Hosting the Olympics is Broken. Let's Fix It. 

How would you fix hosting the Olympics? And what do you think of my city picks?

Over the past 20 years, the IOC has been massively increasing the percentage of profits that they receive for each Olympics. That's a key reason why hosting is unprofitable now.

I'd say Capetown would be a mistake with there current water crisis it would run the city dry!

Russia: Most of the country is globally known to have a "proper" winter. Also Russia: Hosts winter olympic in its only really warm region. So warm, it needs to artificially add snow. Dooming most of the built winter sports structures by doing so. I won't even go about how it wasn't reasonably affordable for a stagnating country with mostly poor population.

Wow. 21 of the 22 sites in Athens are currently abandoned? That's craziness.

They should organize it so more money goes to the city instead of the Olympic committee and reduce the cost of building the games.

I feel like if they went with the World Cup method and chose COUNTRIES, instead of cities, you may be able to solve a lot of problems. Large countries would probably have to limit the games to a particular region (say the US using the Southeast for a summer games), but then you can spread out the costs. Works for the WC, why not the Olympics?

No matter how we choose criteria for cities hosting the Olympics, there will always be countries who will claim that it is unfair that they were not chosen.

The biggest problem with Olympics is IOC. It is the most greedy sports organization on earth, taking 70%+ of TV rights revenue. As best as I can tell no sports federation does that. Once this graft is resolved half the problem is solved. I like the system of rotating permanent cities, but modify it by adding non-permanent cities to hold it every other one, or maybe every third one.

Problem with the southern hemisphere is they're in opposite seasons, so summer in America is winter in Australia.

I would agree. I heard the permanent site idea but I didn't like it. I agree (with the exception of Cape Town) as the permanent continental sites, but I would add Athens since the Olympics date back to Ancient Greece and it would be nice every 16 years for Athens to get the Summer Olympics.

1 major point in favour of Sydney (I'm a Sydneysider) is the venues were existing, designed as multi-use venues or had enough demand of use after the games. In the last couple of years the Exhibition Centre has been rebuilt and the main stadium will be rebuilt in the next couple of years. But most other venues are still in use.

Why not make all Olympic Games in olymp in Greece

The decision for LA to host the 2028 games makes a lot of sense. Most of the venue work they are doing is work that needs doing anyway (e.g. LA Stadium will get a lot of use for the NFL as well as the Olympics and Banc of California Stadium will get use for a Major League Soccer team as well as the games). As a former host they can re-use existing infrastructure as well (e.g. the Coliseum). They have lots of existing infrastructure in general (including transport stuff like BART) so they dont need to build a lot of stuff. Brisbane on the other hand (another city that has talked about hosting the Olympic Games and is about to host the Commonwealth Games down on the Gold Coast) would need a lot more infrastructure (a lot less of which would see use after the Olympics).

I like the idea of having permanent olympic cities on each continent. I only have one problem with one city and that is Cape Town and only due to the water crisis it is currently experiencing. I really enjoy your channel and wished you posted more often. Keep up the good work!

I'd chose Sapporo over Pyeongchang, especially because most of their facilities are not permanent ones. Sapporo is also debating to bid for the Winter Olympics 2026 and 2030, so they seem to be willing to update their infrastructure. Furthermore Sapporo is the 5th largest city in Japan and is well connected by train and airport, making travel to the city very easy. Also Switzerland, or rather the city of Sion, are debating about hosting the Winter Olympics 2026 as a joined venture, basically a national event. Switzerland also hosts the IOC, so it might be another candidate to become a permanent host. But the choices you offered all makes sense.

There is one major problem with the three summer sites: their summer isn't the summer in most of the rest of the world (NA, Europe, Asia)...

I think London should host again. I loved the 2012 Olympics.

I live in sydney and Sydney Olympic Park is still full of life even after 20 years of the 2000 Olympics, our aquatics centre is a public place and the stadiums get used frequently for sporting events

This idea is growing but i don't think these cities are necessarily a good pick.

Amazing video! I love people that love the olympics as much as myself and want to strive for a better games that's not daunting to host cities/countries. You should make a whole channel on this kinda stuff. Really amazing topics!

