Should World Cups and Olympics only be held respectfully in one permanent location from now on to save money and resources?

[Buzz Rules]

Should World Cups and Olympics only be held respectfully in one permanent location from now on to save money and resources?

 

[fla4fun]

Should World Cups and Olympics only be held respectfully in one permanent location from now on to save money and resources?

I know countries/cities take great pride in hosting these events, but it does make sense from an economic standpoint. More than one former Olympic site has been left to rot after the games concluded. It’s a waste of money and physical resources.

That being said, I doubt that would ever happen. There would be too much pushback from places hoping to boost their own economies by hosting the event.

 

[GreatLakes]

No and I don't think a single permanent host is necessary either. What needs to happen is the Olympics need to use existing facilities much more frequently and not build new everything, or almost everything, for the games. Most large cities, especially if they have a D1 college, have most of the facilities necessary to put on the Olympics. Some facilities may need upgraded but then they can be used going forward.

There are options that sit between permanent site and what we have now.

The World Cup is different. Setting aside Qatar and, to an extent South Africa, most are in countries that already have existing stadiums that will continue to get used after the games. They may get new stadiums to modernize the facilities but they continue to get used. I also think few are building a bunch of temporary housing for athletes like the Olympics and the teams and fans stay in existing housing but I could be wrong there.

 

[Buzz Rules]

I know countries/cities take great pride in hosting these events, but it does make sense from an economic standpoint. More than one former Olympic site has been left to rot after the games concluded. It’s a waste of money and physical resources.

That being said, I doubt that would ever happen. There would be too much pushback from places hoping to boost their own economies by hosting the event.

Portable and environmentally friendly stadiums could be a solution.

 

[RoseGold]

This is a Qatar problem. There are many Qatar problems. Read how North America will host in 2026, they are just using existing stadiums, like SoFi in LA. Completely different approach.

There have been only minor requirements, like Foxborough has to jackhammer out some seats to make room for security or something.

 

[Smugpugmug]

I feel like FIFA is too corrupt to have that happen. The World Cup absolutely should not have been held in Qatar for various reasons.

Also there is a point in the video you posted that is wrong. They claim that South Africa demolished two stadiums but that is not true. The stadiums are still being used.

 

[RedAngie]

Sure, keep the World Cup permanently in Qatar. Brand new stadiums, etc etc etc.

November/December sounds good.

 

[fla4fun]

Portable and environmentally friendly stadiums could be a solution.

They would help, but there would still be a significant investment in infrastructure, and there are some things specific to the Olympics that couldn’t easily be made portable (thinking pools, bobsled and ski jump facilities, etc.). Soccer stadiums could more easily be adapted to a movable venue, but there would still be some site work and expense that couldn’t be eliminated.

Perhaps they could start with soccer and work their way up? Or with the Olympics, perhaps they could have a fixed rotating roster of sites worldwide where the permanent facilities that can’t be moved are built, with the ability to bring in the supplementary temporary facilities while the games are played.

 

[RedAngie]

Olympics. Summer in LA, winter in some European country.

I know this will never happen.

 

[Moliphino]

No and I don't think a single permanent host is necessary either. What needs to happen is the Olympics need to use existing facilities much more frequently and not build new everything, or almost everything, for the games. Most large cities, especially if they have a D1 college, have most of the facilities necessary to put on the Olympics. Some facilities may need upgraded but then they can be used going forward.

There are options that sit between permanent site and what we have now.

The World Cup is different. Setting aside Qatar and, to an extent South Africa, most are in countries that already have existing stadiums that will continue to get used after the games. They may get new stadiums to modernize the facilities but they continue to get used. I also think few are building a bunch of temporary housing for athletes like the Olympics and the teams and fans stay in existing housing but I could be wrong there.

Or build the new facilities in places that they will be used later. A lot of the sites built for the Atlanta Olympics are now in use by area colleges. I went to GT and we had the aquatic center and some of the athlete dorms from the Olympics.

 

[Buzz Rules]

Countries bidding to host WC 2030 or 2030 Winter Olympics:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2030_FIFA_World_Cup

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2030_Winter_Olympics

I question the money that is going to be spent by some of the bidding countries.

