Melbourne - Sports Capital Of The World

[Suit U Sir !!!]

People who live in Melbourne like myself know what the city's sporting legacy is all about. I for one have been to events this year that people in the most famous cities in the world can not match. This summer is shaping up for a hot summer of sporting events in Melbourne as well.

I won't go over the amazing start to 2006 with the Commonwealth Games and just refer to the last few months and upcoming sprorting feasts.

After the great AFL grand Final in September and the Melbourne Cup in November (hosted virtually in my backyard), this is what I have to look forward to in the next four months.

1. December : The ASHES boxing day test, the greatest Cricket tradition, where close to 100,000 will watch Shane Warne mesmerise Engaland in front of his home crowd.

2. January: Australian Tennis Grand Slam - The only grand slam of tennis that is never interrupted by the weather.

3. International Air Show Avalon that attracts amazing crowds.

4. March: Australian F1 Grand Prix (this year I am going with a newly settled Brazilian friend who lived in London for the last three years is going to go to his first Grand prix.)

5. March: World Swimming Championships (the whole family is going on three days)

6. March: AFL Football Season starts - attracting about 250,000 fans to watch AFL football in Melbourne every week.

In terms of the volume of world class tournaments hosted regularly and the overwhelming support by the public for these events, Melbourne deserves the sporting capital title.

I almost forgot the Soccer - previously eclipsed by other sports over 50,000 attended the game against Sydney last week - a new record. And so a new sporting tradition is born... again in Melbourne.

Our sporting facilities are designed for mulltipurpose use that makes it an attractive place to host these events... and regarding transport, well what can I say, every major sporting facility in Melbourne is serviced by Trains or trams so thousands can attend events occuring simultaneously. You could easily have 50,000 at the telstra dome, 15,000 at the Rod Laver Arena, 10,000 at the Vodaphone arena, 20,000 at Olympic park and 100,000 at the MCG all at the same time... all within walking distance from each other. There are just not many places in the world that this can occur.

You can debate it all you like but I haven't got too much time because there is just so much happening in town. All this during one of the hottest and driest summers ever... so it is time I hit the beach- only a 10 minute tram trip from the city. Have a great Christmas and new year.

Yes - we all know that melbourne host lots of sporting events all year round. That's why it got the No.1 ranking in the table at the start of the thread. Yes, the city hosts lots of events, the people are sports crazy, and really enthusiatic etc.....

But ask yourself the questions:

- by hosting sporting events has Melbourne overtaken New York and Tokyo as a world financial centre? no- it is not even the financial capital of Australia.

Even if it was, it still wouldn't make any difference as Australia has a small economy compared to places like USA, Germany, Japan, China etc.

- even in the sporting world, has the the city have any real power and influence? no- it will not be winning an olympic bid, anytime in the near future. We're

looking at 2036 at the earliest. Cities which host less events, had lower crowd attendances, where the general public has less interest in sports, will be

awarded the olympic games.

If we're taking about cities where things are "happening," then those are Shanghai and Dubai.

Focusing on Shanghai- it is the financial capital of China, which at the end of 2005, became the world'd 4th largest economy. Economists predict that the Chinese economy will overtake the Japanese economy around 2018/20 and the the Amercian economy around 2030. These are rough estimates.

So in other word, in around 25 years time- Shanghai may well be the world's No.1 financial/ economic centre. This is where things are seriously happening.

[Aronious]

Bloody hell! Since when were we debating "happeing cities", which is more of a financial capital, and repeat (not REPEAT!) Olympic host chances?

[Suit U Sir !!!]

Bloody hell! Since when were we debating "happeing cities", which is more of a financial capital, and repeat (not REPEAT!) Olympic host chances?

The day we all joined this site, which primarily discusses olympic bids. Everything else (eg. commonwealth games bids, other international games) is additional and surplus.

[Sir Rols]

The day we all joined this site, which primarily discusses olympic bids. Everything else (eg. commonwealth games bids, other international games) is additional and surplus.