I'd choose Los Angeles for the summer Olympics. They've got the infrastructure in place and actually turned a profit last time they hosted.

Londons Olympics was amazing It was actually profitable as London converted terraced housing into London and gave people houses There is a huge shopping mall and a massive park and it's so modern

I absolutely love your channel! It's right up my alley, and is exactly what I'm always looking to watch. Keep doing what you do!

Great video! I love the idea of having pre-defined cities. All good picks, too. Though the only issue I could see is continents being upset that they never get to host the summer olympics, since I think they typically have higher viewer counts/are more profitable, no? Anyway, good stuff!

Brilliant idea! I lived in Vancouver during the 2010 games and by far the best outcome was the light rail. I remember there was a lot of concern there wouldn't be enough snow the weeks leading up to the games.

Great video! As a Mexican historian I feel obliged to thank you for making a call about the massacre of the 68 in CDMX (Mexico City), and I'll add a bit of context, because there's also a really important "semiotic" weight to the Olympics; in a certain way the Olympics mean to be O.K. with the global status quo and they work as a extremely important diplomatic event. In this case we had several student revolts across the world and an special situation of left-wing parties taking power in Latin America (which culminated wit the Chilean election and coup d'etat in the 70's), and this meant a drifting of American power (as continent) towards communism, we already had Cuba, so U.S. wasn't eager to add more countries to CCCP's side so it took an extremely aggressive interventionist foreign policy- in the same manner, after Cardenas' government on Mexico, the main party took a pro-US policy which was mutually beneficial at the beginning but soon the US started to "buy" politicians and policy-makers that made one-sided deals to help US development (thus, as today Mexico produces petrol but not gasoline, that's processed on US). By the time Díaz Ordaz was in the presidency Mexico was more of a vassal state, that meant that it would not allow those revolts to take place or to be highlighted in such an important event as the Olympics, that's why even though they could've dispersed the multitude with regular crowd-control tactics they infiltrated people to commit a massacre and kill the leaders of the student movement, this was a response to the petitions and concerns of the US embassy in CDMX. So, the diplomatic implications of the Olympics are another big deal with major geopolitical intentions behind (such as the ones at Nazi Germany) and these outweigh those of the individual urban concerns, that's why I don't think we're gonna see a change any time soon. Sorry for the long comment!

As my professor of urbanism once told me. Those are extremely huge scale UP (urban protect) with so many variables that maybe planners, architects, investors and officials don't consider. However, it is not imposible to be sustainable and effective after the games. Barcelona 92 and London 2012 are fantastic examples of good planning. Taking into account the needs of the community and the infrastructure they repontenced the city through integrating the real needs of all actors in the community and projecting its proper functioning in the future.

With Cape Town water crisis, wouldn't you think holding the Olympics would be risky, if the situation of drought was to get worse each year?

Great idea! It's a shame that the Olympic venues get such neglect. Even though the ones in Mexico brought a lot of problems, all the venues are still in use, and it did help make the city better connected with roads. So I guess there are ways to plan ahead for usage, maybe? Also, if all the countries are participating, shouldn't all chip in a bit instead of leaving the host city cover all of the expenses? Shouldn't there be some kind of international fund to help hosts? Just wondering...

idk man, i just like the charm that comes from getting to know a new area every 2 years too much to go along with just one city per continent.

Love the thought and research you put into this video. Well done!

I think I have another solution for this that would allow any city/country to host the Olympics. Instead of hosting just one Olympic event, why not host 3 consecutive ones? This way, the city/country can use its Olympic infrastructure for 12 years and we can plug that into the design life of the infrastructure and make it profitable. I know 12 years is much lower than the typical design life for well, any engineering project but we can still manage it. This would provide a kind of stability to the events (no need for cities/countries to outbid each other or construct new infrastructure every event) and allow them to occur more frequently (every 3 or even 2 years). The increased frequency would make the event even more profitable. And after 12 years, simply pick another country at random and let them host the events for the next 12 years. I think this system would be much more efficient and profitable than the one we have today while still being fair to the countries. Same goes for the World Cup.

