We should host the Olympics in the same place every time

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/28/we-should-host-the-olympics-in-the-same-place-every-time/?postshare=1821439596233823

by evanb • 11 years ago

288 122 11 years ago

washingtonpost.com

Gys4• 11 years ago

'How about selling a permanent site in Greece for the Summer Olympics ? An uninhabited island would be ideal, not too far from the coast accessible by ferries as well as planes.'

'The original Olympics was held in Olympia, Greece for 800 years. The changing site is a modern phenomenon used to spread support in the early stages of the modern Olympic movement. Why not return the Games to their real roots?'

Good arguments (if ever that would even matter to the people in charge ;-) and great idea.

sp332• 11 years ago

It's hard to imagine that prime real estate like that would be "uninhabited".

Gys4• 11 years ago

'Greece has an extremely large number of islands, with estimates ranging from somewhere around 1,200 to 6,000, depending on the minimum size to take into account. The number of inhabited islands is variously cited as between 166 and 227.'

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_islands_of_Greece

And it would not even have to be uninhabited I guess. Greece is very poor and really needs any investments it can get (as is in the article).

Given the size of Greece (incl the islands) everything is nearby. With a budget of billions it would not be a problem to spend (only once) some money for a new airport (I guess now its spend every four years in some city to modernize their nearest airport).

return0• 11 years ago

Trying to think a way to attract sponsors when the athletes will compete wearing nothing but olive oil all over them.

Gys4• 11 years ago

Not sure if it will attract the kind of sponsors the IOC wants to go public with...

But given the public broadcast censorship of most non-European countries it will probably attract more visitors ;-) Which is better for the local economy anyway !

kevin_thibedeau• 11 years ago

That's the new women's beach volleyball uniform they've been trying to adopt.

tellthetruth14• 11 years ago

Yeah like they are still not corrupt enough. Let's concentrate all the money in there! Just dumb!

dghughes2• 11 years ago

The original Olympic games were held in honour of Zeus (God) so really the games should be held in the Mount Athos region of Greece an autonomous monastic stare in Greece.

What better place to hold games originally religious in nature from Greece than this region?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Athos

taejo2• 11 years ago

Well, there are women athletes, so that wouldn't work. (Entry to Mount Athos is only allowed to men)

thaumasiotes• 11 years ago

The original Olympic games were held in honour of Zeus (God) so really the games should be held in the Mount Athos region of Greece an autonomous monastic stare in Greece.

I don't follow the "logic" here at all. What makes Mount Athos more appropriate than, say, Olympia, the traditional site of the Olympic games?

orestisfl• 11 years ago

What does Christianity have to do with Dodekatheism at all? Also, have you seen mount Athos? It's mainly only trees and it's very mountainous http://www.star.gr/publishingimages/2014/08/020814141543_327...

Besides, access to the region is prohibited for women and such a big event would completely fuck up their culture and lifestyle.

omouse• 11 years ago

A permanent way to ensure the Greek economy never goes under ;)

zamalek• 11 years ago

The main problem would be the initial expenditure. Ignoring corruption overheads this wouldn't be something that Greece could afford.

Long-term it might be their saving grace, but how would they get there?

braythwayt2• 11 years ago

I think this is a piece of learned trolling, satire designed to provoke us into thinking hard about what the IOC really is.

The IOC profits from the selection process as much as it does from the games. The bribes, the payments, everything involved in this horrible “competition” fills their coffers with money.

If the games were held in the same place every year, there would be no bribes to rig bids. There would be no construction companies and other contractors to pony up black bags full of money to ensure their place at the trough.

There would also be no pressure on governments to pretend the games are a success. Every country hosting the games is under enormous pressure to brag about how wonderful the games are. They spend hundreds of millions promoting the games that they spend billions supporting.

All that would go away if the games were held in a permanent facility.

secstate• 11 years ago

That's a really excellent point. As I was reading it I thought maybe the author didn't really get why the IOC exists, but your suggestion, that this is mostly satire, makes way more sense.

pakled_engineer• 11 years ago

The local politicians in my city that lured the IOC here through bribes were all later parachuted into lucrative foreign service diplomatic posts and various IOC connected director positions after. That's the true legacy of the games, the politicians raise their profile, network with the world's elite and move into international politics while the rest of us pay for their promotions.

Having the winter olympics in Switzerland only would make sense, easy to secure, neutral country, no forced relocation of "undesireables" like when Beijing shipped every Mongolian migrant laborer out of the city, or when my government mass imprisoned as many homeless as they could by picking them all up for unpaid fines.

