My first post involves what I'll call the "Rio Precedent." When the IOC selected Rio De Janeiro over Tokyo, Madrid, and Chicago two weeks ago, I wasn't upset. I think it is a bold move that sets in motion the IOC's intentions to move to new locations. South America has never hosted (nor has Africa), Brazil has a top 10 economy (by some measures), and Rio definitely has cultural draw. It also has great potential for developmental impacts and legacies from hosting the Games.
What I wonder about, though, is the sort of precedent that Rio 2016 might set. Some are predicting that the 2020 Games will go to a much "safer" candidate than Rio. Jacques Rogge acknowledged that the "big money" was in Chicago. But the vote for 2020 comes in 2013, 3 years before Rio has a chance to execute. The vote for 2024, however, will be decided in 2017. If Rio is even marginally successful, will the IOC take up a self-imposed mandate to develop cities and regions?
Make no joke about it, the IOC is not as neutral or apolitical as it likes to purport. If Rio is a success, will the IOC look to Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia as destinations? I think there is a danger here for developed, western cities here. Chicago, Madrid, and Tokyo have great cultural and sporting environments. They also have relatively stable and established economies. With Rio's selection, does its success apply a "so what" factor to major, developed cities in "wealthy" nations? Why bother with a city like Toronto when there's the option of Cape Town?
I'm not saying that this shift in priorities and criteria is good or bad. If this is the direction the IOC chooses to go, though, it definitely changes the game.
No comments:
Post a Comment