Jeez mate, so that means that even if you put a thread in OTHER INTERNATIONAL GAMES forum it still has to qualify with an "Olympics Relevance" test? On that status, most of the other topics in this forum are also irrelevant, as are just about every one in GENERAL TOPICS (which, by the way has had numerous threads over time about studies and academic reports ranking "alpha" cities and financial rankings etc) and even a large proportion of threads on even some of the Olympics specific forums.

This was pure and simply a topic to talk about a report that attempted to rate an interesting proposition that has fuelled many a pub argument or newspaper opinion piece over the decades _ what are the world's top sporting cities in terms of tradition, support and hostings. The study never set out to discuss financial or cultural success and status, or the Olympics hostings chances for the next millenium of any of those mentioned. Nobody was trying to find any such correlations until you came along.

Anyway, our Olympic interests here inevitably mean the concept of sports business in its widest general sense comes up frequently here and is an item of interest to a lot of us. If nothing else, this study was an interesting touch-off point for a debate on the general success or not of various cities at attracting sports business to themselves. The Olympics aren't the be all and end all of hosting and sports biz _ just perhaps the most glamorous part (though rarely, if ever, the most profitable).

[alexaus]

My word aren't there people out there with issues regarding status in the world. All I can say, Melbourne always features highly on the World's Most Liveable City charts, including a recent one done among Australians where Melbourne was voted the country's best city, ranking very high on various topics such as affordability, infrastructure, lifestyle and climate.

The city's sporting tradition rated very highly, with most visitors attending a sporting event. We have a very high quality of life that a lot of the so called great "Financial centres" of the world can only dream of and still have the feel of bustling metropolis. After all our population is 3.5 milllion - maybe not huge...but big enough.

I run a medium sized business based in Melbourne, with customers in every Austrlian capital and yet it is cheaper to run it from here. Sydney is too expensive and Brisbane is not big enough... yet-It will be and I hope one day will be an Olympic city).

I am proud of my city not just because I live here, but it has a proven track record in being able to stage the big events... including Olympic Games... which incidently could be held in Melbourne tomorrow morning without a single extra new stadium being built and tickets would be close to sell outs. I mean, during the recent Commonwealth Games, apart from the MCG upgrade and the upgrade at the Aquatic centre at Albert park, Melbourne already had the infrastructure there. WHY? Because it utilises its facilities all year round by attracting the big events... which gives it a vibrant feel all year round...

...and wait there is more to come... as soccer becomes a bigger sport in Australia... as they start winning in the Asian groupings... this sleeping giant will awake even more and Australia will one day field a team that will be a serious contender... which will lead to it hosting the World Cup... where the stadiums are bigger than those recently in Germany and they will be filled to capacity with Melbourne at the forefront of a very succesful event.

Regarding the topic's relevance - I don't think there is a more appropriate place to discuss this, as I think that the Melbourne model could be utilised for all prospective Olympic Games candidate cities, as it has the complete package- being able to stage word class events as well as utilise all these facilities all year round... with great success... no white elephants here...

Who cares if Melbourne does not rate as a must see city of landmarks, or financial capital of the world, chances are that if you want to experience a world class sporting event there is one being held in Melbourne virtually all year round.

Melbourne's sporting stadia and passion for sport are its landmarks. See you at the MCG on Tuesday 26th December 2006 for the greatest spectacle in cricket as we witness Shane Warne take his record 700th wicket. I am sure millions of Cricket fans around the world will be tuning in to see this feat.

[Sir Rols]

Regarding the topic's relevance - I don't think there is a more appropriate place to discuss this, as I think that the Melbourne model could be utilised for all prospective Olympic Games candidate cities, as it has the complete package- being able to stage word class events as well as utilise all these facilities all year round... with great success... no white elephants here...

Hear, hear!

[Suit U Sir !!!]

My word aren't there people out there with issues regarding status in the world. All I can say, Melbourne always features highly on the World's Most Liveable City charts, including a recent one done among Australians where Melbourne was voted the country's best city, ranking very high on various topics such as affordability, infrastructure, lifestyle and climate.