No country would have an edge with exclusive track access for months before allowing competitor teams in to practice either.

domador• 11 years ago

What is your city / country?

tellthetruth14• 11 years ago

Oh yeah. Let those Europeans have it. No corruptions! No country would have an edge because no country is within 1000km radius of Switzerland.

MichaelGG• 11 years ago

Better yet, do what you can to ignore and shun these corrupt proceedings. The Olympics depends on people treating it as something special. Same for FIFA. Mock people wearing Qatar shirts, just as you would someone promoting homeopathy.

seanmcdirmid• 11 years ago

Beijing shipped out the Uyghurs, not the Mongolians (there aren't that many Mongolian migrants to begin with).

geuis• 11 years ago

I agree with everything you wrote, except for the first 10 words. This isn't a trollish idea. It's a practical solution that solves a real problem. Any time in conversation this topic comes up, I make the same argument that it doesn't make financial sense to move from city to city like a plague.

braythwayt2• 11 years ago

It’s practical in the sense that it would logically work.

But it’s impractical in the sense that it doesn’t actually satisfy the needs of anybody in the IOC or the bid committees that try to get tax money to enrich themselves, or the needs of politicians who want to bask in the halo of “winning and hosting the games."

LoSboccacc2• 11 years ago

And what about the part of doing it in a inhabitated island? That's just trolling, provocative or on crack.

0x0• 11 years ago

Yep, let's have everyone compete at who's the best to beat the drug tests in one spot year on year. TV licenses are gonna go through the roof. What a business to partake in.

marze• 11 years ago

Or a compromise of four places in rotation. Many cities who've hosted the games recently have the infrastructure already.

lordnacho4• 11 years ago

I'd be all for it. A permanent site can rely on repeat business and a permanent economy can grow around it. A sort of Mecca for sports.

The current process is a shambles. It's basically about telling the world how prosperous the host is, and for the IOC members it's all about milking the process for money. You end up building a ghost town someplace every four years at huge cost.

I suppose the same arguments apply for the winter olympics. They have mountains and snow in Greece too, so how about building twin sites?

briandear• 11 years ago

Winter Olympics in Greece? Nonsense. Chamonix vs Greece -- there is just no comparison. Very few people plan world class ski vacations in Greece. That's like having surfing competitions in New Jersey. Sure there's an ocean, but that doesn't make it good.

troymc2• 11 years ago

The article is about the summer olympics.

lordnacho4• 11 years ago

If it's there permanently, you can make it good. You can buy a ton of snow machines, you can make the slopes the way you like.

We just had the Winter Olympics in a tiny Russian resort.

kiiski• 11 years ago

Wouldn't having it in the same place every time make it more expensive/difficult for people to go see the games live? When the location changes every time, there will be a different set of people who go watch the games because it's nearby, but who possibly couldn't afford to (or wouldn't want to) travel to the other side of the world for them.

lordnacho4• 11 years ago

I don't think distance is all that big a deal. Sure, you can't just drive there if it isn't near, but for most people the Olympics is a once-in-a-lifetime experience that they're willing to take a week off to visit. No different from any other trip, eg people will come to Paris from Australia just to see the Eiffel tower and the Notre Dame. Why wouldn't they fly to some other town to see the Olympics?

And let's face it: you have to be from a wealthy country to be able to do this in any case.

Yhippa• 11 years ago

What if we hosted it on a ginormous floating barge? If it was that big it could possibly be stable and not be subject to the movement of the ocean. Then to solve the issue of equal average location you just float it around the world. Heck, you could road trip it around the coasts.

PeterisP• 11 years ago

Distance doesn't matter that much, as olympics in general are expensive enough to make transportation not the major part of the total price.

If they were held in my home town, that would be significantly cheaper because I wouldn't have to pay for accomodation; but if they were held in a city in a few hours driving distance, then it might as well be in a different continent, the tickets+hotel+food+driving will be just a bit cheaper than tikcets+hotel+food+planes.

jordank• 11 years ago

Or alternatively, why must the Olympics be held in one place at all? The infrastructural burdens of large events are massive. The World Cup distributes this burden throughout cities and even regions.

lordnacho4• 11 years ago

The WC is a waste as well. It's even more egregious actually, because there are more than enough existing stadiums to play the world's most popular sport. Yet FIFA still insists on new stadiums being built for just a few matches.

jsprogrammer3• 11 years ago

If you want to siphon cash, you must be near a flow.

philwelch• 11 years ago

FIFA doesn't insist on building new stadiums so much as they award bids to countries that don't already have sufficient stadium capacity. Brazil and Qatar need/needed to construct stadiums, and so does Russia probably, but had they accepted the England and USA bids for 2018 and 2022, respectively, no stadium construction would have been required (at most, perhaps some renovation). In fact, either country could host a World Cup with only a few months' notice.

bluedevil2k• 11 years ago

The World Cup requires a country to have 10-14 stadiums when only 2-4 games are played a day. There's no reason for more than 4 stadiums.