Los Angeles 1984 was profitable. They should be a permanent, North American Summer Games location.

What about Wakanda? We can build a Starbucks while we are at it.

Isn't it winter in Australia when it's summer everywhere else? I wouldn't wanna be there in the cold competing in the summer Olympics

Love your videos! I definitely think this is a perfect solution to a clear problem.

Make Athens the permanent summer host. As the Olympics originated there. Rotate the winter games between a few cities. But in the end someone will always be unhappy.

So, the "Summer Olympics" would occur during the winter months south of the Equator?

I think the reason why host cities go down and lose money is because they choose to built brand new facilities when they can use natural structures. I looked at a documentary about the Rome 1960 games and they held events in ancient ruins. All that was need to be built was benches for the audience for most of the events.

Rio could barely host the Olympics in 2016.

Do you mind creating a video about the affects of city adapting to Amazon? It would be great to see how the bidding for it can be detrimental especially considering how is going in the automation direction.

London is good because already has the infrastructure

Los Angeles is expanding light rail because of 2028 Olympics and I’m excited to be able to use it afterwards

The students in Mexico in 1968 were not just protesting against the Olympic Games, but against the whole political situation in Mexico (poverty, inequality, corruption). The hosting of the Olympic Games was just a small factor that drove this students.

I am from Montreal and people still say it was a huge waste of money to host the Olympics.

Hosting the Winter Olympics doesn't really make sense to me. How often does it generate enough profit?

I really like what you’re doing with you’re channel 😄. Can you do something on green belts?

I was patiently waiting to hear about Montréal Olympic Stadium lol, it had to be mentioned lol!

Salt Lake City is a good choice: a good chunk of the infrastructure is still in use, and if they need to built it quickly, reference the Utah State Motto. (and why not we're also known for the greatest snow on earth)

Why not just spread out the Olympics? Instead of having to put the entire games in one city they could put different events across the globe where facilities already exist without significant development.

With the current set up, IOC reps need to be fine with current buildings to host. Pick a time where students are on break and use their dorms for the Olympic village. Use professional and (at least in the US) collegiate facilities for events, and that alone should knock off half the venues, especially for indoor summer events, and to a lesser extent indoor winter venues. That cuts back on costs, eventual decay, and questions on location. Plus these places probably already have the ground work for parking and public transit.

As part of the Olympic family having worked on 2 Olympics (including the last one to make a profit) you are missing why the Olympics loose money and are a burden to the host. 1st the local organizing committee is usually run by someone who is politically savvy but has no clue how to run this kind of business. Peter Ueberroth was the exception not only being brutally in control but practically inventing selling naming rights. He also got concessions from the IOC so he kept the money instead of sending it to the IOC. As to not having bidding it would solve the infrastructure problem but no one would agree on the locations. The only reasonable choice would be to put the summer games in Athens. The IOC would run the games directly so there isn't two layers of management (no LOC). The alternative is the bidding system, but the IOC only gets money if the LOC has a surplus. LOC must have a plan that does not burden taxpayers.

Ya OK....Is there a logical reason Los Angeles wasn' t mentioned at all in this video???

But what if someone in a committee has a temper tantrum and goes “but I wanna host the Summer Olympics in Florida” or “but I wanna host the Winter Olympics in New Zealand”? It’s not fair to have only 6 cities rotate as hosts and have them only host the Summer or Winter Olympic games depending on which hemisphere they’re located at. Variety is key in picking a city to host the games. Keeping it fresh and new is what makes it a big, special deal. And if a city doesn’t match the season (like Sochi didn’t; no offense) or can’t handle maintaining the facilities after the games are over, then they shouldn’t even bother to bid and try to get nominated in the first place.