The city's sporting tradition rated very highly, with most visitors attending a sporting event. We have a very high quality of life that a lot of the so called great "Financial centres" of the world can only dream of and still have the feel of bustling metropolis. After all our population is 3.5 milllion - maybe not huge...but big enough.

I run a medium sized business based in Melbourne, with customers in every Austrlian capital and yet it is cheaper to run it from here. Sydney is too expensive and Brisbane is not big enough... yet-It will be and I hope one day will be an Olympic city).

I am proud of my city not just because I live here, but it has a proven track record in being able to stage the big events... including Olympic Games... which incidently could be held in Melbourne tomorrow morning without a single extra new stadium being built and tickets would be close to sell outs. I mean, during the recent Commonwealth Games, apart from the MCG upgrade and the upgrade at the Aquatic centre at Albert park, Melbourne already had the infrastructure there. WHY? Because it utilises its facilities all year round by attracting the big events... which gives it a vibrant feel all year round...

...and wait there is more to come... as soccer becomes a bigger sport in Australia... as they start winning in the Asian groupings... this sleeping giant will awake even more and Australia will one day field a team that will be a serious contender... which will lead to it hosting the World Cup... where the stadiums are bigger than those recently in Germany and they will be filled to capacity with Melbourne at the forefront of a very succesful event.

Regarding the topic's relevance - I don't think there is a more appropriate place to discuss this, as I think that the Melbourne model could be utilised for all prospective Olympic Games candidate cities, as it has the complete package- being able to stage word class events as well as utilise all these facilities all year round... with great success... no white elephants here...

Who cares if Melbourne does not rate as a must see city of landmarks, or financial capital of the world, chances are that if you want to experience a world class sporting event there is one being held in Melbourne virtually all year round.

Melbourne's sporting stadia and passion for sport are its landmarks. See you at the MCG on Tuesday 26th December 2006 for the greatest spectacle in cricket as we witness Shane Warne take his record 700th wicket. I am sure millions of Cricket fans around the world will be tuning in to see this feat.

Very well written - very passionate, nice feel-good factor to that post......I hope you business does really well....

But at the end of the day this is all we can really discuss about Melbourne isn't it- Sport. Because on the international stage that's pretty much all it is - somewhere which hosts 2nd/ 3rd tier sporting events every year. Nothing more. It has no other function/ importance. Outside of Australia it counts for little.

[Suit U Sir !!!]

Jeez mate, so that means that even if you put a thread in OTHER INTERNATIONAL GAMES forum it still has to qualify with an "Olympics Relevance" test? On that status, most of the other topics in this forum are also irrelevant, as are just about every one in GENERAL TOPICS (which, by the way has had numerous threads over time about studies and academic reports ranking "alpha" cities and financial rankings etc) and even a large proportion of threads on even some of the Olympics specific forums.

This was pure and simply a topic to talk about a report that attempted to rate an interesting proposition that has fuelled many a pub argument or newspaper opinion piece over the decades _ what are the world's top sporting cities in terms of tradition, support and hostings. The study never set out to discuss financial or cultural success and status, or the Olympics hostings chances for the next millenium of any of those mentioned. Nobody was trying to find any such correlations until you came along.

Anyway, our Olympic interests here inevitably mean the concept of sports business in its widest general sense comes up frequently here and is an item of interest to a lot of us. If nothing else, this study was an interesting touch-off point for a debate on the general success or not of various cities at attracting sports business to themselves. The Olympics aren't the be all and end all of hosting and sports biz _ just perhaps the most glamorous part (though rarely, if ever, the most profitable).

Yes it was in a separate forum. However I don't think it's really that outrageous to mention olympic bidding at some stage in all threads on this site, given that the site is dedicated to discussing olympic bids.

Anyway it's not just the relevance i'd like to question. The methods used can also be put into question.

