11/17/24
August 23, 2004
Movable Feat: "lack of previous experience...has caused or contributed to the most famous problems that have befallen modern Olympic games, from lost bus drivers in Sydney to the failure to prevent a terrorist bombing in Atlanta. The heart of the problem is that the Olympics--for no unassailable reason--alters its location every four years. "
posted by kirkaracha to other at 02:17 PM - 22 comments
To molafson's comment add the fact that the biggest single-day sporting event in the world (ie. the Superbowl) changes locations every year, and you start to see a pattern of how bullshit Larson's argument is.
posted by smithers at 02:51 PM on August 23, 2004
I don't think it's fair to compare the Olympics to a single sport tournament or game. The difference in scale is pretty astronomical, don't you think?
posted by NoMich at 02:55 PM on August 23, 2004
Yes, NoMich, I do and so is the value to the host cities. Throw all the economic stats you want back at me but there is no substitute for having your city in the world's eye for more than four years. Say what you want about me just so long as you spell my name right. Or close.
posted by billsaysthis at 03:50 PM on August 23, 2004
Have to agree with NoMich - both World Cup and Superbowl use existing stadiums in the host countries. But who has all of the venues required by the Olympics?
posted by kokaku at 03:50 PM on August 23, 2004
But who has all of the venues required by the Olympics? Previous Olympic hosts.
posted by grum@work at 03:53 PM on August 23, 2004
In addition to scale, the Olympics occur in new facilities with inexperienced staff. The Super Bowl security/operation is pretty much down to a science at this point. WorldCup deals with a much different spectator element because of the nature of a tournament; various nationalities vs. the Superbowl's two teams that barely have any of the real fans in attendance (unless they luck out and happen to be in the Superbowl and host it the same year). I think Athens would be a great place to have the Summer Olympic games every four years. Kinda like travelling to an island notorious for its martial arts competitions to the death. There is a certain charm to the locale, as well as the events. Ya know, the same stadiums, the same officials, the same blood stains.
posted by garfield at 03:53 PM on August 23, 2004
Kinda like travelling to an island notorious for its martial arts competitions to the death Maybe we should just ditch the Olympics and switch entirely to that...
posted by cobra! at 03:57 PM on August 23, 2004
One big difference between the World Cup and the Olympics is the World Cup is staged in a whole country (or two) rather than a single city. Surely this lessens the problems of traffic, construction, crowd control, etc. However, I think the major difference is that FIFA is better organized and employs better consultants than the IOC and its national counterparts.
posted by molafson at 04:31 PM on August 23, 2004
Aside from the fact that you'd never get people to agree, there are going to be some real issues down the road with the winter games...read: some current European venues will no longer be viable for skiing events, because their snow line keeps moving up. And the Euros will never agree to permanently locate the winter games in North America.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:54 PM on August 23, 2004
OK then. All we need to agree on is the Olympics permanently in Greece and the Winter Olympics in Japan and we're cooking with gas.
posted by squealy at 06:34 PM on August 23, 2004
So who gets to subsidize these countries? After two or three Olympics in a row they would probably be in the Third World realm of poverty.
posted by pivo at 07:29 PM on August 23, 2004
OK then. All we need to agree on is the Olympics permanently in Greece and the Winter Olympics in Japan and we're cooking with gas. Japan would be fine, except for the small problem that the snow there sucks. Apart from that, though...
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:16 PM on August 23, 2004
Why, pivo, would that happen since they wouldn't have to build new infrastructure every time?
posted by billsaysthis at 09:13 PM on August 23, 2004
I think this kind of misses the point. The Olympics are supposed to be a little different - it's supposed to be about shared brotherhood. Cities choose to bid and every 4 years we get a little closer to another part of the Earth that we might not be familiar with. There is a cost to it, but it's voluntary and perhaps even worth it (i.e. Sydney).
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:59 PM on August 23, 2004
One big difference between the World Cup and the Olympics is the World Cup is staged in a whole country (or two) rather than a single city. Er, the Olympics is staged in a whole country, more or less -- depending on the size of the country. The Atlanta games used venues all throughout Georgia -- the sailing took place off the coast of Savannah, which is as far from Atlanta as Amsterdam from Paris; the Athens games are hosting events as far afield as Crete and Thessaloniki. FIFA has decided to rotate continents in terms of World Cup bids; the IOC ought to consider something similar. But since the American networks are likely to want the games held inside the US as often as possible, I'm not sure how plausible that is.
posted by etagloh at 12:10 AM on August 24, 2004
Jesus, etagloh. Between this and the Oopsie thread, you're spreading your love of America a little thick.
posted by dusted at 01:22 AM on August 24, 2004
The Atlanta games used venues all throughout Georgia Oh sorry I forgot that Georgia was a country... and Utah too. I wasn't talking about the physical size of the place. More like the diffusion throughout an entire population base. E.g. when the USA hosted the World Cup in 1994, I believe they played in NY, Chicago, LA, Florida, Texas, DC, etc.
posted by molafson at 03:16 AM on August 24, 2004
Blame NBC, dusted: as a British expat, the exceedingly crappy Olympic coverage is making me homesick for the BBC. I'm sure that Aussie and Canadian expats feel the same. It'll pass. And the point about US broadcasters and sponsors wanting the games held in an American time-zone isn't a controversial one, surely? Beijing at EDT+13 (PDT+16) is going to be nigh-on impossible to broadcast as 'plausibly live'. molafson: i wasn't talking about the physical size of the place. But physical size and population density is an issue. The US is a very big country with relatively low population density. Georgia is larger in area than Greece (or South Korea, for that matter). And the point about the World Cup is a simple one: while it's possible to build or use a multitude of venues for different sports in and around a city, a World Cup needs at least half a dozen stadiums, simply because you can't play top-tier matches on the same pitch day after day after day. One downside of the 1994 and 2002 World Cups, as well, was that they placed pretty heavy travel demands on teams: US teams are much more familiar with the concept of taking the red-eye between home and road games.
posted by etagloh at 09:00 PM on August 24, 2004
1) Scale/Logistics: Many of the people at around a Super Bowl week don't HAVE to go anywhere. That accounts for the relative lack of complaints there, as compared to an event like the Olympics where far more people are there to actually watch competitions. MARTA (Atlanta) isn't perfect, but it was a bitch to get a cab in Tampa in 2001, let alone a hopping on a subway. Guess which city got branded as incompetent? 2) Value: Montreal would be one Olympic city that probably would have simply taken a pass if they had it to do again. Lost oodles of cash, and it hasn't become a must-visit for the Disney World crowd. 3) Where to put it: The rotating thing still makes sense, but I'd propose that each host city gets two Olympiad. The city gets to work the bugs out, and the city gets to recoup a little more of its investment.
posted by jackhererra at 02:35 PM on August 25, 2004
Another benefit of keeping the games in one city for eight years is that the IOC might be less fearful of giving the games to cities not normally considered "world-class". I think those types of cities could use the boost from the event more than New York, London, Moscow, Paris and Madrid -- the finalists for 2012 -- all places we're pretty familiar with. Not that Rio is obscure, but I'd prefer to see them not get cut from the finalist list. Even better, Istanbul, Leipzig or Havana. Instead, we'll probably get New York. Great for the athletes who haven't been there, but not so great for the supposed goal of bringing all of us closer to another world.
posted by jackhererra at 03:12 PM on August 25, 2004
The FIFA World Cup changes location every four years, and you don't see tons of problems with that.