I believe there are three types of Olympic hosts that would make the games sustainable and give a positive legacy: 1) Have the games be hosted by a previous host city such as LA, London, Paris and Sydney for summer games and Vancouver, Calgary, Salt Lake City and Turin for winter games who had successful impacts hosting and still have the venues needed. 2) Have the games hosted by a new host that has all the infrastructure and at least 80% of the permanent venues needed to host. Cities like Toronto, New York, Chicago, Madrid, and Brisbane have all or most of the venues needed and have permanent tenants. 3) Have the games co-hosted by multiple cities in the same country or a whole country similar to the world cup of soccer. For example, Toronto and Montreal co-hosting the summer games and Calgary and Edmonton (it can be named Alberta 20??) hosting the winter. I remember here in Canada it felt like the whole country was hosting the Vancouver 2010 winter games with all the buzz and there's normally a lot of federal funding that goes into it anyways. By the looks of the current choices by the IOC for future hosts it seems like their going in that direction. Hopefully these hosts will be successful and profitable which will bring back the magic and excitement that the Olympic games use to have.

Why not build temporairy structures that can be easily taken down, and are less expensive?

6:38 when did Austria adopt the Dutch flag?

I'm quite surprised that you mentioned PyeongChang as permanent host. Yes, I agree PyeongChang is quite compact and easy to be there, but there's problem of transportation(2018 winter Olympic is in the middle of Korean New Year's Day, which is huge matter) and price.

Hi! I`m Your subscriber from Poland. One of the biggest events we hosted there was Euro 2012 (luckily shared with Ukraine). Like any other international sports events, this one left the country with expensive stadiums that can barely pay for current repairs. It is hard to count return on those huge investments but after few year no one is convinced that this was a really good idea after all. So when next year politicians tried to apply for hosting winter Olympics in Cracow local citizens voted NO on the referendum. It is sad to see how much costs those events especially when is needed to take in considering the current economic situation in some of hosting countries... I think that Olympic movement went the wrong direction at least two decades ago. So there is a deep need for changes and I like Your idea of fixing it!

The rio games was nothing but problems why would they ever get another Olympics

As always, brilliant video. Keep at it.

Each continent is enormous, and billions of people that live in potential host cities would never get an opportunity to see games that they otherwise would. Alexandria and Cape Town, for example, might as well be on the other side of the planet from each other for all travel related intents and purposes.

i think a better idea would be to do it more similarly to the FIFA World Cup, in which instead of having a host city, you have a host COUNTRY, you have different cities throughout the country hosting different events, which would not only split the costs between various cities, but also spread out the benefits to multiple cities. looking at the united states for example, you could have part of it in Los Angeles, some in Dallas, some in Miami, some in Seattle, some in Chicago, and some in New York, having one in the biggest metropolitan area of each region of the country

The money spent on the Olympics by cities and countries should be spent on helping the impoverished and homeless or just building the transportation, infrastructure and fixing existing infrastructure anyway

London used a good idea - temporary buildings. With events televised in HD and soon 4K why the need for so much seating? The track makes the stadium venue difficult for professional sports to use. I like the idea of permanent cities. Some summer events can be moved to the winter games (like basketball and swimming) to make those games interesting to areas of the world that don't have winter sports.

i think extending the length of the games could also help. then fewer facilities could be used, hosting multiple events given an extended turnaround time. also i don't think permanent sites would fly politically, but semi permanent sites might. Like hosting 2 games in a row. It would be ideal if a city could host both summer and winter back to back, to minimize the lag time between facility uses, and not delay the demolition or renovation of olympic sites for better use. Also is it technically feasible to build modular facilities that could just be shipped and reused in future olympics?

how do you only have 41k subs ? you deserve so many more

I think there might be an Architectural solution to this that doesn't necessarily involve limiting the game to specific sites. There are great opportunities to use urban planning wisely to ensure that the athletic facilities are in central locations where they will have use after the games. Build up transit infrastructure to the games... decentralize the park into multiple campuses....Design for a second life....There are precedents for this. So much of the city of Paris is a result of the 1889 Exposition Universelle. Granted, those were exhibition halls and not stadiums, but they have been swallowed up by the urban fabric and are now indistinguishable from the many other museums and galleries in the cities. You also give the example of Barcelona. That is a similar success story. A more radical solution would be to design temporary stadiums as they are: temporary. So much of architecture is built with a misunderstanding of a building's life cycle, what kind of materials and construction are appropriate for the life cycle, and what happens to the materials afterwards. What if the stadiums are designed to only live for 1 year, then are completely destroyed? There is also precedent for this, the 1893 Chicago Columbia Exhibition. The exhibition planners knew the buildings were temporary, and built them practically as skeletons, with cheap plaster facades. They were beautiful, but so barebones that by the time the fair was over, they burned the complex to the ground, and dumped the ashes in Lake Michigan. Today, that site is Jackson Park. What if stadium parks were built knowing they were to be demolished in a year? Would designers use recyclable materials? Could they set up an economy to salvage and sell all the leftover steel, wood and glass? Could it be built from modular parts that could be directly rebuilt into housing or commercial projects on the site?

