Why exactly do we need to have all the events happen at the same time and in the same location? If events do not take place simultaneously, then people can watch all of their favourite events live, which will increase the number of views tremendously. So instead of cramming then all into 2 weeks, with 99% of the events missed by the viewers, spread them over one year. And now that events are not simultaneous anymore, then the host city does not have to build extra stadiums, destroys homes, etc... to accommodate the simultaneous events. If the host city would still need to build extra stadiums despite this (e.g. it has no velodrome), then let another city that does have the necessary stadiums host those events. Why do they have to all be in the same city? So nothing new needs to be made, no more evictions, no more construction worker deaths, etc... And at the same time, more events are now viewed live. In the end, the accuracy of the medal accomplishments for each country will still be just as accurate. Explain why not follow this solution to all the problems? Please don't tell me "Olympic spirit" would be lost.
Improving the olympics while reducing the cost
- Thread starter hyperdog
- Start date
1 location. All nations make a contribution to build and maintain it.
Ends the bidding corruption, gets rid of a lot of useless IOC people. Can be rented out for training purposes so the facilities can be used all the time and profit from it. Qualifiers can be run there. And a local economy will develop.
You can also pick property that has consistently good weather for the time period.
Ends the bidding corruption, gets rid of a lot of useless IOC people. Can be rented out for training purposes so the facilities can be used all the time and profit from it. Qualifiers can be run there. And a local economy will develop.
You can also pick property that has consistently good weather for the time period.
My solution. Award the winner 2 games. So brazil has 2016, someone else has games for 2020 then brazil again in 2024. Most of the infrastructure is already in place, make some fine tuning, and your 2nd games will be better then your first because you already have the experience. Plus, when you bid, you essentially split the cost between 2 games. IOC would never go for that but i think its a great idea.
The bribe money from the 'winning' host city would be lost.
The IOC members won't do anything that isn't in the interest of their bank accounts.
Keeps cost down. Why have security one day for the javelin throw, then again the next day for the 100m dash.
How would not having simultaneous event decrease the number of stadiums? I don't think it is easy or really possible to convert a stadium for a track event into one for gymnastics taken into account the audience and sight lines.
I thought in the past that a host city would "share" the games with neighbouring cities if they don't have the adequate facilities.
If you mean have one day of track, next day basketball, then next day golf, then next day water polo, etc; best explanation I could say is that it weakens branding, throughout the year people would lose interest. If you have it spread out the year, you might as well spread it across the globe awarding specific events to different cities. The next step after that would be just combine different international events (that already occur ie. IIHF, international track events, etc.) under the "umbrella" of the IOC. Every four years just say these tournaments/events count towards a countries medal count.
My humble suggestions:
1) It won't reduce cost but increase viewership, in each event a country cannot have more than one member competing. This would allow other countries into the event.
2) Decrease the number of events.
To me the "Olympic spirit" was already lost when we allow professional athletes to compete.
How would not having simultaneous event decrease the number of stadiums? I don't think it is easy or really possible to convert a stadium for a track event into one for gymnastics taken into account the audience and sight lines.
I thought in the past that a host city would "share" the games with neighbouring cities if they don't have the adequate facilities.
If you mean have one day of track, next day basketball, then next day golf, then next day water polo, etc; best explanation I could say is that it weakens branding, throughout the year people would lose interest. If you have it spread out the year, you might as well spread it across the globe awarding specific events to different cities. The next step after that would be just combine different international events (that already occur ie. IIHF, international track events, etc.) under the "umbrella" of the IOC. Every four years just say these tournaments/events count towards a countries medal count.
My humble suggestions:
1) It won't reduce cost but increase viewership, in each event a country cannot have more than one member competing. This would allow other countries into the event.
2) Decrease the number of events.
To me the "Olympic spirit" was already lost when we allow professional athletes to compete.
I agree with this. There's too many events which no one cares about and are borderline athletic. Archery, golf, shooting, pentathlon, synchro swim, BMX, mountain bikes, equestrian, and even trampoline (no disrespect to Rosie M).
I'm actually glad they got rid of softball as the US pretty much won all the time. Hope they get rid of more, but they won't because of the money.
Pick 3 locations for each games - Europe, Americas, Asia and rotate.
I would put the summer games in LA and Canada (Calgary?) for Summer/Winter in Americas.... Pick wealthy countries that already have held the games (China, UK)
I would put the summer games in LA and Canada (Calgary?) for Summer/Winter in Americas.... Pick wealthy countries that already have held the games (China, UK)
Not sure the IOC is going to want to change anything that radically whilst it can count on billions of US TV money and a steady supply of cities to host the games. From their perspective the games continue to be a huge success.
I think they will however be open to ideas on how to limit the costs by using existing infrastructures as much as possible, possibly in a slightly wider geographical setting than the one city.
They will also want to see more local public interest in the games. Attendance at most Rio events has been pretty bad.
BTW talking of the TV rights, BBC TV has had 24 channels devoted to the games for the last fortnight broadcasting without any commercials! You can chose which sports to watch, when you want. Clearly you guys haven't been so lucky.
I think they will however be open to ideas on how to limit the costs by using existing infrastructures as much as possible, possibly in a slightly wider geographical setting than the one city.
They will also want to see more local public interest in the games. Attendance at most Rio events has been pretty bad.
BTW talking of the TV rights, BBC TV has had 24 channels devoted to the games for the last fortnight broadcasting without any commercials! You can chose which sports to watch, when you want. Clearly you guys haven't been so lucky.
Any of the "martial events" involving war tactics probably won't go because the elites like them. And yes that includes equestrian, several track events like javalin and shot put. As well as obviously shooting etc.
Trampoline is probably a good one due to the gymnastic quality.
But anything where there is artistic points isn't a sport. It's an exhibition. And either eliminate the points or the event.
