]

25 minutes ago, Nacre said:

The IOC needs to formally separate the hosting duties of the mountain resort(s) and the city with the ice arenas. Let the Dutch host the ice events, with the Swiss hosting the mountain events two weeks later.

This wouldn't solve anything, either. Only create other logistical problems & expenses for the athletes, spectators, media, officials & organizers alike. Not to mention, it would also dilute the Olympic "atmosphere", at least on the ground anyway, & turning the winter Olympics into more of just your regular ole world championships.

[Sir Rols]

I didn’t know whether to start another thread for this, but I guess it’s just as valid here. But another aspect I’ve been musing over from the Victoria 2026 collapse has been the idea of regional games.

Now, first off, personally I’ve never really warmed to the idea of regional spread-out games - I like the idea of a central location. But I acknowledge that, on paper, the notion seems to have merits. Spreading out events to benefit a region, or whole country, rather than a single city and make more use of existing, if distant, facilities, sounds all very god and sensible.

But I think the collapse of Victoria ‘26 has exposed some of the problems with that approach. While you might be saving on pure sporting infrastructure, you face expenses in providing efficient transport links, and accomodation infrastructure, across multiple areas. You need to duplicate a lot iof support structure and facilities across multiple locations instead of single, centralised facilities. And you cut back on ticket sales and revenues you otherwise could have made.

Now, to be fair, in Australia’s case we’re not a densely populated country outside the cities. I do think a regional approach could work in places, as I’ve suggested, like the Netherlands or the Ruhr.

Now, I’ve gotta admit I’m pretty excited and hopeful at the prospect of a Swedish winter games. I’ve been trying to tame my enthusiasm and not be to gung-ho about it here (certain other posters are doing the cheerleading well enough). But I’ll confess the Victoria precedent has raised a few issues in my mind about its plans. Again, they’re proposing a regional approach using Stockholm and various points north to make use of existing facilities and minimise costs.

But musing on the failures of Victoria ‘26, and knowing Sweden as I do, I note that while the spread of Sweden’s proposed venues are spread (across quite vast distances) across the north of the country, by far the bulk of Sweden’s population lives in Stockholm and the south. Transport to the north has never been as developed and extensive as in the south (and to my understanding, with family mostly in the north, has even been downgraded in recent decades, but maybe @Sigh can confirm if that’s still the case). Similar factors to what got Victoria stuck.

I still hope that a Sweden bid can survive, work and avoid Victoria’s faults. I think, for example, that in a country that doesn’t mind camping out in minus zero temps to watch ski races, ticket sales should still be strong. And I have faith the SOK and the government will do their budget calculations correctly and responsibly. But I do hope they look at the examples and pitfalls of Victoria’s game plans and have answers for them before they commit.  

[Sigh]

I'm not a logistics expert but my impression is that the poorish transport in the north is less due to basic infrastructure than on business considerations when it comes to train frequency and to a certain degree roads. In both cases there would be time do to some improvements if necessary. Transport time would still be a problem though. There are quite long distances. Despite the greenish tint on the bid (temporary) air transport would get an important role.

[Hansfromdenmark]

I really don´t hope that multisite games are the pass. I hope it will grow more! I love those kind of games. Unfortunately are the Olympics the only one that get attention here in Denmark Thats why I keep on hoping that European Games will grow and become a continental games that will give cheer and drama and lovely sport. And i think a lot what has to be done to make that happen. And I truly belive it has to be moved to even years. So it is 2 years to the Olympics and become an own event, and not a pre event for the Olympics. And then really try to get the athletics and swimming on board en full scale! 

Is it completely unrealistic that the continental games all over the world would be held on the same time... Then all federations ajust there calendar towards that, like they do reagarding the olympics! I think the following: Asian Games, African Games, American games (One og two in north and south, i´m not that well known overthere), and of course european games. If those all were the same 2 weeks in even years opposite the Olympics. Then it all could fit together beuatifull, and the athletes all have the same calendar, if you can say that. Of course there can be som regional differences in the sport that are on board, but the main sport will be the same. 

And for the olympics, I must say Im a bit surprised to read today that the Asian games have more athletes than the Olympics! But how can the Olympics grow and still be smaller and more easy for the host cities. Because I think there are many sports, and disciplines that could be in the Olympics. For example i don´t understand why in archery there are only recurve in the olympics, and not combound (Not sure if its called different in english). The stadium are there, and not used for other things later on. Why not those also... It doesn´t cost much. Then there are lots of potentiel sports that have a lot of attention. It could be Padeltennis, Snooker (and other pool disciplines perhaps), just to mention a few. I believe there are much more. It doesn´t demand big venues at all! 
But then there are football (Soccer)... It is not the best in the mens competetion... Then I don´t think they should be there. And then skip the Women football too... Then you have a lot fewer athletes that could be filled with some of the others that mentioned before. Alså for many cities i Believe they could build a roof over one og perhaps 2 football stadiums, and rearrange it for Swimming, or make 2 or 3 indoor venues, and temp seating of course on the field, so all the way around. It must be much cheeper than 2-3 big new indoor venues, and if football don´t have to use it, it is possible for many. That would also lower the cost. 

Another thing is what I have mentioned earlier. The possible for co hosting 2 cities in different countries. If both countries have perhaps 6-7.000 athletes, it is easier to manage, and not that much different venues. I know some of the charm of it all together will dissappear. But i would rather have the games in perhaps Warzaw and Budapest, in stead of spread all over a country perhaps. Or it could be Amsterdam and Bruxels. Copenhagen and Stockholm. Prague and Split... There are many combinations possible, and then divide the sport after what suites best the country sport history and existing venues etc.