Cool video!

They had a train running from Atlanta to Athens, GA during the Olympics, which they shut down pretty quickly after. The number of times I was stuck in traffic trying to get back to UGA thinking about that train cannot be counted.

The best solution for the Olympic host city debate is to have 8 cities ( 4 summer and 4 winter) to host the Olympics on a 16 year rotating basis. My 4 summer picks; Sydney, Tokyo, Los Angeles, and London. Winter picks: Lillehammer, St. Moritz, Pyeongchang, and Salt Lake City.

You inspired me to study city planning! Love your channel! Keep up your great work! 😊 Ps. Not only city beautiful, but you also really beautiful 😋

I would like to start by saying I really like this channel. But I don't agree with your suggestion of having only 6 cities as hosts. I think that the whole idea of the olympics is that it is a global event, in more ways than just the competitor lineup. If only a few countries would get to host, the rest of the 190-ish cuntries would most likely start to loose interest in the whole thing rather quickly. I tink a much better solution would be to have the IOC host the games themselves, each time in a new city. They would work together with the chosen host cities to develop the needed infrastructure and the money would come from all the participating countries, pitching in to a collective pool of cash. The "participation-fee" could be based on the BNP of each participating country. And so it would become not just a global sports event but also a global investment and development scheme to permanently enrich one city at a time.

No Summer Games in the northern hemisphere? Seeing as 90% of the world's population lives in the northern hemisphere I don't think that plan makes sense. Better would be 10 cities in total, with a 20 year full rotation (summer & winter games) around the cities, ensuring that each continent on the northern hemisphere gets a summer and winter games, while also having 2 host cities on the southern hemisphere. For example: 1) Calgary (Winter) 2) Los Angeles or Mexico City (Summer) 3) Turin (Winter) 4) Sydney (Summer) 5) Pyeongchang, Nagano or Sapporo (Winter) 6) Paris or London (Summer) 7) Beijing (Winter) 8) Rio De Janeiro or Cape Town (Summer) 9) Lillehammer (Winter) 10) Tokyo or Seoul (Summer)

Thnks for talkin about the masacre de tlatelolco.

Sorry but one location MUST be Greece, without it this doesn't make any sense...

But rio was a terrible host so why would we let them do it again? They had a green pool for god sakes

I come from Sarajevo, and despite the war in 90's which destroyed most of the venues built for the 1984 Olympics, all of them were used prior to the war. It all had to do with urban planning. So Olympic village, where teams and press were stationed was built as a residential buildings with functioning apartments which were sold or given to the people to live there. People still live there. Skiing centers are still functional and they were built on mountains that surround Sarajevo, so you only need half an hour driving to get there. The ice skating hall was built as an extension for youth sports center and its designed in a way it can be used as a multifunctional hall. It's cost to maintain was not big one, couse it is "given" to the existing management of youth center. Unfortunately, it was destroyed during the war, but prior to it, it held venues such as fairs. The biggest hall was "Zetra", which was built again as a multifunctional hall. Speed skating polygon was given to a bike and go cart club, Nordic skiing polygon was given to a hospital so the can use it to treat patients with disabilities by means of horse riding or nature walking. Unfortunately, ski jumping, bob sleight and other minor venues are now destroyed, but if there weren't war, all of it would still functin as it did prior to 92. Maybe the best insight in this is the fact that all of these venues were scattered throughout the city, so if one of them fails, not all of them will.

