In a time when most all countries are stretched to the limits financially, should we be considering less expensive ways of putting on the Grande spectacle that is the Olympics? Even in "Have" countries more and more people are finding it difficult to afford food, housing and other basics. Rather than burdening a different country for hosting each Olympics game, could not two permanent locations be chosen to host the Summer and Winter Olympics? Just a thought in the dark here.
Bob
It’s an interesting concept, Bob, but imo, one that likely won’t catch on for a number of reasons. The quadrennial roving nature of the Olympic Games are ingrained in our collective psyche. I suspect that having one’s homeland as host of the Olympics is a great source of national pride for most citizens of the world. Would we want to deprive people/nations the opportunity to shine on the world stage?
Re: logistics; how would the IOC make the decision to centralize the winter and summer events? Just that process alone seems like a decades long argument/discussion/negotiation/nightmare waiting to happen.
From my limited understanding, the world’s Olympic villages continue to benefit their people / nations for decades after the games have concluded. I’m pretty sure they’re used as training facilities and perhaps even as vacation / tourist destinations by citizens and also world travelers. One of our highlights of visiting Spain was the Olympic Village in Barcelona. Tourism is a valid by-product of having been a host nation.
Might the permanent location, for all the reasons we could state, be it summer or winter, give that nation’s athletes an unfair advantage over their counterparts around the world?
All that said, if the IOC decides to take the route you suggest, my nomination for the permanent home of the Summer Games is Greece.
