11 ms·

We should host the Olympics in the same place every time

288 points by evanb 11y ago

Gys 11y 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 11y ago
  It's hard to imagine that prime real estate like that would be "uninhabited".
  - Gys 11y 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 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).
    - harigov 11y ago
      Well, an island only makes it really expensive for people to visit that place because there can only be so many people in that island. Making it an inland city will at least remove one constraint.
    - Someone 11y ago
      Most of the uninhabited ones do not have a Wikipedia page, and many of those that have a page have little content. Often, the page doesn't even mention the size of the islands. I do expect, however, that most of the uninhabitated Greek islands are too small to be useful for this. You would need 10-20 different stadiums, 2 km straight water to hold rowing events, and wouldn't want to have marathon runners, competitors in the 50 km walk, or those taking part in the cycling road race to do 1 km rounds. Let's say 100 square kilometers to host all the courses (except for sailing; there's plenty of sea for that), bare minimum. Also, it would be a challenge to feed the competitors and the spectators on an island that size. Greece isn't known for its green islands, and looking at that list, I notice that, for example, Tinos and Paros, at around 200 square kilometers, have a population of less than 10,000. I would think you would need something like Kos to host the Olympics, and even that would be an enormous challenge. The 'normal' population of around 33,000 would increase by 20,000+ competitors, officials and a zillion journalists, and you likely would have to ferry or fly in half a million spectators every day, and all of them would need food and drink, and working 3G.
    - yxhuvud 11y ago
      Most islands that are uninhabited is that for a reason. Frankly, it is probably better to create a new island than trying to find an unused one.
    - JacobEdelman 11y ago
      Also, a small sum of a billion dollars may be enough to convince a thousand residents of an island to leave.
    - mschuster91 11y ago
      > 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). Look at the BER disaster, it was supposed to open 2007 and most likely won't open until way after 2017. I believe building a permanent Olympic site in Greece would bring similar delays...
      - javert 11y ago
        Put the Germans in charge of that. I think we can all agree on that.
        mmarx 11y ago
        BER is a german project[0], and so is the Elbe Philharmonic Hall[1]. Both are long overdue and over budget. “Putting the Germans in charge” may very well not help to avoid delays. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Brandenburg_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Brandenburg_Airport [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Philharmonic_Hall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Philharmonic_Hall
        javert 11y ago
        Thanks for the correction, I assumed from context that BER was something different when the exact opposite is the case.
        sebkomianos 11y ago
        Downvoted previous comment, upvoted this one, perfect way to admit a mistake, well done sir (or ma'am)! :)
- return0 11y ago
  Trying to think a way to attract sponsors when the athletes will compete wearing nothing but olive oil all over them.
  - Gys 11y 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 11y ago
    That's the new women's beach volleyball uniform they've been trying to adopt.
- tellthetruth1 11y ago
  Yeah like they are still not corrupt enough. Let's concentrate all the money in there! Just dumb!
- dghughes 11y 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Athos
  - taejo 11y ago
    Well, there are women athletes, so that wouldn't work. (Entry to Mount Athos is only allowed to men)
  - thaumasiotes 11y 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?
    - dghughes 11y ago
      User Gys (above) suggested an uninhabited island but the Mount Athos region is pretty sparse 126 sq miles and 1800 people living there, still technically Greece but not Mount Olympus although sort of near it (100 miles away). I don't mean literally on Mount Athos but in the autonomous region. Plus being an autonomous region I thought it may more sense financially for taxes.
  - orestisfl 11y 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_3271.jpg 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 11y ago
  A permanent way to ensure the Greek economy never goes under ;)
- zamalek 11y 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?
braythwayt 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y ago
    What is your city / country?
lordnacho 11y 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 11y 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.
  - troymc 11y ago
    The article is about the summer olympics.
    - maus42 11y ago
      But the previous commenter suggested winter olympics in Greece, too, and they replied to that. I don't understand the downvoting.
  - lordnacho 11y 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 11y 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.
jordank 11y 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.
- lordnacho 11y 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.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    If you want to siphon cash, you must be near a flow.
  - philwelch 11y 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 11y 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 11y ago
    I suppose the grass may be repaired or even re-laid after the first round or something like that. Is that actually happening?
  - allendoerfer 11y ago
StavrosK 11y ago
I'm sure the IOC will be all for greatly reducing its massive profits and increasing its now nonexistent costs!
adil_b 11y 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?articleId=USRTR30UOB 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 11y 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.
- Gys 11y 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_cost_overrun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Summer_Olympics#Cost_and_...
