4 ms·

It seems to me that the countries that maintained their Olympic facilities (England, Australia, US, Norway, Germany, China) all tilt to the wealthier end of the

It seems to me that the countries that maintained their Olympic facilities (England, Australia, US, Norway, Germany, China) all tilt to the wealthier end of the spectrum. Conversely, the poorer ones, Brazil and Greece, really couldn't afford hosting the games in the first place, let alone maintaining the venues afterwards. These days, its the wealthier countries that turn down the offer to host because of the costs while the poorer ones, often led by corrupt and bankrupt governments, are awarded the "honor" resulting into even deeper poverty for their people and short-term glorification of the government.

braythwayt 10y ago
This rings true with me, and I’ll highlight your phrase "corrupt and bankrupt governments.” I’d bet that the amount of waste and abandonment is in inverse proportion to the democracy score of the host country. The more democratic the country, the more likely they are to either reject the Olympic outright, or manage the investment effectively.
chiph 10y ago
Even in the US, cities are catching on that hosting an Olympics is likely a money-losing event, and they'll be saddled with poorly-built large facilities afterwards (why build well when you can build fast?). Permanent facilities, perhaps two or four per continent (for winter & summer games, and two have two host countries), would likely be a good answer.
- omegaham 10y ago
  In the US at least, this is offset by the fact that large metropolitan areas have excellent D1 college facilities along with multi-use professional sports stadiums. More importantly, those facilities are already being used and will be used in the future. As far as I can tell, the biggest hassle for American cities is traffic. All of the facilities are there, but putting them into use all at once with tens of thousands of foreign tourists would be an utter nightmare, especially with American reliance on cars and lack of public transportation options.
  - sethhochberg 10y ago
    Olympic bids often do help encourage public transit development in the US, however - a great recent example here is the extension of the 7-line subway in NYC, which was originally planned as part of the city's bid for the 2012 Olympics. After the city lost the bid, it was decided to go ahead and build the line anyways as part of another redevelopment project.
  - jandrese 10y ago
    Or they could do what Romney did and have most of the Olympic facilities out in bumfuck nowhere to avoid inconveniencing the city with traffic.
- StavrosK 10y ago
  Sounds like the Olympics are the Groupon of sports.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  I think Americans have been aware of this for quite a long time. That's why the Lake Placid "Olympic village" was built to be a prison, and we all just pretended it was actually a dormitory for athletes for a few short weeks. After the visitors left, they went back in to finish putting in the bars and fences. Atlanta never would have submitted a bid if they didn't have businesses already lined up to not only take over the facilities after the event, but to participate in the design to ensure they would be fit for purpose after the visitors left. US tax-payers would go into open revolt if their city did not have a post-event plan for all the visitor infrastructure that is at least plausibly non-disastrous. We get angry enough as it is when the city uses our taxes to subsidize just one professional sports team--a team that will probably turn around to charge us $50 per 19-inch (48 cm) seat, $10 for each beer, and just suck in league play for the next 10 seasons. As far as I'm concerned, only publicly-owned teams should even be eligible for public support, and the only "major" team in the US that even qualifies is the NFL's Green Bay Packers. So you're going to have to line up support from a university; Live Nation or some other big concert promoter; a major or minor league sports team or two; perhaps a mall company like Simon Property Group, Westfield Group, or General Growth Properties; and maybe a hotelier like Wyndham, Hyatt, Mariott, Hilton, or Choice. You'll need restaurant franchisees, city planners, and support from the mass transit companies. And then you still have to win the event bid. Even if you do win, a lot of residents will be saying, "Oh, so you'll do actual maintenance and improvements to infrastructure for THEM, who will be here for two months and then leave you with the bill, but you won't do it for US, living here and working and paying taxes for generations? You got some esplainin' to do." Then there is also the issue that even our most corrupt politicians sometimes balk at bribing foreign officials. Sure, they'll take under-the-table lobbying dollars from domestic corporations and casino-operating tribes all day long, and nobody bats an eye, but you get international borders involved, and suddenly they get worried about possible federal criminal charges.
- RandallBrown 10y ago
  It appears that only the Lake Placid Olympics lost money in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games
stupidcar 10y ago
Judging by the bidding history from recent years, wealthier countries are still very keen to host. Spain, Japan, Germany, the US and other rich countries have all made repeated bids to host. I think the IOC like to give the games to poorer countries like Brazil and China because it helps to spread the Olympic "brand", and encourage interest and participation in more parts of the world. Or maybe its just because poorer countries provide more opportunities for graft. If the IOC are serious about fixing this issue, they should: 1. Require all bidding cities to have the necessary non-sporting infrastructure in place before making an official bid. E.g. You can propose to build stadiums and athlete villages as part of the bidding process, but not extend metros, clear slums, build highways, etc. There could be a rolling programme whereby the IOC evaluates potential host cities and determines whether they meet the eligibility requirements. 2. Require and enforce strict cost controls on each bid, relative to the potential host country's finances. E.g. the bid cannot exceed a particular % of the country's GDP, or involve incurring national debt beyond a certain level. 3. Conduct regular reviews into the progress and cost of preparations for hosting. In the event of safety problems or significant cost overruns, the venue should be switched. Every Games should have a contingency plan for hosting a cut-down version in a country with existing infrastructure, if the actual host proves unable to meet the promises and estimates made during the bidding process.

