Analyzing The Potential 2016 Summer Olympics Host Cities

Since when did this turn into Olympicsjerks.com huh? Alas, the selection for the 2016 games is near, well in Olympics terms anyways. There are four cities vying to host the greatest sporting event in the world, and MLJ, plus some help from a commenter, takes a look at each.

City: Madrid, Spain

Population: 3,093,000

Has City Hosted?: No

Country last hosted: 1992 Summer Games (Barcelona)

Pros: The aforementioned Barcelona games were one of the most successful in the history of the Olympics. Just 8 years after the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, when the future of the games was in doubt, Barcelona cemented the Olympics future. That Olympics both brought together people (Germany competed under one flag for the first time since 1964) and brought new people (a then record 10,563 athletes, and Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia all competed under their own flag for the first time). Also, the torch lighting was the coolest one ever. Madrid would have excellent stadiums for sports such as soccer (Real Madrid is perhaps the largest soccer club in the world) and field hockey, as Spain is a perennial power in that sport.

Cons: Unfortunately, with the 2012 Olympics in London and the 2014 winter games in Sochi, Russia, 2016 in Madrid would place three games in a row in Europe, which is highly unlikely. Also, the competition venues for the games would take place in two different areas: one would feature just the olympic stadium and aquatic center, and the other would be by the Manzanares (Spanish for “apple orchards”) River and would host most of the rest. And according to the results of Madrid’s bid to get the 2012 games, their transportation infrastructure needs to be updated. And last, but not least, there is the fact that Spain is perceived to be a very racist country, and they certainly haven’t helped themselves with the basketball team’s photos, and Spanish soccer coach Luis Aragones’s comments regarding Thierry Henry.

Chances: I think Spain has a good bid, but ultimately I think they are the weakest of the four cities, but could be kept in the running until very late due to the IOC’s heavy Western European bias.

City: Tokyo, Japan

Population: Estimated at 12,790,000

Has City Hosted: Yes, 1964 Summer Games

Country Last Hosted: 1998 Winter Olympics (Nagano)

Pros: As one of the leading cities in the entire world in terms of culture, commerce, not to mention population, on the surface Tokyo appears to be a great place to host the games. Having the games in Tokyo would mean a revitalization of a part of the city–Tokyo would turn a waterfront area from a landfill into a lush forest area that would serve as the headquarters for equestrian and rowing events. Tokyo is currently building two roads around the city to ease traffic congestion and pours money into it’s public transportation. It also has roughly 17,000 hotel rooms near the proposed Olympic site, providing ample accommodation for spectators. One other main attraction is Tokyo is touting these as the “Green Games” meaning they will try to conduct the games in an environmentally friendly way. For example, the proposed Olympic village would run completely on solar and other renewable energy. Perhaps they can power it by other means.

Cons: While Tokyo’s massive population could prove to be a problem, there are two huge potential stumbling blocks: one is Tokyo’s previous hosting, in 1964. Another is that Beijing just hosted the 2008 games. Having two games in Asia 8 years apart would be extremely rare, not to mention the fact that the vote takes place less than a year after the Beijing games, leaving them fresh in the IOC’s mind.

Chances: On the surface Japan’s bid appears strong, but the 8 year gap plus the fact that Japan would likely campaign to get baseball and softball back into the games, casts a shadow of doubt in my mind. If it’s based on bid strength only, however, Tokyo should be the city.

City: Rio de Janiero, Brazil

Population: 6,100,000

Has City Hosted: No

Country Last Hosted: Never

Pros: Honestly, there isn’t much. Rio is a popular tourist destination, and a vibrant exotic city. It also would be the first South American city to ever host an Olympics. This could be either a big chip in their favor if the IOC thinks the continent deserves a chance, or they could decide South America just doesn’t have the infrastructure. Rio hosted the 2007 Pan-Am Games, and Pan-Am President Mario Vasquez Rana called the event the most successful in its history. That, plus the fact that the Summer games will have spent 4 quadrennia in Europe and Asia/Oceania could put the 2016 games in Rio.

Cons: Rio is a city plagued by crime. Public transportation in Rio needs tremendous improvement by 2016 in order to be ready for the influx of competitors and tourists. Having the venues in four smaller zones could also pose a problem to Rio’s bid, and the games will be much more spread out than the ones in Beijing. Also, Brazil will host the 2014 World Cup, and the double has been done 3 times before by Mexico, Germany and the United States.

Chances: Rio’s bid appears weaker than Tokyo’s and probably on par with Madrid’s, but current IOC President Jacque Rogge’s wish to get the Olympics into South America might give them a lift.

For the critique of Chicago’s chances I enlisted the help of commenter Sportsgal, who just so happens to be a Chicago resident. Here is her take, presented unedited and unabridged.

As a resident of Chicago with the potential to make some serious dough renting out my apartment to visitors, I welcome the possibility of Chicago winning the bid for the Olympic games in 2016.  But let me take a realistic look at the chances this city has for becoming an Olympic host city: