Should the Olympics Change Host City Policy

Discussion started by Jay Stuart , on Monday, 16 May 2016 11:21

In the online New York Times, US professor Jules Boykoff,author of Power Games: A Political History of the Olympics, suggests that it might be tenable to rotate the hosting of the Games among a handful of Olympic cities around the world- say, five cities for the Summer Games. He writes: “This would cut down on fresh construction, although extant venues would still require maintenance.” What do you think of the idea? Do you think it could work – and might even be adopted?

Latest Discussion
Jose Gigante
I believe Professor Boykoff's concept it might be viable; however, in my humble opinion this concept would bring smaller impact and legacy in both the Olympic and Paralympic Games. For example, if you apply this concept to the Paralympic Games: only these few cities would develop accessible infrastructures, transport and sporting venues; generations and generations from the rest of the World wouldn't be exposed to live unforgettable Paralympic sporting performances, which have proved in both London 2012 and Sochi 2014 to bring attitudinal changes to society regarding people with a disability; moreover, it would reduce the number of opportunities for a more inclusive sport and society worldwide.

As you can understand, this is my opinion and not the opinion of the International Paralympic Committee (IPC).
363 days ago
Michael Cole
The "athletic ideal" was the motivation behind the original Games in ancient Greece, and it was this ideal that inspired Coubertin to revive the Games in 1896. The goal of the athletic ideal is "a healthy mind in a healthy body. The athletic ideal is, above all else, the primary legacy of the Olympic games. The same concept can and should apply to the hosting city, a healthy mind is the analogy of the smart city and the healthy body is the thriving city. This is the modern day ideal of the hosting city, and correctly applied hosting a major sporting event of any description should be the catalyst for any city in the world to become smarter and certainly “healthier” if not wealthier.

Rotation of a limited number of cities will restrict this Olympic ideal to a small number of already thriving and relatively wealthy cities, and the opportunity for the Olympic movement to help transcend and overcome the socioeconomic challenges of the global community will be lost. As some will say, the rich will get richer, the poor poorer.

This is just a view of course.
370 days ago
Jim Cartwright
Although it makes sense to establish a handful of locations to host the summer games and also a handful of locations to host the winter games, it will never be an acceptable solution to the masses. They don't think (other that what Boston recently did in rejecting the games due to financial / logistical reasoning) as most nations don't think about who is going to pay for the infrastructure of the games; they only think of the prestige that the games will bring to their respective cities / countries. and fully believe that the games will also bring a positive financial gain to them. I don't believe that a financial gain has ever been captured by any country in the long term, nor has have the facilities built for the games been utilized for any other purpose without suffering substantial losses by the cities / countries who built them...particularly for the summer games. The 1986 Atlanta Summer Games built a $20 Million Tennis today sits empty with weeds growing where the courts big empty eyesore. There are other facilities they built, that were then retrofitted to use for other purposes...the Olympic Village was one area that due to the foresight by Georgia Tech, overbuilt the village for use as student housing at Georgia Tech, after the games...but other venues...a Velodrome...was sold to Disney and they moved it to another location.... The U.S. has only hosted a total of (3) summer games...Atlanta and (2) different Olympics in Los Angeles, so we don't have much in the way of recent exposure here. The Winter Games, not needing as many venues, would generally not be as costly here in the U.S., except for an Olympic Village and the transportation systems (if needed).
370 days ago
Keir Radnedge
Rotation is an increasing popular concept, given the high profile of sport. Certainly the IOC might usefully explore rotation between continents to save member trying to compare inter-continental apples with oranges.
370 days ago filesmonster