1) Sporting events from 2002-2010 were included, which means that important things like the Sydney 2000 olympics and Paris 1998 world cup final were not counted - i'm assuming? So these 2 cities didn't get credit for recently having hosted the 2 biggest events in the sporting world.

2) Some sporting events in 2009/ 2010 still haven't been allocated to host cities. For example, bidding for the IPC World swimming championships in 2010 has just started. The host city will be decided in September 2007.

http://www.paralympic.org/release/Main_Sec...06_12_18_a.html

Even the Diving grand prix final 2007 hasn't been allocated to a host city yet:

http://www.fina.org/news/bids/index.php

Surely the chosen time frame should have been something like 1998-2006, rather than 2002- 2010.

[Aronious]

Very well written - very passionate, nice feel-good factor to that post......I hope you business does really well....

But at the end of the day this is all we can really discuss about Melbourne isn't it- Sport. Because on the international stage that's pretty much all it is - somewhere which hosts 2nd/ 3rd tier sporting events every year. Nothing more. It has no other function/ importance. Outside of Australia it counts for little.

The Australian Open, Moto GrandPrix, F1 Grand Prix, Commonwealth Games, FINA Champs are hardly 2nd/3rd tier events!

Throw in Gymnastics World Championships too.

Not to mention the Rugby World Cup, Cricket World Cup, Commonwealth Games and Olympic Games the city has also hosted. Although it was a very long time ago, the Worlds Fair too.

Not many other cities can claim to have hosted that many, what you call “2nd tier events”. I’m not sure what rates higher?

For a very long time Melbourne was the most important city in the Commonwealth. More important to its economic stability then London!

Again, you move off track. Its not about importance. The city was positioned highly on the rankings for its sporting culture and abilities.

Although cities like London and New York may be better destinations (mainly due to geographic position), they do not offer anything like Melbourne does in terms of sporting culture.

If Melbourne was located closer to Europe and the United States its importance as a world sports capital would become far more acute to you!

[Rob2012]

Although cities like London and New York may be better destinations (mainly due to geographic position), they do not offer anything like Melbourne does in terms of sporting culture.

I can't speak for New York, but I wouldn't have thought London would be far off Melbourne actually. OK, Melbourne is much smaller so it may be more remarkable for them to have so many top notch events, but in the list you gave above London matches up quite well. And with the addition of the Olympics and the legacy that will bring in terms of new sporting events in the Capital, London will be pretty close to Melbourne.

Not that I want to get into an argument really, because I agree with everything else you've said in that post.

[Suit U Sir !!!]

Although cities like London and New York may be better destinations (mainly due to geographic position), they do not offer anything like Melbourne does in terms of sporting culture

But they have far more to offer the tourist. New York and London are more worth visiting than Melbourne, any day. No contest.

No building, structure, monument in Melbourne can remotely compete with world famous icons that you find in cities like London and New York - like the Empire State Building, Statue of Liberty, Times Square, Ground Zero/ New World Trade center, Big ben, London Bridge, Buckingham Palace, Tower of London, London Eye, Madame Taussards, Trafalgar Square, St.Pauls cathedral, Westminster Abbey.

To be honest - I think a lot of sporting bodies (eg. IOC, IAAF) would prefer to award sporting events to cities like these- with world famous monuments in the backdrop.

But Melbourne didn't have to bid against cities like Tokyo, London, New York, Hong Kong, Paris, Rome to win the right to host the 2006 Commonwealth games, World gymnastics championships, World swimming championships, Deaf Olympics etc.

Even if Melbourne the city has faced somewhere like Cape Town/ Johannesburg for the 2006 commonwealth games, they would have lost.

If Melbourne was located closer to Europe and the United States its importance as a world sports capital would become far more acute to you!

But that's the key point here- being a sports capital, hosting lots of sporting events is not important. Melbourne hosting the GP, Tennis, Commonwealth games has not affected the day to day lives of millions of people around the world. The words "importance" and "sporting capital" don't go together.

In contrast- in cities like Washington and London important decisons are made which change the course of world history- like invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam for instance. The face of world politics has been altered (quite disasterously) because of incompetent decisons made in cities like these.