braythwayt 10y ago

This rings true with me, and I’ll highlight your phrase "corrupt and bankrupt governments.” I’d bet that the amount of waste and abandonment is in inverse proportion to the democracy score of the host country. The more democratic the country, the more likely they are to either reject the Olympic outright, or manage the investment effectively.

chiph 10y ago

Even in the US, cities are catching on that hosting an Olympics is likely a money-losing event, and they'll be saddled with poorly-built large facilities afterwards (why build well when you can build fast?). Permanent facilities, perhaps two or four per continent (for winter & summer games, and two have two host countries), would likely be a good answer.

omegaham 10y ago
In the US at least, this is offset by the fact that large metropolitan areas have excellent D1 college facilities along with multi-use professional sports stadiums. More importantly, those facilities are already being used and will be used in the future. As far as I can tell, the biggest hassle for American cities is traffic. All of the facilities are there, but putting them into use all at once with tens of thousands of foreign tourists would be an utter nightmare, especially with American reliance on cars and lack of public transportation options.
- sethhochberg 10y ago
  Olympic bids often do help encourage public transit development in the US, however - a great recent example here is the extension of the 7-line subway in NYC, which was originally planned as part of the city's bid for the 2012 Olympics. After the city lost the bid, it was decided to go ahead and build the line anyways as part of another redevelopment project.
- jandrese 10y ago
  Or they could do what Romney did and have most of the Olympic facilities out in bumfuck nowhere to avoid inconveniencing the city with traffic.
StavrosK 10y ago
Sounds like the Olympics are the Groupon of sports.
logfromblammo 10y ago
I think Americans have been aware of this for quite a long time. That's why the Lake Placid "Olympic village" was built to be a prison, and we all just pretended it was actually a dormitory for athletes for a few short weeks. After the visitors left, they went back in to finish putting in the bars and fences. Atlanta never would have submitted a bid if they didn't have businesses already lined up to not only take over the facilities after the event, but to participate in the design to ensure they would be fit for purpose after the visitors left. US tax-payers would go into open revolt if their city did not have a post-event plan for all the visitor infrastructure that is at least plausibly non-disastrous. We get angry enough as it is when the city uses our taxes to subsidize just one professional sports team--a team that will probably turn around to charge us $50 per 19-inch (48 cm) seat, $10 for each beer, and just suck in league play for the next 10 seasons. As far as I'm concerned, only publicly-owned teams should even be eligible for public support, and the only "major" team in the US that even qualifies is the NFL's Green Bay Packers. So you're going to have to line up support from a university; Live Nation or some other big concert promoter; a major or minor league sports team or two; perhaps a mall company like Simon Property Group, Westfield Group, or General Growth Properties; and maybe a hotelier like Wyndham, Hyatt, Mariott, Hilton, or Choice. You'll need restaurant franchisees, city planners, and support from the mass transit companies. And then you still have to win the event bid. Even if you do win, a lot of residents will be saying, "Oh, so you'll do actual maintenance and improvements to infrastructure for THEM, who will be here for two months and then leave you with the bill, but you won't do it for US, living here and working and paying taxes for generations? You got some esplainin' to do." Then there is also the issue that even our most corrupt politicians sometimes balk at bribing foreign officials. Sure, they'll take under-the-table lobbying dollars from domestic corporations and casino-operating tribes all day long, and nobody bats an eye, but you get international borders involved, and suddenly they get worried about possible federal criminal charges.
RandallBrown 10y ago
It appears that only the Lake Placid Olympics lost money in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games

stupidcar 10y ago

Judging by the bidding history from recent years, wealthier countries are still very keen to host. Spain, Japan, Germany, the US and other rich countries have all made repeated bids to host. I think the IOC like to give the games to poorer countries like Brazil and China because it helps to spread the Olympic "brand", and encourage interest and participation in more parts of the world. Or maybe its just because poorer countries provide more opportunities for graft. If the IOC are serious about fixing this issue, they should: 1. Require all bidding cities to have the necessary non-sporting infrastructure in place before making an official bid. E.g. You can propose to build stadiums and athlete villages as part of the bidding process, but not extend metros, clear slums, build highways, etc. There could be a rolling programme whereby the IOC evaluates potential host cities and determines whether they meet the eligibility requirements. 2. Require and enforce strict cost controls on each bid, relative to the potential host country's finances. E.g. the bid cannot exceed a particular % of the country's GDP, or involve incurring national debt beyond a certain level. 3. Conduct regular reviews into the progress and cost of preparations for hosting. In the event of safety problems or significant cost overruns, the venue should be switched. Every Games should have a contingency plan for hosting a cut-down version in a country with existing infrastructure, if the actual host proves unable to meet the promises and estimates made during the bidding process.