Sports related thesis...

[Traditional_Ale]

My brother asked me to post this:


Should major sporting events be held in unstable countries?


Examples include the cricket world cup being held in Pakistan (supposedly), Fifa World Cup 2014 in Brazil, or even 2010 in South Africa. Perhaps also some of the Formula 1 circuit.

This is from a context of crime and also the possibility of terrorism.

[Dion]

He's looking for others to do his thesis for him?

[Traditional_Ale]

^ He asked me to post that on CP because he wanted to get some opinions from sports fans who actually know what they're talking about.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

^ He asked me to post that on CP because he wanted to get some opinions from sports fans who actually know what they're talking about.

Ahhhhh ok - fair enough.

[Resolute 14]

The Cricket World Cup one is interesting, given about 10 years ago, India and Pakistan had to play their head to head matchups in Toronto because of the threat of violence.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

My brother asked me to post this:


Should major sporting events be held in unstable countries?


Examples include the cricket world cup being held in Pakistan (supposedly), Fifa World Cup 2014 in Brazil, or even 2010 in South Africa. Perhaps also some of the Formula 1 circuit.

This is from a context of crime and also the possibility of terrorism.

The cricket world cup is not being held in Pakistan, at least not for the foreseeable future. The next 3 sites are an India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka joint effort, Australia/NZ, and England.

As recently as the last year the Australian team has cancelled tours to Pakistan and India due to security concerns. India seems to be back in the good books, Pakistan remains on the outs it seems.

Add: Just read that Pakistan were due to be a co-host of the 2011 tournament but were stripped of that status after the Sri Lankan team was attacked in Lahore. A number of other tournaments and tours have been pulled out of Pakistan due to violence, so it seems the International Cricket Council has answered the question with a fairly firm "NO".

[flip]

Originally Posted by Dion

Ahhhhh ok - fair enough.

You really needed him to clarify that?

People are lucky to get serious responses in threads about life and death let alone on someone's thesis.

What, you thought the guy wanted us to post at 100pg thesis in our spare time?

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by flip

You really needed him to clarify that?

People are lucky to get serious responses in threads about life and death let alone on someone's thesis.

What, you thought the guy wanted us to post at 100pg thesis in our spare time?

No need to flip out, hey!

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

My brother asked me to post this:


Should major sporting events be held in unstable countries?


Examples include the cricket world cup being held in Pakistan (supposedly), Fifa World Cup 2014 in Brazil, or even 2010 in South Africa. Perhaps also some of the Formula 1 circuit.

This is from a context of crime and also the possibility of terrorism.

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.

[Go Jets!]

It should be up to the individual countries to choose whether or not to attend/support the event. Like the Olympics that were held in Germany in 1936 under Nazi rule. In this case most countries did not boycott the games.

[Flashpoint]

I would be pretty damned pissed if the Flames decided to play a game overseas somewhere that was unstable and something happened to one (or more) of our players.

I can only imagine that management would look at it with a far more critical eye than the typical fanboy (such as myself). So the question is - what would provide the impetus for a team to participate at a location that was unsafe for the players? You would have to think it would either be providing a huge profit margin (with associated guarantees of safety) or a league mandate with stiff non compliance penalties.

Why risk your business if there isn't any reward? For example - I'm sure a Pakistan vs India cricket match is going to generate far more revenue in the far east (is India / Pakistanpart of the far east?) than it would in Toronto - hence, incentive for the games remaining there despite the problems.

From a more philosophical nature - it's basically similar to the question of sanctions, and when they should be applied. Does the international community (or in this case the sporting world) attempt to punish a nation or region by withholding sporting events (in the hopes of improving behaviour that may or may not be under the control of the local government), or do they take a opposite approach and attempt to provide "support" to a struggling country by having games played there despite problems?

My thinking is the bigger the sporting industry, the less likely they are to take risks. The NHL will probably never play exhibition hockey in Mongolia (not due to any instability, simply a lack of facilities. Travel teams (see Dave Bidini's "Tropic of Hockey") do go there. When your sport generates hundreds of millions of dollars, why would you risk even a small element (like a single player) by going to unstable regions?

Just my 2...errr... 10 cents.

[valo403]

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.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by valo403

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.

Actually, I never said that IGBs would ensure that such events would not occur but rather stated that the IGBs would ensure that the likelihood of such events happening in 'unstable' countries would be close to the likelihood of the same events happening in 'stable' countries. In 'unstable' countries where they are unable to assure themselves this could happen, events would not be awarded. Like you said, there are 'unstable' countries where this would be impossible but there are also 'unstable' countries where it possible. As such, we cannot say that we shouldn't award major sporting events to 'unstable' countries. It is similar to saying that females should not be able to become firefighters because some females lack the physical strength necessary.

[Traditional_Ale]

Thanks guys and gals. Great stuff in here!

[GirlySports]

I would say that it's pretty safe to hold a sporting event anywhere because sports are usually deemed untouchable.

The theory is terrorists are themselves sports fans and they know the general public are sports fans and attacking sports would allienate them.

For example, the attack on Sri Lankan cricket players in Pakistan earlier this year backfired because no longer can cricket be played in Pakistan and the World Cup was taken away from them. This angers all fans who will no longer support the terrorist cause (if they did in the first place)

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Addick

Actually, I never said that IGBs would ensure that such events would not occur but rather stated that the IGBs would ensure that the likelihood of such events happening in 'unstable' countries would be close to the likelihood of the same events happening in 'stable' countries. In 'unstable' countries where they are unable to assure themselves this could happen, events would not be awarded. Like you said, there are 'unstable' countries where this would be impossible but there are also 'unstable' countries where it possible. As such, we cannot say that we shouldn't award major sporting events to 'unstable' countries. It is similar to saying that females should not be able to become firefighters because some females lack the physical strength necessary.

Well the the issue comes down to what is an unstable country. If a country is stable enough to provide security that reduces the likelihood of problems to the same level as in the typical western country is it really an unstable country? It becomes somewhat of a circular argument, but I suppose if you're trying to write a thesis that could be a good thing.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I would say that it's pretty safe to hold a sporting event anywhere because sports are usually deemed untouchable.

The theory is terrorists are themselves sports fans and they know the general public are sports fans and attacking sports would allienate them.

For example, the attack on Sri Lankan cricket players in Pakistan earlier this year backfired because no longer can cricket be played in Pakistan and the World Cup was taken away from them. This angers all fans who will no longer support the terrorist cause (if they did in the first place)

That depends on the terrorist cause, not all causes are concerned with whether or not they receive support from the general public.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by valo403

That depends on the terrorist cause, not all causes are concerned with whether or not they receive support from the general public.

I always assumed terrorist causes, like any causes, depends on public support and recruiting. Terrorist do want to run the country one day (like who'd have thought the Taliban would rule Afghanistan).

[Traditional_Ale]

Damn, GirlySports. You're really smart! You put a real interesting spin on things.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Damn, GirlySports. You're really smart! You put a real interesting spin on things.

hehehe I dont know. I often ask more questions than I give answers.

I've known sport to the one uniter of people and is untouched. The 1936 Olympics have been mentioned. Hitler wanted the event to promote German superiority right? Then Jesse Owens started to win and the people in the stadium genuinely liked him. The German guy who finished 2nd like him too.

So what can Hitler do? He can't ban Owens or else he'd lose the people.
So all he could do is shrug right?