By Ethan Moore, Sports Editor.
For all the prep work and planning that goes into hosting the Olympics, it’s impossible to predict what the host nation’s political and economic outlook will be seven years in the future. However, few could have predicted just how bad it would get in Brazil in 2016. From the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, to the corruption charges against Michel Temer, Brazil is in a state of political unrest to say the least. These problems show that while the IOC (International Olympic Committee) does an impressive job of preparing, they aren’t prepared for every single event that could occur.
It’s easy to point the finger, but what can the IOC actually do in the event that a country becomes unable to host the games? Obviously you can’t ask another city to prepare in hopes of being a backup. No city has ever dropped out, and it takes too many resources and funds to prepare a whole Olympic cite.
You could potentially go back to a previous site that had just recently hosted the games, but many countries would find it unfair that one country would get back-to-back games. The games themselves aren’t necessarily a moneymaking endeavor, with most countries not even breaking even on them.
There are studies though that show an increase in international trade profits following the games. Increased trade is great, but there are many cases where countries suffered great economic depression after the games. Montreal nearly bankrupted after the 1976 games due to spending 400% over budget, China spent $40 billion dollars on many structures that now remain unused since the 2008 games. Constantly passing around the games also causes political ramifications, such as boycotts, protests, and other forms of corruption and bribery that have plagued games past.
So if passing the games around constantly isn’t the answer, then what can the IOC do? It would be asking a lot to have one permanent site, because there’s too much riding on the games to depend on one site alone, but what if there were multiple permanent sites? If there was a system of three or five different sites for the games, this would alleviate the pressure of constantly hosting, while still having multiple sites at the ready in case of an emergency.
The IOC could vote on the five sites based on criteria of neutrality, stable economic, and political situations, along with potential for growth in the future, and plans put in place for using the facilities when the games aren’t being held there. This is a better plan than the current Olympic model, because knowing you will have to host another Olympic games someday will force the host country to keep the facilities up to date. When the facilities aren’t being used for the games they could be used for hosting local sporting events, or the four cities not hosting the Olympics could the World Championships every other year. The model could look something like this
Hosting the Olympics in this manner would avoid scandal, and allow there to always be a contingency plan in place. This cycle would allow sites to prepare for one global event a year, or take the cycle to rebuild. By implementing a new strategy for picking a host site, we can take the human element out of the picking process, and allow for a consistent, safer, more reliable way of hosting the greatest sporting event in the world.