  - rospaya 11y 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.
    - caminante 11y ago
      > The Olympics are more than the direct cost of infrastructure or tickets sold... I don't think that anyone would argue that Barcelona was a success relative to other Olympics, but it still left much to be desired. Gys is taking issue with the claim that Barcelona was handled "pretty well" in an absolute sense considering the fact that the sports-related infrastructure went WAY over budget. Maybe things worked out overall for the economy, but I submit that incremental value from investments in public infrastructure and what sounds like capable governance made the difference. You have to wonder if these changes could've happened without the burden of financing the sports side or hosting the olympics.
ajmurmann 11y 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.
known 11y ago
In Athens?
- kleer001 11y ago
  that might help fix their economic problems...
  - tellthetruth1 11y ago
    But why the world should fix their economic problems?
    - kleer001 11y ago
      Because it is part of the world. Because it would take the burden off of other countries. A family lives or dies by how they treat their shitty uncle. In the end I believe people are essentially good. Not that they eventually do good things. That's a measure for time and luck.
      - tellthetruth1 11y ago
        So the whole "family" has to pay for the uncle's drinking and drug habit? I am not gonna pay for your "belief".
        kleer001 11y ago
        Sure dude, get a job in International finance and push that agenda. Until then the powers that be are going to try to work things out as if we all have to live together on a tiny little speck of dirt in space. And the push the analogy further, they would force the uncle into rehab and get him arrested if needed.
        hamburglar 11y ago
        Frankly, the benefit to Greece, whatever it may be, would be a mere side effect in my opinion. The point of moving it to a permanent location is to prevent damage everywhere else. It's an interesting game-theory-ish problem where on one hand, you think, "why should they benefit?" but on the other hand, under the existing system, it's possible that nobody benefits (other than the people directly involved in the corruption). The thought of the Olympics coming to my town makes me want to start threatening politicians with recall referenda and/or thinking about selling my house and leaving. Most likely I'd just leave town for the duration and rent my house out for an ungodly monthly sum.
arcoarkona 11y 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 11y 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"
  - arcoarkona 11y ago
    you can see here plenty of articles citing profits for ~50% of olympics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games 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).
  - IkmoIkmo 11y 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 11y 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!?
briandear 11y ago
This idea of having the Olympics in Greece permanently is nonsense. Greece doesn't even have the fiscal discipline to pay their bills let alone be responsible for a multi-billion dollar tradition. A strategically timed transit strike by aggrieved workers would derail the Games. I'm not sure how anyone could even suggest the Grerk government could be trusted to be a steward of such an important event given their propensity for fiscal disaster.
mc32 11y 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 11y 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.
  - adventured 11y ago
    Plus they're about to build a massive new NFL stadium. They wouldn't lack for venues most likely.
sliverstorm 11y ago
Or a short list of places that rotates. Two stadiums, for example, isn't much worse than one.
dataker 11y 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.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-33942279 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/10133833/Brazil-World-Cup-protests-teenager-dies-as-a-million-people-take-to-the-streets.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/1...
hmate9 11y 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 11y 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 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....
  - IkmoIkmo 11y 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.)
paulsutter 11y 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 11y ago
  Greece for summer, maybe Canada or Norway for winter?
guard-of-terra 11y 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.
acveilleux 11y ago
Pretty sure that last city that got a positive ROI from hosting the games was Barcelona. And that was 23 years ago.
julienchastang 11y 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 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/opinion/01altekruse.html
aaron695 11y 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 11y 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.
paradite 11y 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.
- adventured 11y ago
  If a million people were displaced by the Beijing olympic games, then the Chinese Government deserves to be bashed for it.
  - paradite 11y 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?
    - Joeri 11y ago
      It's hard to talk facts when the chinese government refuses to share the statistics on evictions.
sport_billy 11y 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 11y ago
May I just Godwin this thread by noting that this is not a new idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Stadion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Stadion
fhars 11y ago
May I just Godwin this thread by noting that this is not a new idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Stadion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Stadion
tomohawk 11y 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 11y 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.
sebkomianos 11y 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 11y 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?
- jsprogrammer 11y 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.

