Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
It doesn't sound like the remaining 2 candidate cities (Stockholm and Milan) are all in either at this point. Both seem to have issues with funding and logistics.
Nobody seems to want the games that badly. Even after the Olympic committee relaxed their rules about geographic restrictions, they seem to be having trouble getting governments to buy in.
Calgary may have had an advantage since the last games will have been in Asia and Europe. I am not a big fan of hosting expensive vanity projects, but I would bet that Calgary would have won the bid if it went through.
|
The IOC is in a bind here because of their corruption. Since the beginning of time cities hosted and got new infrastructure. This goes for not only Olympics but other world events like World Cup, Pan Am Games, Commonwealth Games and EXPO (people forget that if Calgary had gotten EXPO 2005, we'd have the ring road already). These events are an opportunity for innovation. The host cities get to show off new infrastructure, technology, security etc....
But then the IOC and FIFA went to authoritarian or poor countries to try to showcase them. The White Elephant became a problem? Why? Money became a problem? Why?
So the IOC now wants the Olympics where no new infrastructure is built. Who wants that? The summer games are still big and for at least in the foreseeable future, cities will still want it. But nobody watches the winter games outside of maybe 20 countries. There is no advertising dollars and no tv revenue. And what little there is goes to the IOC leaving the host cities holding the bill.