Quote:
Originally Posted by Addick
My short answer would be yes. Why? In terms of crime, an international governing body (IGB) for a sport would simply not allow their members to be put in situations where they would be fearful of their life. While crime maybe high in certain countries the IGBs award events to, the IGBs surely have some sort of assurances (physical not oral) that their members and fans would not be subject to a crime incident rate deemed unacceptable. Crime will take place almost everywhere and the IGBs would require that if the necessary, and not overwhelming, amount of precautions are taken the crime incident rate would be similar for all hosts in both the developed and developing world.
In regards to terrorism, 9/11 and 7/7. Terrorism can happen anywhere and can take on numerous forms. In my opinion, it can more easily happen in developed countries, than elevated crime (as seen in developing countries) can. Once again, the IGBs would make sure that the risk of terrorism is similar if proper precautions are taken. Like I alluded to before, I think this is easier to do in places that can manage to make decent bids for events like the WCF and Olympics.
My advice for you brother would be to look at the criminal and terrorist events that have happened at major sporting events in the past and see if their is a substantial difference between the frequency in developed and developing world.
|
The fact that teams have been attacked as recently as this year runs contrary to the whole 'the IGB's would make sure that doesn't happen' argument. The fact remains that such guarantees simply aren't possible to make in many countries, hence their status as unstable locations. The lack of infrastructure, and mass corruption, makes implementing a reliable security plan incredibly difficult, if not impossible. I wouldn't lump South Africa and Brazil into that category, but when you get to places like Pakistan you're stepping into a new level of concerns.