288 points by evanb 11y ago

Gys 11y 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 11y ago
It's hard to imagine that prime real estate like that would be "uninhabited".
- Gys 11y 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 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).
  - harigov 11y ago
    Well, an island only makes it really expensive for people to visit that place because there can only be so many people in that island. Making it an inland city will at least remove one constraint.
  - Someone 11y ago
    Most of the uninhabited ones do not have a Wikipedia page, and many of those that have a page have little content. Often, the page doesn't even mention the size of the islands. I do expect, however, that most of the uninhabitated Greek islands are too small to be useful for this. You would need 10-20 different stadiums, 2 km straight water to hold rowing events, and wouldn't want to have marathon runners, competitors in the 50 km walk, or those taking part in the cycling road race to do 1 km rounds. Let's say 100 square kilometers to host all the courses (except for sailing; there's plenty of sea for that), bare minimum. Also, it would be a challenge to feed the competitors and the spectators on an island that size. Greece isn't known for its green islands, and looking at that list, I notice that, for example, Tinos and Paros, at around 200 square kilometers, have a population of less than 10,000. I would think you would need something like Kos to host the Olympics, and even that would be an enormous challenge. The 'normal' population of around 33,000 would increase by 20,000+ competitors, officials and a zillion journalists, and you likely would have to ferry or fly in half a million spectators every day, and all of them would need food and drink, and working 3G.
  - yxhuvud 11y ago
    Most islands that are uninhabited is that for a reason. Frankly, it is probably better to create a new island than trying to find an unused one.
  - JacobEdelman 11y ago
    Also, a small sum of a billion dollars may be enough to convince a thousand residents of an island to leave.
  - mschuster91 11y ago
    > 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). Look at the BER disaster, it was supposed to open 2007 and most likely won't open until way after 2017. I believe building a permanent Olympic site in Greece would bring similar delays...
    - javert 11y ago
      Put the Germans in charge of that. I think we can all agree on that.
      - mmarx 11y ago
        BER is a german project[0], and so is the Elbe Philharmonic Hall[1]. Both are long overdue and over budget. “Putting the Germans in charge” may very well not help to avoid delays. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Brandenburg_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Brandenburg_Airport [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Philharmonic_Hall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Philharmonic_Hall
        javert 11y ago
        Thanks for the correction, I assumed from context that BER was something different when the exact opposite is the case.
        sebkomianos 11y ago
        Downvoted previous comment, upvoted this one, perfect way to admit a mistake, well done sir (or ma'am)! :)
return0 11y ago
Trying to think a way to attract sponsors when the athletes will compete wearing nothing but olive oil all over them.
- Gys 11y 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 11y ago
  That's the new women's beach volleyball uniform they've been trying to adopt.
tellthetruth1 11y ago
Yeah like they are still not corrupt enough. Let's concentrate all the money in there! Just dumb!
dghughes 11y 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Athos
- taejo 11y ago
  Well, there are women athletes, so that wouldn't work. (Entry to Mount Athos is only allowed to men)
- thaumasiotes 11y 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?
  - dghughes 11y ago
    User Gys (above) suggested an uninhabited island but the Mount Athos region is pretty sparse 126 sq miles and 1800 people living there, still technically Greece but not Mount Olympus although sort of near it (100 miles away). I don't mean literally on Mount Athos but in the autonomous region. Plus being an autonomous region I thought it may more sense financially for taxes.
- orestisfl 11y 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_3271.jpg 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 11y ago
A permanent way to ensure the Greek economy never goes under ;)
zamalek 11y 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?

braythwayt 11y 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 11y 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 11y 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 11y ago
  What is your city / country?

lordnacho 11y 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 11y 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.
- troymc 11y ago
  The article is about the summer olympics.
  - maus42 11y ago
    But the previous commenter suggested winter olympics in Greece, too, and they replied to that. I don't understand the downvoting.
- lordnacho 11y 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 11y 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.

jordank 11y 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.

lordnacho 11y 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.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  If you want to siphon cash, you must be near a flow.
- philwelch 11y 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 11y 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 11y ago
  I suppose the grass may be repaired or even re-laid after the first round or something like that. Is that actually happening?
- allendoerfer 11y ago

StavrosK 11y ago

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

adil_b 11y 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?articleId=USRTR30UOB 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 11y 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.