Great Channel and Great Narration' Explaining What Very Few Know! For Those Who Appreciate Progressive Thinking For A Better Future' While Learning From Our History' Thank You Kindly🌎🌍🌏

I would say it’s not profitable enough to host the summer games in this places, the teams of this countrys arent even under the top 10 with their sports results

i'd love to see toronto get one

I took an economics in sports class at uni and i remember that the olympics were always a disaster. The short term job market increases unemployment after the event and the new infrastructure (which is a requirement) largely goes unused (on top of displacement, which you mentioned). I think it was London who did the best financially after even tho they still lost money. Most major sports (nfl, nba, etc) are an economic disaster for the communities they are in as the money they make mostly leaves the area.

It's a nice idea and you've given this some thought. However, I think the IOC is roughly as open to "individualized financial stimuli" as FIFA - so the actual decision doesn't really give much consideration to the hosts' or the participants' Wealth.

I have full support for this plan, especially since you picked Calgary as a semi-permanent host city!

They should just pick a host country rather than a host city. Also Los Angeles should host the summer olympics as it has the necessary infrastructure already in place.

Oslo withdrew its bid after the IOC issued a book outlining the requirements for the host city. The requirements were not just expensive, some were downright stupid (including but not limited to providing free luxury accommodations for IOC members).

For the Rio olympics, I heard that in order to build the campus of the olympics area, the local government evicted a bunch of low income individuals. Then, when the athletes actually showed up, the government erected barriers along the highways when it was in low income areas. The official reason was that it would tone down noise. However, it didn't hide a school so it's very probable that the local government was just sweeping these people under the rug. When the olympics were over, the structures were basically lifeless.

Representin' the 403

I like your idea but I think an even better one is the one suggested by a guest on a CNN show back in 2016 during the Rio Olympics. Instead of a city bidding for the WHOLE games, a city bids for a SPORT (and their associated disciplines)-and ONE sport alone. For example, say, Moscow, successfully bids for the sport of wrestling, so then all freestyle and Greco-Roman events are held in that city alone. Or, as another example, Los Angeles, successfully bids for gymnastics, they would then host all the artistic and rhythmic gymnastics and (...ugh...) trampoline events. And so on and so forth. I think you get it. The opening and closing ceremonies-at least for the summer games-can be permanently held in Athens, Greece. Maybe good ole neutral Switzerland can have one of their cities permanently host the opening and closing ceremonies for the winter games?

I'm from Brazil. In the late 2000s we were picked to host the world cup in 2014 and the olympics in 2016. Many were happy, but many also said this was too much a burden to a developing nation. However people mostly thought economic growth would be enough to pay for it. In the early 2010s, however, the economy lost steam because of global stagnation and bad economic policy, billions that could have been used to build essential infrastructure were spent for hosting these games. As it's natural in an underdeveloped country, a lot was sucked by corruption. My country ended up having a deep recession in 2015-2016. Hosting both games did had a negative impact, though I'm not saying it was the main cause. But it was just too much for us. If developing nations are to host them, they should receive financial support.

Why didn't you upload this earlier? I did a presentation on this several weeks ago, and nobody agreed to my solution, one summer, and one permanent winter olympic host, so I didn't get a debate off the ground. If I had proposed this, my mark would have probably been higher. Great video, though.

On the merits of the video: Good geopolitical, balanced attention to sites; attention to infrastructure that exists; research on history and future challenges with climate change. Fine assessment. My personal bias: I like these games more! On the demerits of the video: Vast disparity in participation and revenue from summer (high) v. winter (low) Olympic games. To restrict countries with temperate climates to host winter Olympics when they might also host the more widely attended and lucrative is, perhaps unfair. I would posit that the global north, as an aggregate has more wealth, and could use this as an opportunity to share with the developing world, but I'm too much of a realist to believe in political benevolence. Also, how does one work with history and changing demographics, where a previous host city like Mexico or a new rising city, like Mumbai, might be excluded. The IOC is flawed, but a "permanent" rotation at this point is not a solution.

