Quote:
Originally Posted by wrendog
|
Your thought was true in the past, but no longer. In the "good ol" days of the IOC, they were very careful to spread the Olympics around the world, so even hemispheres would not be really in the running for back-to-back games. But look recently, you have Beijing, now South Korea I think for winter coming up, then Tokyo for summer, then Beijing for winter. Gone are those days, because of finances.
Plus, the IOC, and cities, are realizing that bankrupting cities for hosting games isn't sustainable, hence why Beijing is getting a winter olympics when it's going to have to make 90% of the snow. They're gravitating toward cities where the cost to put on the games is much less, where infrastructure is already in place. You can thank Sochi and Russia for that. So right there, SLC gains stature as a host city over most cities in the world. Plus, with fewer cities even bidding to host, it helps SLC.
There's even been a lot of talk of turning the Olympics into what the Super Bowl used to be, rotating between a few select cities where infrastructure would be maintained in between the games. LA, London, Sydney, Beijing, etc. Winter games could do the same, and SLC would be right at the top, if not in the #1 spot.
The old rules of the Olympics and hosting venues are long gone, which is good for SLC going forward.