Tomte• 11 years ago

I suppose the grass may be repaired or even re-laid after the first round or something like that. Is that actually happening?

allendoerfer2• 11 years ago

For most European countries this is not a problem. Each club which plays in its countries top division already has a big enough dedicated football stadium.

It becomes a problem when you let FIFA bribe BRIC or even third world country politicians (or vice versa). Then you get stadiums located in deserts or rainforests without a club nearby that is even remotely capable of filling it on a weekly basis.

I like what the UEFA (Europe's FIFA) is doing here: Bigger countries get to host the European Championship on their own, smaller countries share it, lately Poland + Ukraine and Switzerland + Austria. From 2020 on the Cup will not take place in a single country anymore, instead cities will apply on their own, which is of course impractical for the World Cup or even continental cups on bigger continents.

antaviana• 11 years ago

For best performance, natural grass needs to rest at least 4 or 5 days after a real game takes place. Artificial grass is not comparable, its almost a different game.

StavrosK• 11 years ago

I'm sure the IOC will be all for greatly reducing its massive profits and increasing its now nonexistent costs!

adil_b• 11 years ago

So much waste would be reduced no null. Instead of being left with unmaintained and useless infrastructure similar to case of Beijing: http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/ghosts-of-olympics-past?..., facilities could be renovated continuously for fraction of price, that could eventually be covered solely by cash inflow of hotels and advertising.

cosarara97• 11 years ago

Barcelona '92 was handled pretty well. The facilities are still used, the built housing was sold after the games, and tourism augmented significantly. It could be the exception to the rule.

Gys4• 11 years ago

This article is about the costs involved. How do you mean 'handled pretty well' ?! I think you have no idea what you are talking about and did not bother to spend a few seconds to look for facts ?

'The cost of the Barcelona Summer Olympics was USD11.4 billion (in 2009 dollars). The cost overrun was 417 percent in real terms. This compares with an average cost of USD5.7 billion (in 2009 dollars) for other summer Olympics over the past 50 years for which data are available and an average cost overrun for these Games of 252 per cent. Cost here includes only sports-related costs and thus does not include other public costs, such as road, rail, or airport infrastructure, or private costs, such as hotel upgrades or other business investments incurred in preparation of the Games, which are typically substantial but which vary drastically from city to city and are difficult to compare consistently.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Summer_Olympics#Cost_and_...

rospaya2• 11 years ago

The Olympics are more than the direct cost of infrastructure or tickets sold.

Barcelona was hugely changed by the 1992 Games and was transformed into one of the richest cities in Europe and one of the most visited spots on Earth. It's significance, quality of life and wealth grew because of the event.

That's the point of most Olympic events, as former London mayor Ken Livingstone said it: It's not about three weeks of sports, it's about getting funds to rebuild your city. A lot of them don't pull it off, but Barcelona for one did it fine.

kuschku• 11 years ago

There are a lot of cities that handled it well. Los Angeles, Munich, just to name a few. And I fully expect that if Hamburg gets 2024 (which would mean the sailing events would be in the same place for the third time) it would be effective, too.

Bad planning is not limited to olympics.

pbreit• 11 years ago

Making the games pay off for a city definitely seems doable if not easy. Key ingredient: it has to try to make it pay off.

ajmurmann• 11 years ago

I think we should use the Olympics as a honey pot for politicians who care more about their own egos than their constituencies. Anyone who applies for it faces life in prison because it will just cost their city huge amounts of money and ruin most people's everyday lives.

known2• 11 years ago

In Athens?

kleer0013• 11 years ago

that might help fix their economic problems...

tellthetruth14• 11 years ago

But why the world should fix their economic problems?

arcoarkona2• 11 years ago

having the olympics costs a country X amount, and earns a country Y amount.

for some reason I think most people put Y at 0, and say that the country has wasted X (talking only about the 'price tag' of hosting). I can't tell whether people doing that are being dishonest to support a narrative, or whether they actually think that hosting an olympics earns a country nothing.

you can argue that Y is often or always less than X, but I rarely see Y even acknowledged.

pmelendez• 11 years ago

I think in this case the author is well-aware of Y:

"Though Olympic boosters say the Summer Games allow a city to showcase itself to a global audience, only two Games, both in Los Angeles, have ever made a real profit"

arcoarkona2• 11 years ago

you can see here plenty of articles citing profits for ~50% of olympics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games (estimates obviously don't include a bunch of intangible costs/profits).

