So London has won the 2012 Olympic bid. I have been of the mind for quite some time the the Olympics should be permanantly based in Athens.
It seems a good geographical location. Not too far from the rest of Europe, the Middle East / SW.Asia and Northern Africa.
I used to think I was alone in thinking this until I head Tony Banks M.P., former sports minister saying the same thing on BBC Radio Five Live a few months ago. Is he right? What does anyne else think??
By: bring_it_on - 6th July 2005 at 21:13
Well one of the objectives of the Olympics is to bring development and and increase in sporting interset amongst the host country so thereofore staying in one place would not serve that purpose…
By: BuffPuff - 6th July 2005 at 14:00
Well it could work like this. Competing nations pay by the number of athletes they wish to participate.
So bigger nations like the USA, Russia, China, Gt. Britain, France, Germany, India as well as those nations who send a lot of athletes reletive to their population size such as Canada and Australia would pay more than say, Jamaica, Norway, Iceland, Fiji and so on simply because they will send more athletes who will need housing, transportation and feeding.
Why should only the Greeks benefit? Some may say why should London face possible debt? Not only this but it also surely reduces corruption within the IOC, which has happened in recent years.
By: Arabella-Cox - 6th July 2005 at 13:40
Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. As Ian says, the benefits would only be truly felt by pone country, as indeed would the drawbacks – imagine one country having to finance the infrastructure every four years, along with the security concerns. And how would public opinion go in those countries who don’t hold it? Would they eventually start to feel disinterested? Nope, crap idea. Much like most of what Tony Banks has come out with over the years…
Sign In
July 6, 2005 at 1:31 pm