Olympics 2016: Who ya got? .... It's RIO, NOT CHICAGO!

Re: Olympics 2016: Who ya got?

If the Olympics brings light rail to the Midwest, I'm all for Chicago.

If it doesn't, let another country have a crack at it.

 

Re: Olympics 2016: Who ya got?

Can a country really handle the World Cup and Olympics in one 3-year span?

 

Re: Olympics 2016: Who ya got?

You're kind of contradicting yourself here, Piotr.
If the World Cup is in the U.S., we don't need to build stadiums that will sit empty forevermore.
If the Cup were here, the necessary stadiums would already be built and in use and allow for more fans to attend than any other country can allow.

 

Re: Olympics 2016: Who ya got?

USA 94, Atlanta 96?

 

Re: Olympics 2016: Who ya got?

Ding.

The main reason why I'm for it.

 

Re: Olympics 2016: Who ya got?

So you're not dissappointed, the beaches in Rio are not topless.

 

Re: Olympics 2016: Who ya got?

Thought this was interesting:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090930/ap_on_sp_ol/oly_say_no_to_chicago

I never said otherwise. Nor did I ever mention the possibility of the US hosting a World Cup. I noted that since we were able to pull it off with minimal major expense, and huge sponsorship money, FIFA now sees dollar signs just like the IOC does.

I welcome the idea of the US hosting another Cup. But we seem to get an Olympics at least once a decade. I guess we're to the Olympics what Europe is to the World Cup.

Pitor?

OK, Clark Typiss . . .

The World Cup was moving along just fine before 1994. The US successfully putting on a World Cup in 1994 raised the bar for overall revenue and quality (and size) of stadia. Places in Europe would now have to spend a lot of money on stadium improvement, whereas before an Italy could almost just open the gates.

Take a look at the stadiums Italy had in 1990:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_World_Cup

And Mexico in 1986:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FIFA_World_Cup

Spain in 1982:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_FIFA_World_Cup

Now the US in 1994:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_FIFA_World_Cup

Countries with healthy leagues can still host early games in the smaller places. But they also have to build something brand-new, state-of-the-art, and huge for the final.

The US getting the Cup also made FIFA giddy at the prospect of "Opening up the World to the game!" which is why Japan and South Korea, and now South Africa, get to erect brand-new, massive stadiums for a month of tournament.

http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news;_ylt=Aqck62dYOiGY5sBekuV0vysmw7YF?slug=ap-wcup2010-preparations&prov=ap&type=lgns

Soccer-specific stadiums in the US - that are not regularly filled, yes - are much smaller than the venues constructed for a World Cup in modern times. And those would not see action if the US hosted another World Cup.

Messi is not yet 23 years old.

FIFA is trying to make it an Under-21 tournament, but the IOC is balking.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hu9PODEC8NBZy8K1oEDhIg9K_OPgD9B0F6KG1

 

Re: Olympics 2016: Who ya got?

I bet it's Rio

 

Re: Olympics 2016: Who ya got?

Rio = 4 hours time difference.
Chicago = 2 hours time difference.

Put me down for Rio.

(Spain would be even better, deadline-wise, but I don't they it will win. Tokyo, too fucking confusing with important events happening at 2 in the morning here.)

 

Re: Olympics 2016: Who ya got?

Rio would be a tremendous experience, but I can't help remembering my neighbor who was a victim of armed robbery there -- while standing in the check-in line in his hotel lobby!!!

 

Re: Olympics 2016: Who ya got?

Yeah, you don't necessarily need an 80,000-seat stadium to host a first-round game between Belgium and Morocco. But, by the same token, you're unlikely to get 65,000 neutral Englishmen to turn up for Belgium and Morocco*. There's half a dozen English clubs, minimum, that would beat Belgium and Morocco*. World-class football is nothing new there. With apologies to MLS, it is here, so the curiosity factor is much higher.

And Piotr, Italy had the stadiums, but only sort of. The della Alpi and San Nicola were built for the World Cup. Stadio Olympico was all but torn down and rebuilt. Most of the others got major renovation work (granted, that they probably needed anyway).

Also, my bad on Messi. I remember at least one 'name' player playing last year.

*-Or other generic second-tier teams likely to be eliminated in the first round. I just picked on Belgium and Morocco.

 

Re: Olympics 2016: Who ya got?

IOC votes are always surprising. I'm gonna say Madrid.

Then, on Oct 9... we'll find out Olympic golf has been confirmed for 2016. Should I barf now or later?