[Suit U Sir !!!]

I can't speak for New York, but I wouldn't have thought London would be far off Melbourne actually. OK, Melbourne is much smaller so it may be more remarkable for them to have so many top notch events, but in the list you gave above London matches up quite well. And with the addition of the Olympics and the legacy that will bring in terms of new sporting events in the Capital, London will be pretty close to Melbourne.

Not that I want to get into an argument really, because I agree with everything else you've said in that post.

But I don't see why London would want to be the sports capital of the world anyway- it's a title which carries no importance to it.

Let Melbourne have it.

London has far more important titles:

- No.1 financial/ economic capital of Europe (more trading volume than Frankfurt)

- Home to Heathrow Airport, busiest international airport in the world

- A+/ premier league city- one of the big four cities, alongside Paris, New York, Tokyo.

- Capital city of Europe's 2nd largest economy. the world's 5th largest economy

- Home to some of the most famous buildings in the world

Melbourne IS more of a sporting city than London. I agree. It hosts more sporting events, and have higher crowd attendances, everyone who lives there may well be the most sports-crazy people on the globe, but remember......

- London will be the first city to host the summer olympics 3 times (Melbourne won't be hosting it's 3rd summer olympics any sooner than 2200)

- London has never lost an olympic bid. Infact it won what is regarded by many as the most difficult summer race in history.

- Even if London had lost 2012, we would have lost to Paris another A+ city, bidding for the 3rd time in 20 years. We would not have lost to a 2nd tier American city called Atlanta. No- infact London beat New York City- America's No.1 city.

- Even if London had lost the 2012 race, we would have probably finished 2nd, and lost by half a dozen votes (like Paris lost by 4 votes). We would not have finished way down in 4th place, like Melbourne did in the 1996 race.

- Melbourne bid for 1996 only 40 years after it last hosted in 1956, which is why it lost? Remember - London has hosted 40 years apart- 1908 and 1948.

[Sir Rols]

LOL!

For someone who can't see the merit in debating who are the world's top sporting cities, you sure doing more than anyone to keep the topic alive!

[Aronious]

Not even gonna bother with this topic anymore. Doesnt seem to get through.

[NOC]

I have just read this thread with amazement!

What you are forgetting is the POLITICS behind an Olympic Games bid.

You say "IOC" choosing a city based on landmarks etc etc - I can tell you that Cities are chosen about the political race that is completed behind the scenes of the IOC and it has NOTHING to do with the status of the city.

Ranking - Capitals - World Importance - etc etc etc is all irrelevant when a city is selected to be host of an Olympic Games.

Atlanta, Nagano, Sydney, SLC, Athens, Torino, Beijing, Vancouver, London all played a game - called the IOC Game. When Australia is ready to bid again for an Olympic Games, either Brisbane, Perth or Melbourne will fight this out and no matter what Australian city is put forward, Australia now knows how to play the IOC - We are experts in the International Sporting Field....

Just look at how many Australians were employed by Torino 2006 and Doha 2006 - one of our exports is now in major event knowledge.

And when Australia places the bid for 2018 World Cup the battle for us will be Sydney vs. Melbourne for the final and Opening Game, not England or China.

SIMPLE

[Aronious]

I think you over state Australia's situtation, but the merit is still there. You've got the right idea though.

[Rob2012]

And when Australia places the bid for 2018 World Cup the battle for us will be Sydney vs. Melbourne for the final and Opening Game, not England or China.

Wow, fighting talk. That sounds like the sort of arrogance that won the 2012 Games for Pari......no, wait!

If it is England v China v Oz, it'll be a great battle, and all three have very good reasons for hosting. I don't know why you think Oz would be the certain winner

[Aronious]

Me neither. It's a very open race.

All are very capable of hosting well

*England is a football power house and the fact it has only been host once may work to its advantage

*Australia, a new contender. Chances will be strong if we can qualify for 2010 and make at least the semi's of the Asian Cup (and see our teams do well in the Champions League/World Club Cup).

