||Apr 17th 2007 8:17 am
To be honest Van, the market for the olympics is still bigger in Europe, and potentially much bigger in Asia (and we all know the IOC want to get in there, and may want to follow up on the Beijing games while people in the Far East still have the bug). Doha is an interesting shout, as you say they could spend vast amounts on it and the corporations would love it, as for 'middle eastern concerns' I'm not sure Qatar will be a problem, but whose to say in 9 years (ditto Rio, Brazil could pull off the world cup with aplomb - though i doubt it). I would certainly say Chicago has to be a favourite though.
But I'm not sure if you really ought to want it, it's a fun event for a summer and brings a load of money in but not as much as would have to be spent and the legacy looks pretty negligible.
"Chicago's Olympic Stadium, designed and built specifically for the 2016 Olympic Games, will rest in 100 acres of historic parkland in the Washington Park neighborhood. The stadium will host the opening and closing ceremonies, as well as the athletics competition. This facility represents both innovative and responsible construction; with the ability to accommodate crowds of 80,000 for the Games, and then being reduced to a community-friendly, 5,000 seat amphitheatre post-Games" (bid website)
If you look at the last (2012) bids, London surprisingly beat out Paris. Why? Because the Parisian officials realised that the olympics would be a huge and unnecessary burden, and got some of their 'lock' votes to switch in the last round, thus throwing the games to London. Personally, I'm furious (as are, literally, millions of Brits) about us 'winning' this, I'm damned if I want to be taxed .1p in the pound for a decade on an event that won't benefit me in the slightest and that no-one asked me about. Scotland might not even be part of Britain when 2012 comes but you can bet we'll still be paying for it.
Rant over - dc