[Robo]

Dear IOC,

I'm totally cool with you giving the 2016 Summer Games to Rio and everything. It's exciting, hosting the Games in a new continent, and everybody knows you're going to do the same with South Africa in 2020. I'm just wondering, how many more times will Europe get the Summer Games before North America has a shot? Is their an exchange rate that I should be aware of? It's three to one, right? We'll get another go after Paris 2024? Or will we have to wait for Rome to go too? Is it an every-other thing, like Europe, some other continent, Europe, some other continent, Europe? Because -- and forgive me if I'm overstepping my bounds by saying this -- there are six other continents.

Sincerely,
North America

[Luca]

Dear IOC and FIFA,

We know you're being really progressive and all. The 2010 World Cup is in Johannesburg, the 2014 World Cup is in Rio, and the 2016 Olympics are also in Rio.

We think that's great, but please pay close attention to the safety of the fans and athletes. Don't be surprised if we say we told you so. You might consider holding your events in cities without ridiculously high rates of rape and murder. Just saying.

Sincerely,
Europe and North America

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Luca Dear IOC and FIFA, We know you're being really progressive and all. The 2010 World Cup is in Johannesburg, the 2014 World Cup is in Rio, and the 2016 Olympics are also in Rio.

You might as well add South Africa 2020 to the list, unless something goes horribly wrong this year. The IOC has so clearly telegraphed their desires to award the games to an African nation that it's discouraged everyone else (both Tokyo and the USOC) from bidding. (Except Italy, who's convinced that since it will have been a whopping eight years since the previous European Summer Games, they will somehow be owed the games, hence my prior post).

By my count, North America will have a decent shot at hosting the Summer Games for the first time this millenium in, oh, 2032. Every other continent would have hosted the Summer Games in the meantime, including Asia twice (2008, 2028) and Europe three times (2004, 2012, 2024). We might as well break and try to host the Winter Olympics *again* in the meantime.

[drewprops]

Antarctica in 2018 baby!!!!

...

[Robo]

Originally Posted by drewprops Antarctica in 2018 baby!!!! ...

You were probably joking, but I was actually thinking that it would be cool (no pun intended) if someone started an Antarctica 2022 bid to raise awareness for global warming (which uniquely impacts Antarctica, it seems). Only one event -- cross-country ski? -- would actually be held in Antarctica, with the remaining events held throughout the world, in keeping with the global message.

It's crazy, of course. But at the same time, in a world where the Internet can get nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and "You" can be Time's Person of the Year, why not? It would pave the way for other unorthodox bids, like the proposed Seattle/Vancouver 2028 bid. And though the IOC would likely kill the "global games" concept, they could fold the Antarctica portion (and ecological message) into the probable New Zealand bid, also in the Southern Hemisphere.

It would give new meaning to "go world," wouldn't it?

[Banana]

Robo,

Wasn't there an outcry over how IOC had Alanta then SLC and um, one more that slips my mind in relatively short time?


Anyway, excuse me while I prepare to stake a claim on a piece of real estate for free...

[Luca]

Originally Posted by Banana Robo, Wasn't there an outcry over how IOC had Alanta then SLC and um, one more that slips my mind in relatively short time? Anyway, excuse me while I prepare to stake a claim on a piece of real estate for free...

Well there was Lake Placid for the winter games in 1980 followed by Los Angeles for the 1984 summer games, and then Atlanta in '96 and Salt Lake City in '02. So two in short succession followed by two in kinda short succession.

Either way, the IOC is biased against the western hemisphere. They consider "the Americas" to be a single continent, yet for whatever reason they don't consider Afro-Eurasia (or even Eurasia) to be a single continent...

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Banana Robo, Wasn't there an outcry over how IOC had Alanta then SLC and um, one more that slips my mind in relatively short time?

The outcry was more about the SLC bid bribery scandal. While admittedly quick for a country, it wasn't at all an unusually short period of time for a continent to host two games -- Europe's gone "back to back" twice in this decade, with 2004-6 and 2012-14. Traditionally, the Summer Games are considered separate from the Winter Games. Hence, North America has not hosted a Summer Games since 1996, and won't until at least 2020 2024 2028? 2032? Who knows.

Luca is on the nose with the IOC's apparent Eurocentrism. "The Americas" only get one ring on the Olympic flag, &c. No other continent gets to go back to back (to back to back...) like they do. Heck, super-populous Asia (which is definitely not Europe ) only gets to host the games once a decade (1988, 1998, 2008, hopefully 2018) and they just have to make do with whichever Games falls on the "8" that decade. I "get" that the Olympics started in Europe, and will always sort of hail from the European tradition, but for all the posturing about it being a "global movement" each event sure seems to take place in Europe every other time, with the other half of the events split between, um, everyone else.

That might have been okay when "everyone else" was the US, Canada, and maybe Australia. Add in Mexico and New Zealand and, oh, three entire continents, and it doesn't really work any more. They're still acting like it's 1960 or something. (Hopefully they don't act like it's actually 1960, and award the games to Rome. )

Originally Posted by Banana Anyway, excuse me while I prepare to stake a claim on a piece of real estate for free...

