Is it time to choose fixed locations for the Summer and Winter Olympics?

This is what I have heard so far.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/world/americas/brazil-rio-water-o...

and also that there is an outbreak of the Zika virus.   So, you have to realize that means when the tourists leave, that virus leaves with them.

I mean WHERE can we go anymore?  Where is there a place unpolluted that will remain unpolluted AFTER the games as well as before them. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/26/world/rio-olympics-graffiti-city-beautification/index.html

Any suggestions?   And I thought the games were set in stone to be in Rio.  I mean isn't there a tonnage of money to be lost if the powers that be relent and send it packing elsewhere?  

oz something like that!!!!

Personally, I could do without the Olympics at all. It's disgusting, something that is supposed to stand for commitment to personal excellence, and friendly competition between the best athletes from around the world, is constantly tainted by nothing but rampant cheating, and political corruption. And the games themselves, and the ceremony, just weeks of events that nobody would care about if it wasn't for the relentless marketing, and achieves nothing of lasting value except for making advertisers rich, as well as the corrupt IOC officials. If only a little of the vast amount of money involved went to young athletes around the world, that would be a much bigger benefit to the world of sports.

I think it's too late to move the Rio Olympics, but this question has come up before. The idea is to pick ONE city in the world (Athens, Greece is typically proposed) and have an Olympic facility there which hosts EVERY Olympics going forward.

Given how expensive the Games have become and how host cities are increasingly finding they can't meet budget goals/construction deadlines, I think it's an idea whose time may have come.

That's probably the biggest impediment to making it work: the entrenched interests of politicians and the IOC.

Most honest officials recognize hosting an Olympics is an enormous budgetary strain and stresses local infrastructure to its limits (and sometimes beyond). But some people involved in the process can make money on it, so the process will remain for now.

Maybe not just two locations, but I do agree a limited set of locations makes sense.  I think choosing four of the world's major cities (4 cities for summer, 4 for winter) and having those four cities host events on a 16 year rotation makes good sense. 

Russia is probably glad they don't have to go to that South American cesspool. At least China tried to clean up their pollution for the duration of the games.

Second World (Third World?) countries probably shouldn't be chosen anymore.

@RPF -- I think your comment could generalize to professional athletics in general. But it could generalize to a great many aspects of our society. There are people on the Internet who make their living playing video games while others watch them play video games. Most such people make very little, but a few "tournament winners" make quite a bit doing something that has no redeeming social value beyond entertainment. Are we going to ban video game streamers?

So, while I am sympathetic to your complaints, I think the cure for them is much broader than eliminating the Olympics.

@CSV -- That seems somewhat wasteful, although I can see where maybe a limited number of venues (probably 5, so Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and Asia can each have one) would be a workable political compromise.

@Mr. B -- As I recall, many of the current complaints about Rio de Janero also happened in Sochi, Russia for the 2014 Winter Games. Meanwhile, the Boston, MA area put in a semi-serious bid to host a Summer Olympics, even though experts said there was no way the local infrastructure could handle the burden.

So, what constitutes a "Third World" country anymore if a major US metropolis would be strained by hosting the Olympic games?

OS I know this is supposed to be something WE answer YOU, but I still wonder WHERE?

@DJAM -- I'm not sure where. The reason Athens is usually associated with the idea is because Greece is the historic birthplace of the Olympic Games, and that claim to history can be used to counteract the complaints of those who argue, "Well, what about us? We've never hosted a Games before. We want our turn."

There are so many considerations it would be difficult to come up with a "best" choice unless there are some significant alterations to the whole Olympics structure to go with the change. The characteristics which I think would be essential include:

--Located in a large-population relatively wealthy country.

--Located in a relatively temperate climate

--Located somewhere where enough people would use the Olympic facilities for other purposes between Olympics to help defray maintenance costs

Meanwhile, the revenues from the facility (and use of the facilities for training) would have to be shared by the host country with other countries (especially poorer ones).

There's also the issue of global climate change to consider. As I recall, the Sochi games had big problems with a lack of snow, even though Sochi has been a winter resort for many decades. So if the Games (esp. the Winter Games) are put in a fixed location which gets rendered unsuitable by shifting climate, it could be a financial disaster.

It's true, I do like the idea of the Olympics, and what it's supposed to stand for, so maybe it's worth rescuing. But while competitive, professional sport does have its share of big money, and underhanded dealings, and cheating, it's no secret that it's a strictly for-profit business. As for the generalization leading to banning video game streamers, that's a bit weak, since the comparison is quite distant, and anyway I'm not calling for a ban on sports, or athletes in general. 

What they ought to do is fix the horribly broken and corrupt IOC, and stop allowing countries to bribe them into letting them host the games. Having the Olympics move from country to country is part of the appeal. Having the games gives a jolt to the local economies involved, and brings attention to places you might not otherwise think of. But the bribery and corruption are now so entrenched, and with no governing body overseeing them, it seems pretty hopeless. I suppose fixing the location is probably the answer to the corruption. It's too bad, because smaller countries could benefit from the exposure, and the honour of being chosen, if the IOC had some integrity.

I think that's an awesome idea, I don't get much news here on my satellite channels, I'm really interested in when the games will start and also the conditions. Maybe a compromise in the fixed locations to multiple fixed locations that are capable of the task.

@Rpf -- I think the money and the corruption are intimately linked. Rational parents don't have their 10-year-olds take steroids to win their local park district baseball league. If there was a $50 million prize attached to winning the Lake Wobegon District Park Baseball championship, probably some of them would start "juicing" their kids.

The problem is not sports, per se, it's the winner-take-all nature of sports. Score a gold in the Summer Olympics and you get your picture on a Wheaties box, a shoe contract, speaking engagements, etc. Finish 0.1% slower than the gold medal winner, and you get the small honoraria that goes with winning a bronze medal and a life of continued obscurity. Under such circumstances, the incentive to cheat is almost overwhelming. But how do we restructure sports (or the money supporting them) to get rid of the corruption?

With respect to moving the Olympics around, I agree there are advantages. But the past few Olympics suggest those advantages are starting to become overwhelmed by the inability of localities to actually deliver adequate safe secure facilities. The government of Russia went BILLIONS into the hole for the Sochi Games, and the facilities were still borderline unacceptable.

I don't know. Maybe certain sports could have regional qualifiying tournaments which would rotate between cities while the Olympic finals would be in a fixed location? I'm open to ideas.

OS, Thank you for taking the time.

I like Greece because that is where the Olympics started after all.  That should stand for something.  I like Greece because they could use the money.   BIG TIME. 

Whether or not this is a feasible reason?  Well, it is all I got for now. I'm sure there are far more sane choices than this one, but off the top of my head it sounds good in a kind of nostalgic way.

I'll see what our other more "worldly" friends on here think.  The ones that actually may have attended a game or two in their lives.   I wonder where Trengo took off to?  He would be perfect to answer this one.

Great CSV.  Wonderful.  Now where?  LOL

I don't know. Maybe Trump knows.

It's an imperfect model (because it wouldn't work going forward), but the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles (where I lived at the time) went off very smoothly.

The advantage there was LA has almost all of the infrastructure it needed ALREADY IN PLACE . The LA Coliseum from the 1932 games was reused. Events were mostly staged at existing stadia in the area. Athletes were housed in college dorms at UCLA and USC. As I recall, the Olympic organizers had to build a swimming/diving events stadium and a bicycling velodrome. Otherwise, they were covered.

I think a variation on this strategy, where the Olympic Village and various facilites become integrated into the local economy, are the way to go.