 

[Lumpy1106]

Park City could host the Winter Olympics right now. LA has (relatively) very little to do to make 2028 happen. Both are great options - but is that really in the "Olympic Spirit" to have the same country host every time?

I'd like to propose that the Olympics be awarded, not to the country with the most impressive presentation (Looking at you Sochi), but instead on the site that is the most Olympic ready. Give it to the host that will be spending the least, not the most, to put on the event. That's going to be the countries with the deepest pockets, sure, but that will be because they are re-purposing existing facilities and won't be going into debt, or building facilities that will never be used again (hello Brazil!). That certainly shortens the list. Maybe instead of the uber-expensive, corrupt dog-and-pony-show, the IOC could instead invest on continued maintenance and upgrades to the facilities so they don't fall into ruin.

 

[Lumpy1106]

Countries bidding to host WC 2030 or 2030 Winter Olympics:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2030_FIFA_World_Cup

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2030_Winter_Olympics

I question the money that is going to be spent by some of the bidding countries.

What strikes me is the only bid that made sense among those (England-Scotland-Ireland) has been withdrawn.

 

[kdonnel]

They should be held in a single place to perhaps reduce the insane amount of graft and corruption associated with awarding the events.

Or perhaps individual events or games should be randomly assigned to countries. France you are hosting badminton this olympics. The US gets pole vaulting.

For the World Cup, each participating country hosts a single match.

There would be so much less opportunities to embezzle and bribe.

Qatar has done their part to kill as many as 15000 workers to get ready for the World Cup.

Yay Sports!

 

[_19disnA]

Both FIFA and the Olympics seem to have these idealistic view of sports and don't care about the economic realities of what they are asking coutries to spend. It is no longer 1950 and just the cost of security alone is probably more then it used to cost to host the entire event. Until that changes, I really don't see how this problem gets resolved. Place like Brazil spent enormous amounts of money to host such events and end up with venues that have no future use and is left with significant ongoing debt while much of the country deals with crime/poverty. With all of the stories I read about crime in Brazil, it is never someplace I would go on vacation so the idea that hosting one of these events will magically increase tourism when it remains unsafe to travel there doesn't seem realistic.

I don't follow the World Cup, but isn't it all played at one venue/stadium? I have mostly lost interest in the Olympics over the years with the various cheating scandals swept under the rug as well as including those who are obviously pro athletes (i.e. basketball, hockey & golf come to mind, there are probably others). Golf has a clearly defined criteria for who is considered an amateur so I don't really follow why the Olympics ignores that. Olympics require multiple venues based on the particular sport. Clearly someplace like Qatar experienced higher costs due to the compressed timeframe to get it all done. Still seems like $228B is an exhorbitant amount of money for a stadium and infrastructure impovements. Unless some country has so much cash they don't know what to do with it, I don't see why hosting these events remains such a big priority for them.

The Olympics also keeps adding new sports which make the thing more complex. I think it would make way more sense to have fewer events and rotate between countries who already have the needed venues to hold down costs. Until that happens, I don't see much changing.

 

[Buzz Rules]

Both FIFA and the Olympics seem to have these idealistic view of sports and don't care about the economic realities of what they are asking coutries to spend. Until that changes, I really don't see how this problem gets resolved. Place like Brazil spent enormous amounts of money to host such events and end up with venues that have no future use and is left with significant ongoing debt while much of the country deals with crime/poverty. With all of the stories I read about crime in Brazil, it is never someplace I would go on vacation so the idea that hosting one of these events will magically increase tourism when it remains unsafe to travel there doesn't seem realistic.

I don't follow the World Cup, but isn't it all played at one venue/stadium? I have mostly lost interest in the Olympics over the years with the various cheating scandals swept under the rug as well as including those who are obviously pro athletes (i.e. basketball, hockey & golf come to mind, there are probably others). Golf has a clearly defined criteria for who is considered an amateur so I don't really follow why the Olympics ignores that. Olympics require multiple venues based on the particular sport. Clearly someplace like Qatar experienced higher costs due to the compressed timeframe to get it all done. Still seems like $228B is an exhorbitant amount of money for a stadium and infrastructure impovements. Unless some country has so much cash they don't know what to do with it, I don't see why hosting these events remains such a big priority for them.