?

[Banana]

I wasn't paying close attention, unforunately and yes I had forgotten about the scandal in the SLC... What about that Altanta and advertisers? And yes, there's a different between a country and a continent.

To think of it, though, I'm not sure where else in the Western Hemisphere there's the required infrastructure to host Olympics. I don't think Haiti is going to be very high on the list, nor will be Cuba.


BTW, land claim is in reference to Antarctica. The way I figure it, if global warming is going to melt polar caps, I might as well grab me some 100 acres real estate...

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Roboman Dear IOC, I'm totally cool with you giving the 2016 Summer Games to Rio and everything. It's exciting, hosting the Games in a new continent, and everybody knows you're going to do the same with South Africa in 2020. I'm just wondering, how many more times will Europe get the Summer Games before North America has a shot? Is their an exchange rate that I should be aware of? It's three to one, right? We'll get another go after Paris 2024? Or will we have to wait for Rome to go too? Is it an every-other thing, like Europe, some other continent, Europe, some other continent, Europe? Because -- and forgive me if I'm overstepping my bounds by saying this -- there are six other continents. Sincerely, North America

Unfortunately the IOC's recent selections of host cities has been terrible and the pattern looks to continue well into the future. The winter olympics have become especially poor as far as selection goes. Vancouver, while a decent games, was a poor selection of a host city for the winter olympics and Sochi will prove to be even worse. The winter olympics belong in a winter environment and preferably one in which everything is compact and accessible. The pattern of awarding a warm climate city the winter olympics and hosting the events 90-120 miles away in the mountains is ridiculous.


Despite the critics, NYC2012 was a great concept. As with most things related to NYC, politics got in the way. I don't like how so much money and resources was poured into developing that bid only to be dropped when met with defeat upon the first try. NYC would be a fantastic place for the summer olympics. As would the bay area.

America would be wise to embrace its natural resources and bid again for the winter games though. We really are very fortunate to have amazing world class winter sports regions here that are accessible, populated, and have infrastructure. Tahoe, SLC (again), Colorado, Wyoming, etc all would make great winter games bids. The games returning to Tahoe would be especially nice, but challenging with all the environmentalists.

[PKIDelirium]

Yeah, 2016's choice was terrible. Tokyo would have been the safest and most well-equipped city out of all the finalists.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by PKIDelirium Yeah, 2016's choice was terrible. Tokyo would have been the safest and most well-equipped city out of all the finalists.

Tokyo's bid got the highest technical score. Rio got the lowest. I'm not going to write Rio off or anything -- I'm happy for them that they have a chance to really take the spotlight on the world stage -- but, yeah, being IIRC the first South American city to bid (and not being up against London or Paris ) certainly helped.

[joveblue]

Dear North America,

You only have 3 countries.

Gosh.

Sincerely,

The IOC.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by joveblue Dear North America, You only have 3 countries. Gosh. Sincerely, The IOC.

uh... 23.

I don't see your point anyways.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses uh... 23.

Canada, USA, and Mexico.

Or are you also lumping in Central America?

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses uh... 23.

Oh, true . I always thought of anything below Mexico as "Central America". Don't know why.

Anyway, 3 countries capable of hosting a Games?

[Mugge]

Dear IOC, FIFA, etc.,

Keep your corrupt asses away from Copenhagen, we pay enough taxes already and have no desire to pay for your circus also.

Loathe,
Mugge

[curiousuburb]

Originally Posted by joveblue Anyway, 3 countries capable of hosting a Games?

"Capable of hosting" is probably a better measure.

All of the Americas probably includes 4 countries 'capable'... US/Canada/Mexico and Brazil (probably only recently).

All of 'Asia' also probably includes 4 countries 'capable'... Japan/China/Korea/Australia
Taiwan might have the economic strength, but would never get them (politics with China)...
A few more years and Thailand/Malaysia/Indonesia/Singapore might have a crack, but at the moment are probably not 'capable'
India probably has a decent chance, but I'm not sure if they have the will or desire, let alone infrastructure

Africa and Middle East (again only recently)...
SA maybe (if they pull off the World Cup seamlessly)
UAE or a few Gulf states might have cash/stadiums but 50°C weather makes Summer Games brutal,
Israel/Iran too much politics to get approved

That leaves Europe... plenty of countries 'capable', and although Greece probably can't afford them anymore, that still leaves 9 or 10 candidates

But nobody said the IOC was deciding based on logic.

[Banana]

Originally Posted by Curiousuburb All of 'Asia' also probably includes 4 countries 'capable'... Japan/China/Korea/Australia

Everything I knew about geography was wrong.

