4 ms·

> 5) LA is capable of holding an Olympics next year, if necessary. The only other city with sufficient facilities to hold an event of this magnitude on such sho

> 5) LA is capable of holding an Olympics next year, if necessary. The only other city with sufficient facilities to hold an event of this magnitude on such short notice is London, which has maintained most of its facilities from the 2012 Games. Every city is capable of hosting the Olympics without subsidizing the efforts of the organizers. It's simple: Charge more for tickets to attend, charge for press passes. If it was profitable, the Olympic committee would be funding the events themselves, not asking for large handouts from municipalities.

gamblor956 7y ago
Every city is capable of hosting the Olympics without subsidizing the efforts of the organizers. It's simple: Charge more for tickets to attend, charge for press passes. This is simply not true. The Rio, Athens, Sochi, and South Korean games were unable to sell the majority of their tickets at face value. Even London had trouble selling all of its tickets and gave entire blocks free to schoolchildren (though this was an issue primarily for preliminary and early rounds for multi-stage competitions and not at all an issue for marquee events). Increasing ticket prices would simply have resulted in even fewer ticket sales. If it was profitable, the Olympic committee would be funding the events themselves, not asking for large handouts from municipalities. Many of the Games have been profitable...at least the well-run ones. The IOC also does fund part of the costs of each Olympics, as well as numerous events that serve as trials for Olympic placement, and sporting federations that govern Olympic sports. The IOC is in fact one of the largest funders of organized amateur sports competitions in the world.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  > This is simply not true. The Rio, Athens, Sochi, and South Korean games were unable to sell the majority of their tickets at face value The Olympic committee's inability to accurately forecast demand does nothing to refute my statement. Overly (and most likely, IMO, fraudulent) optimistic revenue projections are a symptom of externalizing the cost of the event. You don't need to sell over priced tickets (or many, many tickets) if your costs are low. If it costs billions and billions of dollars, yeah, you gotta sell lots of tickets. Seems like any decently size university could host summer olympic games. The question then comes down to capacity. If only 20k people can attend, that dictates a certain price per ticket. They still have television rights, etc. If it turns out not to be profitable, then that's an accurate gauge of how important it is to society.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    Seems like any decently size university could host summer olympic games. Scale matters. The Olympics draw millions of attendees: Atlanta sold 8 million tickets; London sold 11 million. Moreover, there are over 100 different sports in the Olympics, most of which have multiple rounds of competition (except for the long-distance races like the marathon), requiring several thousand hours of competition. No university has the facilities for all of the Olympic events. No university has the space to hold all of the events within a two-week time-frame (or even a two month time-frame). No university in the world can handle those sorts of crowds. And finally, the crowd sizes you suggest - 20k, are generally smaller than the crowds that attend annual specialty regional events like the Mt Sac Relays or Penn State Open.
    - linuxftw 7y ago
      > Scale matters. To who? Why should a city invite 10's of millions of people to watch competitors? If you can generative the same profit with 20k more expensive tickets, why invite 20 million? Just so people can spend their money in your town? Money they could have spent on something else. Seems like such a colossal waste of public funds.

gamblor956 7y ago

Every city is capable of hosting the Olympics without subsidizing the efforts of the organizers. It's simple: Charge more for tickets to attend, charge for press passes. This is simply not true. The Rio, Athens, Sochi, and South Korean games were unable to sell the majority of their tickets at face value. Even London had trouble selling all of its tickets and gave entire blocks free to schoolchildren (though this was an issue primarily for preliminary and early rounds for multi-stage competitions and not at all an issue for marquee events). Increasing ticket prices would simply have resulted in even fewer ticket sales. If it was profitable, the Olympic committee would be funding the events themselves, not asking for large handouts from municipalities. Many of the Games have been profitable...at least the well-run ones. The IOC also does fund part of the costs of each Olympics, as well as numerous events that serve as trials for Olympic placement, and sporting federations that govern Olympic sports. The IOC is in fact one of the largest funders of organized amateur sports competitions in the world.

linuxftw 7y ago
> This is simply not true. The Rio, Athens, Sochi, and South Korean games were unable to sell the majority of their tickets at face value The Olympic committee's inability to accurately forecast demand does nothing to refute my statement. Overly (and most likely, IMO, fraudulent) optimistic revenue projections are a symptom of externalizing the cost of the event. You don't need to sell over priced tickets (or many, many tickets) if your costs are low. If it costs billions and billions of dollars, yeah, you gotta sell lots of tickets. Seems like any decently size university could host summer olympic games. The question then comes down to capacity. If only 20k people can attend, that dictates a certain price per ticket. They still have television rights, etc. If it turns out not to be profitable, then that's an accurate gauge of how important it is to society.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Seems like any decently size university could host summer olympic games. Scale matters. The Olympics draw millions of attendees: Atlanta sold 8 million tickets; London sold 11 million. Moreover, there are over 100 different sports in the Olympics, most of which have multiple rounds of competition (except for the long-distance races like the marathon), requiring several thousand hours of competition. No university has the facilities for all of the Olympic events. No university has the space to hold all of the events within a two-week time-frame (or even a two month time-frame). No university in the world can handle those sorts of crowds. And finally, the crowd sizes you suggest - 20k, are generally smaller than the crowds that attend annual specialty regional events like the Mt Sac Relays or Penn State Open.
  - linuxftw 7y ago
    > Scale matters. To who? Why should a city invite 10's of millions of people to watch competitors? If you can generative the same profit with 20k more expensive tickets, why invite 20 million? Just so people can spend their money in your town? Money they could have spent on something else. Seems like such a colossal waste of public funds.