I'm sure you could construct a list that shows no profits ever, and a list that shows massive profits every time (using the same level of evidence for both sides).

the primary issue is that it's extremely difficult to measure costs/profits for something as massive as an olympics. the secondary issue is that people tend to support their 'sides' narrative (keynesian or otherwise).

IkmoIkmo2• 11 years ago

Actually that's probably based on lists of Olympic budgets, and actual costs which gets cited pretty often. Very often olympic cities spend more than they budgeted for, and that's considered a loss.

That however has everything to do with X (how much is budgeted, and how much was spent. i.e. what was the cost), and still absolutely nothing with Y (actual revenues/benefits). That was his entire point.

We have to remember that the budgets aren't necessarily meaningful because politicians have to sell their own taxpayers the idea of applying for an olympic bid with a budget. Obviously that budget will be severely underestimated to create as little resistance as possible, despite the possibility that the true budget which is higher, would still be worth it. This isn't always the case but my point here is that the politics are set up such that there are good reasons to underestimate the true budget even when the true budget is worthwhile for the city, and thereby end up registering a net loss because you ended up going over budget.

For example, Brazil could very well benefit from these olympics (although it's too early to tell). Yet their projected budget was less than $2.5 billion, despite the fact last two olympics averaging $25 billion in one country richer and one country poorer than Brazil. Obviously budgeting $2.5 billion is a complete and utter joke, and everyone knows, everyone, that it'd be way higher. But it doesn't mean it's a loss to the city.

Meanwhile when China spent close to $50 billion, but early reports showed it was a tiny bit cheaper than its budget, it didn't mean that this in and of itself constituted a profit, either.

z3t4• 11 years ago

The investment in infrastructure will usually benefit the locals for years.

Doing the math on infrastructure is not that simple. Ex: How much would it be worth, if one million people saved 30 minutes every day? Or that you live in a city where you can practice virtually any sport on the highest level!?

mc32• 11 years ago

I'm glad Boston too a stand and bowed out. I'm just hopeful SF can withstand the temptation. LA, well, it's a lost cause anyway.

My hope is Boston's decision gets people to scrutinize the Olympics because as claimed, it seems the benefits are outweighed by the opportunity loss of the diverted funds, etc.

For an example of the waste produced by hosting these large sporting events one only needs to look at the past world cup in Brazil --stadiums in the middle of very low population density. A total waste of capital and labor.

Aloha• 11 years ago

Los Angeles could actually do the Olympics I without loosing money, or building all new venues, as they've hosted twice before, 1932 and 1984.

adventured2• 11 years ago

Plus they're about to build a massive new NFL stadium. They wouldn't lack for venues most likely.

sliverstorm• 11 years ago

Or a short list of places that rotates. Two stadiums, for example, isn't much worse than one.

dataker• 11 years ago

Both Olympics and World Cup antidemocratic means for corruption, but are justified with a phony belief in nationalism and keynesianism.

Brazil was the perfect example of how these events can hurt citizens and the economy:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-33942279

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/1...

hmate9• 11 years ago

Hosting the Olympics also many side effects: - improved infrastructure - increased tourism - stadiums, hotels, training grounds - good way to get people into doing sports

just to name a few. Hosting Olympics on a small ireland would mean we give up all of these benefits. While hosting the Olympics costs a lot of money, income from tourism and media attention surely makes up for it (correct me if I'm wrong).

6d0debc071• 11 years ago

Hosting the Olympics also many side effects: - improved infrastructure - increased tourism - stadiums, hotels, training grounds - good way to get people into doing sports

I would I imagine that sinking £9.3 billion into road or public-transport improvements would have a bunch of favourable side effects too. The magnitude of those effects compared to what else could be done with the money matters.

While hosting the Olympics costs a lot of money, income from tourism and media attention surely makes up for it (correct me if I'm wrong).

At least going by this table:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games

8 profits 10 losses

Far from an exhaustive analysis, but as far as back of the hand stuff goes it looks like a questionable call from a financial perspective....

IkmoIkmo2• 11 years ago

You're not quoting a profit or loss. You're quoting a budget and actual expenses.

If Apple decides on a $1b budget to create the iPhone and it turns out it ended up costing $2b, that's not a 'loss' of $1b, and if it turned out to cost $500m that's not a 'profit'. It's merely going over budget or under budget.