Gys 11y 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_cost_overrun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Summer_Olympics#Cost_and_...
- rospaya 11y 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.
  - caminante 11y ago
    > The Olympics are more than the direct cost of infrastructure or tickets sold... I don't think that anyone would argue that Barcelona was a success relative to other Olympics, but it still left much to be desired. Gys is taking issue with the claim that Barcelona was handled "pretty well" in an absolute sense considering the fact that the sports-related infrastructure went WAY over budget. Maybe things worked out overall for the economy, but I submit that incremental value from investments in public infrastructure and what sounds like capable governance made the difference. You have to wonder if these changes could've happened without the burden of financing the sports side or hosting the olympics.

ajmurmann 11y 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.

known 11y ago

In Athens?

kleer001 11y ago
that might help fix their economic problems...
- tellthetruth1 11y ago
  But why the world should fix their economic problems?
  - kleer001 11y ago
    Because it is part of the world. Because it would take the burden off of other countries. A family lives or dies by how they treat their shitty uncle. In the end I believe people are essentially good. Not that they eventually do good things. That's a measure for time and luck.
    - tellthetruth1 11y ago
      So the whole "family" has to pay for the uncle's drinking and drug habit? I am not gonna pay for your "belief".
      - kleer001 11y ago
        Sure dude, get a job in International finance and push that agenda. Until then the powers that be are going to try to work things out as if we all have to live together on a tiny little speck of dirt in space. And the push the analogy further, they would force the uncle into rehab and get him arrested if needed.
      - hamburglar 11y ago
        Frankly, the benefit to Greece, whatever it may be, would be a mere side effect in my opinion. The point of moving it to a permanent location is to prevent damage everywhere else. It's an interesting game-theory-ish problem where on one hand, you think, "why should they benefit?" but on the other hand, under the existing system, it's possible that nobody benefits (other than the people directly involved in the corruption). The thought of the Olympics coming to my town makes me want to start threatening politicians with recall referenda and/or thinking about selling my house and leaving. Most likely I'd just leave town for the duration and rent my house out for an ungodly monthly sum.

arcoarkona 11y 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 11y 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"
- arcoarkona 11y ago
  you can see here plenty of articles citing profits for ~50% of olympics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games 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).
- IkmoIkmo 11y 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 11y 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!?

briandear 11y ago

This idea of having the Olympics in Greece permanently is nonsense. Greece doesn't even have the fiscal discipline to pay their bills let alone be responsible for a multi-billion dollar tradition. A strategically timed transit strike by aggrieved workers would derail the Games. I'm not sure how anyone could even suggest the Grerk government could be trusted to be a steward of such an important event given their propensity for fiscal disaster.

mc32 11y 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 11y 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.
- adventured 11y ago
  Plus they're about to build a massive new NFL stadium. They wouldn't lack for venues most likely.

sliverstorm 11y ago

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

dataker 11y 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.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-33942279 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/10133833/Brazil-World-Cup-protests-teenager-dies-as-a-million-people-take-to-the-streets.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/1...

hmate9 11y 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 11y 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 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....
- IkmoIkmo 11y 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.)

paulsutter 11y 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 11y ago
Greece for summer, maybe Canada or Norway for winter?

guard-of-terra 11y 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.

acveilleux 11y ago

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

julienchastang 11y 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 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/opinion/01altekruse.html

aaron695 11y 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 11y 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.

paradite 11y 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.

adventured 11y ago
If a million people were displaced by the Beijing olympic games, then the Chinese Government deserves to be bashed for it.
- paradite 11y 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?
  - Joeri 11y ago
    It's hard to talk facts when the chinese government refuses to share the statistics on evictions.

sport_billy 11y 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 11y ago

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

fhars 11y ago

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

tomohawk 11y 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 11y 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.

sebkomianos 11y 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 11y 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?

jsprogrammer 11y 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.