[faust]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses Unfortunately the IOC's recent selections of host cities has been terrible and the pattern looks to continue well into the future. The winter olympics have become especially poor as far as selection goes. Vancouver, while a decent games, was a poor selection of a host city for the winter olympics and Sochi will prove to be even worse. The winter olympics belong in a winter environment and preferably one in which everything is compact and accessible. The pattern of awarding a warm climate city the winter olympics and hosting the events 90-120 miles away in the mountains is ridiculous. Despite the critics, NYC2012 was a great concept. As with most things related to NYC, politics got in the way. I don't like how so much money and resources was poured into developing that bid only to be dropped when met with defeat upon the first try. NYC would be a fantastic place for the summer olympics. As would the bay area. America would be wise to embrace its natural resources and bid again for the winter games though. We really are very fortunate to have amazing world class winter sports regions here that are accessible, populated, and have infrastructure. Tahoe, SLC (again), Colorado, Wyoming, etc all would make great winter games bids. The games returning to Tahoe would be especially nice, but challenging with all the environmentalists.

Those of us that actually work and live in the NYC area have NO desire to see the games land here.

[curiousuburb]

Originally Posted by Banana Everything I knew about geography was wrong.

Couldn't decide over politics of Eurasia or Australasia, (and didn't want to leave them alone with nothing but Kiwis and islanders for company)... so bundled them without appending the latter name and just quotes instead.

Do they get their own ring?

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Brad Canada, USA, and Mexico. Or are you also lumping in Central America?

Are you thinking of Central America as a continent itself? I'd check that...

Also, you seem to be ignoring a nice big one up north as well.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by faust Those of us that actually work and live in the NYC area have NO desire to see the games land here.

Hm... perhaps you should speak for yourself and not for everyone as I have and do live and work in NYC as does most of my extended family and friends.


But your statement unfortunately was true of many New Yorkers without a doubt. But I pose the question to you... why?

Don't claim disruption and traffic, that's a daily occurrence anyways and I really have a hard time believing a city as big and use to large events as NY would really be that negatively impacted... especially for 2 weeks. NYC could certainly use the facility upgrades.

[Robo]

@Curiousuburb: Well, sure. If you go by the number of individual nations (however small) capable of bidding, Europe "wins" (though I still doubt they outnumber everybody else combined). But going by things like, oh, population, or geographic area...

The number of nations who have the means (arguably) and desire to host a games is growing -- China, South Africa, Brazil -- but Europe is still hosting just as many games as always. They're quick to welcome newcomers, as long as it's everybody else that makes room for them. (Rio bid in 2012, too, when the race was primarily between London and Paris. They didn't even make the shortlist. Four years later, they get the Games?)

I'm not saying the IOC has to set up a formal rotation policy, and no, I don't think Italy has much of a chance in 2020, so there's that, at least (though I'll be damned if Paris doesn't get 2024). But if they want to be "global" and "progressive" they have to realize some things, like how that means Europe can't continue to host every other Games. They can't have it both ways.

As it is, they're literally discouraging countries like Japan and the US from bidding, until at least 2028 (hopefully Tokyo will have a chance then, due to the Rule of Eights). Either of those countries would outnumber the population of Greece (2004), UK (2012) and France (2024) combined, not to mention that it would be much easier for a French person to attend the London Games (if they can swallow their pride ) than a Japanese person. But sometimes the Games themselves gets lost in the international pissing contest that proceeds them

[billybobsky]

I saw a proposal which creates five permanent winter and summer olympic sites. This reduces the overhead of hosting the olympics and keeps things relatively fresh and politics free.

[faust]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses Hm... perhaps you should speak for yourself and not for everyone as I have and do live and work in NYC as does most of my extended family and friends. But your statement unfortunately was true of many New Yorkers without a doubt. But I pose the question to you... why? Don't claim disruption and traffic, that's a daily occurrence anyways and I really have a hard time believing a city as big and use to large events as NY would really be that negatively impacted... especially for 2 weeks. NYC could certainly use the facility upgrades.

Plenty of surveys were done and never did I see one where close to 50% of NYC/LI, Northern Jersey folks approved of having the games here.

Why would people already overtaxed want to lay out more money for the games?

Don't tell me anyone ever comes out ahead financially from the games because that isn’t true.

NYC is hard enough to move around in, what a cluster fuck this place would be with all the additional tourists and athletes. Ever look to see what a bitch it is to move around when the UN is in session, the President is in town or even on St Patrick's day?

[hflomberg]

The games won't be in Denver, after 76, till Hell freezes over, Shuckydarn!

[Robo]

Originally Posted by faust Don't tell me anyone ever comes out ahead financially from the games because that isn’t true.

*cough* Los Angeles 1984 made $200,000,000 and essentially saved the modern Olympics after a (financially) disasterous Montreal 1976 scared away everyone else.

Besides, "ahead" is relative. Even in cases where the Games themselves didn't turn a profit, few things can boost a city's standing on the world stage quite like hosting an Olympics. Atlanta wasn't even on the map before 1996. The Olympics are also valuable from a "nation branding" perspective -- just ask China.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by hflomberg The games won't be in Denver, after 76, till Hell freezes over, Shuckydarn!

Giving up the Games during the USA's bicentennial, no less. Yeah, we'll never forgive you Denverites either

[billybobsky]

ahem... atlanta still isn't on the map...