Profit would require you to actually look at the revenues of the iPhone, too. You're basically quoting R&D / Investment budgets+costs, and not looking at all at the outcomes, e.g. the effects it has on a city's infrastructure and standing in the world. (and how that affects everything from tourism, improved diplomatic relations, export of national products & culture, cheaper access to finance etc)

Not that I don't agree with your larger points. Studies have been done to measure those outcomes, too, and very often the costs of the Olympics are still not worth it. Although a lot of these things are really tricky to measure, and some are intangible and possible to measure but difficult to express in financial terms. (what pride for example must the Chinese have felt in 2008, I'm all too familiar with the many human rights issues but this was an absolutely spectacular event that must have inspired hundreds of millions of Chinese on some level.)

Kluny2• 11 years ago

In the case of Vancouver, the city got a massive and much needed upgrade to the light rail system that might never have happened without the Olympic budget.

paulsutter• 11 years ago

This is a really good idea.

- Olympic construction could only be a real benefit to a permanent location

- Greece is the only logical location

- Greece could use the stimulus

I spend a lot of time in Tokyo but plan to avoid the city during the 2020 Olympics. High prices and crowds, a mess. And presently the upcoming Olympics completely distorts the market for construction, for facilities that will hardly be used after 2020.

And its a great idea to develop tourism in Greece. Assuming the Greeks like it, I'm all in favor.

rdl• 11 years ago

Greece for summer, maybe Canada or Norway for winter?

guard-of-terra• 11 years ago

Olympics were created to hold nations together, to be a common child of all countries.

If you put them in the same place, you might as well cancel them. They no longer have any point besides vice and bad taste.

acveilleux2• 11 years ago

Pretty sure that last city that got a positive ROI from hosting the games was Barcelona. And that was 23 years ago.

julienchastang• 11 years ago

Here is another good article from former rower Charles Banks-Altekruse on this topic: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/opinion/01altekruse.html

aaron695• 11 years ago

Politicians are weak.

An Olympics allows them to be strong.

The idea that the 'lost money' would/could have been spent on something better does not follow.

rdlecler1• 11 years ago

Would people care less about the Olympics if it was in the same place each time? One of the things I actually like about the Olympics is that you get to see these countries.

paradite2• 11 years ago

"According to a 2007 report from the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), it was estimated that Beijing might see up to 1.5 million local residents displaced due to the preparation for the Olympic Games. "

paraphrased to

"1.25 million people lost their homes during the Beijing Games. "

Western media are really seizing every chance to bash Chinese govt.

adventured2• 11 years ago

If a million people were displaced by the Beijing olympic games, then the Chinese Government deserves to be bashed for it.

paradite2• 11 years ago

You are absolutely right. But shall we agree that displaced is not the same as lost homes, and the latter is more emotional and less factual?

sport_billy• 11 years ago

Greece hosted the Olympic games at Athens on 2004, so the vast majority of the facilities already exist. They would probably need some renovation, but there should be no need to build new ones.

fhars• 11 years ago

May I just Godwin this thread by noting that this is not a new idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Stadion

tomohawk• 11 years ago

It's not the location, but the permanent corporation that is the problem. There needs to be change in the personnel who run the IOC after every olympics.

Why not have all medal winners vote in a new board after every olympics? Gold gets 3 votes, silver 2, bronze 1. Secret ballot.

fr0styMatt2• 11 years ago

Are the Olympics even relevant anymore?

When I was a kid, I can remember people getting excited about the Olympics. People would sit glued to their TV screens, it would be a big deal.

Now it just seems meh, like people have more pressing things to worry about. The story seems the same for every country that hosts it:

- Yay we got the Olympics!

- <insert controversy here>

- Oh no! They most certainly AREN'T going to be ready for the Olympics!

- <insert controversy here>

- <insert sudden turnaround here>

- These Olympics were a fantastic success!

- <insert years of debt here>

It's a shame too. Maybe having them in one place would take away a lot of the distraction.

sebkomianos2• 11 years ago

How about doing the exact opposite? How about having very poor/small countries organise the Olympics but with the entire cost covered by the world's most wealthy ones?

scott_karana• 11 years ago

Is "Olympic Games" copyrighted? Even if so, what's to stop the Greeks from claiming prior art, and establishing an Olympic Island themselves, sans-IOC?

jsprogrammer3• 11 years ago

A phrase/name can't be copyrighted and prior art is irrelevant to copyright. Nothing stops them from claiming it, but it's a non-sequitur so there is really no reason to claim it.

I don't think any individual or organization is stopping Greeks from establishing their own Olympic Island.

We should host the Olympics in the same place every time

Related Stories