The Olympics also keeps adding new sports which make the thing more complex. I think it would make way more sense to have fewer events and rotate between countries who already have the needed venues to hold down costs. Until that happens, I don't see much changing.

FIFA requires 9-12 stadiums for a WC. It’s meant to give more economic opportunities to different parts of the host country. The 2026 WC will have 48 teams completing all over North America. In theory you could do everything with 5 stadiums tbh.

 

[NotUrsula]

Yes, there really is no reason to have the entire Olympic games in one location within a country (or in the case of Europe, region); it would be pricey to fly athletes to the opening ceremonies, but that's still cheaper than building new facilities. In the case of the winter games, especially, it would be advantageous to cross borders, for instance, some sports in Lake Placid, and others in Montreal.

Olympic villages make no sense at all unless they are set up to become permanent public or university housing after the games conclude. The best option is to time the competitions to fall on university holidays, and use existing dorms., or if it is a coastal location, docked cruise ships.

 

[Lumpy1106]

Both FIFA and the Olympics seem to have these idealistic view of sports and don't care about the economic realities of what they are asking coutries to spend. It is no longer 1950 and just the cost of security alone is probably more then it used to cost to host the entire event. Until that changes, I really don't see how this problem gets resolved. Place like Brazil spent enormous amounts of money to host such events and end up with venues that have no future use and is left with significant ongoing debt while much of the country deals with crime/poverty. With all of the stories I read about crime in Brazil, it is never someplace I would go on vacation so the idea that hosting one of these events will magically increase tourism when it remains unsafe to travel there doesn't seem realistic.

I don't follow the World Cup, but isn't it all played at one venue/stadium? I have mostly lost interest in the Olympics over the years with the various cheating scandals swept under the rug as well as including those who are obviously pro athletes (i.e. basketball, hockey & golf come to mind, there are probably others). Golf has a clearly defined criteria for who is considered an amateur so I don't really follow why the Olympics ignores that. Olympics require multiple venues based on the particular sport. Clearly someplace like Qatar experienced higher costs due to the compressed timeframe to get it all done. Still seems like $228B is an exhorbitant amount of money for a stadium and infrastructure impovements. Unless some country has so much cash they don't know what to do with it, I don't see why hosting these events remains such a big priority for them.

The Olympics also keeps adding new sports which make the thing more complex. I think it would make way more sense to have fewer events and rotate between countries who already have the needed venues to hold down costs. Until that happens, I don't see much changing.

When the US hosted the World Cup in '94 it was held all over the country. The finals were at the Rose Bowl and I went to a couple of the pool play games (I saw the infamous Colombia own-goal in fact). Games were also played in Chicago, New York, Texas, Florida, even Minnesota.

The 1984 Los Angeles Olympics were not quite that spread out, but not exactly in Los Angeles either. Rowing was up at Lake Casitas in Ojai, almost 2 hours away from the Colosseum where opening and closing ceremonies were.

The 2028 Olympics will be a little better https://la.curbed.com/maps/olympics-map-los-angeles-2028-games-locations - but rowers will once again be the furthest away. We live in Long Beach where quite a few events will be held. We are talking about moving but are staying put through 2028 specifically so we can experience the Olympics in our home town.

Edit to add:
Worth noting, the 1984 LA Olympics made money. It is I think the only one that has since that time. All others have lost millions, if not billions of dollars.

 

[RoseGold]

I don't follow the World Cup, but isn't it all played at one venue/stadium?

Not even close. They already announced the 2026 North America World Cup schedule and there are games all over, from Boston to LA to Mexico City. That way so many people get to go in so many cities. Another reason why Qatar makes zero sense.

 

[RoseGold]

Countries bidding to host WC 2030 or 2030 Winter Olympics:

Spain-Portugal-Ukraine. Uh, that seems, uh, ambitious?