Calgary is the best city :D

I quite disagree with the idea of permanent sites, they retire all the charm of the Olympics. I also disagree with the idea that Athens, Greece should host all games as this could be quite a financial burden for the fragilized economy of Greece (not to wonder where all the snow would be for the Winter Games). But I never complain without offering solutions so here they are : -All cities/sites wishing to host any OIympic (Summer, Winter, Youth Olympics as to not forget them) must have at least 75% of needed infrastructure already in place for at least 5 years before the bidding with proof that they are actively used (so that if such sites are popular even before the games, they'll stay popular after them instead of being abandonned). -The new infrastructures that are to built must have a guaranteed post-game owner before they are even built (and a list of at least 2 backup owners in case plan A goes bankrupt or isn't interested anymore). Else the bidding cannot be accepted. A plan to demolish them in order to 100% recycle the materials used in the buildings for other purposes can work too. -All infrastructures must have a carbon-neutral footprint in their electricity demand. -A budget for an olympic must not go past 10 billions dollars at the risk of receiving a ban for hosting future international sport competitions of any kind in the next 40 years. This will incentivize those in charges of the games to be more efficient and to do more with less as well as actually reserve a part of their attributed budget to fix unpredicted problems. -No Low-income neighbourhood can be authorized to be destroyed to host the games, including for the construction of their transport infrastructures. Else, the bidding is automatically refused even if the city is part of the final nominees. -Extra transparency measures to be adopted in regard of those in charge of evaluating the bidding sites and voting on the final sites. In other words the entire IOC, everyone under their employment who are related in any regard to the attribution or organization of any Olympics must reveal publically, for everyone to access, their tax returns for the past 4 years prior to the games and two years after each of them. The entire budget and spendings (and for what and to whom they are spending on) of IOC-related sub-organizations, members and groups working with them must be publically shown as well. This is all to restore public trust in the neutrality and transparency of the IOC in regard to the decision-making of a host site. As sites with a greater good will from organizers, public support and overall better management often get sidetracked by sites with better gifts to give to the IOC members to put it lightly. All that comes in and all that comes out must be known by the public, by signing to be associated with the IOC it is already part of your contract to put the high ideals of international sports and cooperation over your wallet and privacy out of good will towards what the people expects of you. There, voila, my solutions to the Olympics. Nice try however City Beautiful.

I live in Vancouver, I've never cared about the Olympics and I didn't attend when they were here. On the surface I think it had a positive effect. I think a lot of people here gained a new perspective on our own home because we had eyes on us and we got an outsider's perspective on how beautiful it is here. It strengthened my identification with the city as my place on the planet. It felt like the local governments became more conscious of the look and feel of public spaces afterward, especially because our tourism seemed to go up after that (tourists obviously bringing positives and negatives). The Canada Line was definitely NOT an abandoned Olympics investment, in fact they grossly underestimated how many people would use it after that. BUT I won't be able to say the long-term impact was good unless our government reigns in on the ludicrous housing market which is forcing my generation to either live on a precarious budget in make-shift living arrangements or leave the city altogether. I don't want to be evicted from my own city just as the Olympics helped me to feel more connected to it.

Scale the Olympic games down. Less sports (only the most polular). This means less aditional facilities.

I might go with Sapporo over Pyeongchang. I seem to recall snowfall issues in the latter, whereas the former regularly receives boatloads of snow every winter without issue.

Officially Cape Town did not host the World Cup. It was South Africa. Because the World Cup is awarded to a country not a city. That’s a good question to explore. What do Olympics are awarded to city and World Cup Countries?

No olympics in Greece? I think it would be fair given the extra value of the summer games to give the northern hemisphere a summer games. I live in New Zealand so an Australian games would mean that it was more accessible for me but given that Australia and it’s surrounding neighbours outside of Asia lack population density and numbers it would be better to consider Asia Pacific as a region rather than splitting it in two along population lines. To this end it might be more valuable to give India a Summer games or to consider a second games for Europe/Northern Africa. Further to that consider that an event every 12 years is probably still not going to allow enough net benefit to justify the effort to maintain the required infrastructure. Look at the cost of the NFL to American cities. It may be useful to Vaticanise an Olympic city (perhaps a brand new city) and allow different countries the ability to host there. Either that or arrange for other events to essentially follow around the olympics to use some of those facilities. Especially events that might be of interest to people who might be likely to be less enthused about the olympics.