Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
If it was a good return on investment, or if the economic benefits were even half of what is claimed, why aren't cities tripping over themselves to bid? Why have fewer and fewer cities bid as the years have gone on? This is where Olympic supporters have to inject things that are basically immeasurable to try and make the sell.
|
Well, there are really only a limited number of cities capable of hosting the Winter Games.
First, you need a winter(ish) climate and close proximity to locales where the outdoor snow-based events can be held. On top of that, you need a mountain that's tall enough to host the Men's downhill.
Those two requirements eliminate the vast majority of cities worldwide. As great of a winter sports country as Canada is, because of the mountain requirement, Calgary and Vancouver are really the only cities in the country that are viable hosts.
Even in the US, there aren't that many more viable host cities. Salt Lake and Denver are the obvious ones. Seattle, Portland, Northern California, and Boston could all probably work as well.
Also, because the Winter Olympics are so big now, smaller cities like Lake Placid or Lillehammer just wouldn't be able to handle the crowds, so you need a relatively large city. This eliminates the winter resort type cities that used to be the go to for hosting the Winter Games.
Another big factor is the need to build arenas for the Games that may get limited use after the Games. That is much less of a factor in North America because we're much more into the arena sports like hockey and curling so those facilities are either already in place, or will get well-used after the Games.
When you add all those factors up (and I didn't even mention the broadcast rights revenue, which is higher for the games in North America), it's easier to see why hosting the Winter Games may not be a viable option for many cities around the world. That doesn't necessarily mean it's not viable for Calgary.