*Hasnt qualified for the WC, but is strong in Asia. Will have good reason to be selected post Beijing.

Anyway. lets not get of topic further!

[arwebb]

Wow, fighting talk. That sounds like the sort of arrogance that won the 2012 Games for Pari......no, wait!

[Aronious]

Melbourne bid for 1996 only 40 years after it last hosted in 1956, which is why it lost? Remember - London has hosted 40 years apart- 1908 and 1948.

Apart from the fact this isn’t the point of the topic, correct me if I’m wrong, but did London actually WIN these games?

I don’t think you can make such a comparison. Considering how limited geographically the games were in those times. Western Europe and America.

I find it difficult to comprehend how such a historic, economically important city, in the worlds 5th most important country can produce such a mediocre sum of Olympic success.

Although maybe considered inevitable, Melbourne opened the Olympic Games to the world. Yes there is a world outside Europe.

Again on your above points, now read this closely. This topic is not about how much tourists enjoy London, nor how well the city does in Olympic bids. It is about sporting culture and to what degree each city embraces.

As mentioned before, winning Olympic bids is not always about sporting culture. If that was so Atlanta would have been well off the 1996 mark. So to Beijing, and probably Sydney (consider Berlin).

Please realize that England has no depth. There is London…. And then? Or no and then?. Manchester… doubtful for an Olympic bid, that has been proven. It is likely come 2050 Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or Perth (Perth is our Manchester) will have held the event.

[arwebb]

Apart from the fact this isn’t the point of the topic, correct me if I’m wrong, but did London actually WIN these games?

Remember London hosted 1948 when we couldn't really afford to and nobody else would. It's because of London that Melbourne had an Olympics to host at all!

Please realize that England has no depth. There is London…. And then? Or no and then?. Manchester… doubtful for an Olympic bid, that has been proven. It is likely come 2050 Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or Perth (Perth is our Manchester) will have held the event.

That is laughable. What record does Perth have of hosting world class events? And Brisbane doesn't have the facilities for a World Athletics Championships, never mind the Olympics.

No depth to England? Once London blows the world away with 2012, that will open the doors for other cities. Manchester triggered London with an outstanding Commonwealths. Remember Birmingham bid not too long ago.

Maybe you should look closer to home.

[Aronious]

My above point was to show that Perth is as capable as Manchester in terms of hosting an Olympic Games. Chances are slim to zero. Sure both have had events such as the Commonwealth, World Swimming and Cycling, but nothing close to substantiating an Olympic Games.

Birmingham. Your kidding. The city would struggle to make an impact on a Commonwealth Bid. Redeveloped cricket ground anyone?

You know that once 2012 has passed England’s next host will be, you guessed it, London, in another 40 years time.

In reference to Brisbane, there aren’t many cities that can claim to be athletics strong holds outside of Europe (only the mainland). The World Champs will act as the perfect reason for Brisbane to develop a site for a future Olympic Games.

I have no doubts that London will be a magnificent games. Easily the most anticipated ever (and where still 6years away), but I’m doubtful it will open any doors in terms of new frontiers in England. The country is far to concentrated and similar. Unlike nations such as the US which have vastly different options for Olympic hosts.

You make a good point about London’s previous hosts. However the limited size of the Games then makes it impossible to consider it a factor when determining the world’s sporting capital/s.

[arwebb]

Birmingham. Your kidding. The city would struggle to make an impact on a Commonwealth Bid. Redeveloped cricket ground anyone?

It's not as far-fetched as that by any means. Birmingham are better placed than many places. The key to it is the stadium, but there are already plenty of facilities in place.

[Aronious]

As far as i know, all the existing facilities are in one big convention complex. Not much else. Although the 2nd largest city in England, on an international stage i dont think it rates above Newcastle, Manchester and Liverpool.

[arwebb]

In what terms? Manchester would probably rank above Birmingham now, but Newcastle and Liverpool? Don't be ridiculous.