Social Question

MrGrimm888's avatar

What would you think about the Olympics being annual?

Asked by MrGrimm888 (15029points) February 7th, 2018

As asked.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

30 Answers

MrGrimm888's avatar

It seems like the Olympics, bring out the best in humanity. A perfect example, is this year’s Olympics. They seem to have helped stop/hold off a conflict on the Korean Peninsula.

The participants would get more tries…

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

Awesome idea. Yes.

Jeruba's avatar

Already ruined enough by going from every four years to every two. It’s quickly becoming nothing special. Just another way for some opportunists to cash in.

johnpowell's avatar

I wouldn’t object if it was held in the same place each year. But it seems like winning the bid is a economic body-blow to the cities that actually host them.

flutherother's avatar

I think it would be a great idea but they should simplify it, do away with all the razzmatazz and expense and allow only amateur sportsmen to take part.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Why only amateurs?

elbanditoroso's avatar

Poor idea. The reason that the Olympics (and for that matter, the World Cup) are so special is that they are so rare.

If these occurred every year, they are just another sporting event.

janbb's avatar

I think it would be a huge waste of money.

chyna's avatar

It would be too much.

zenvelo's avatar

@MrGrimm888 The “spirit” of the Olympics is love of sport, and up until the 1992 Olympics, pros were not allowed to compete.

The rules were changed, of course, for money and TV ratings. But it means certain sports, like hockey and basketball, are dominated at the Olympic level by glorified all-star teams.

Annual Olympics would take away what is special about them. There are already World championships in almost every sport. Duplicating that with a two week spectalce would just be a waste of time and money.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Would it be a waste of money, if it made money? There is much, that could be changed…

SergeantQueen's avatar

I thought the whole point of it being 4 years was because the athletes need training..

And if hosting the Olympics is such a huge blow financially wasn’t there a country/city that is still struggling because they hosted the Olympics, or struggled for a while? why is there such a battle to host it?

kritiper's avatar

Sports, sports, sports! Enough is enough, already! We’re too competitive as it is.

MrGrimm888's avatar

SQ. Yes. It can be a burden. If the city wasn’t really ready for it. Other cities can get a financial advantage, if it is managed correctly.

rojo's avatar

I like the idea of the four year time frame. It gives me something to look forward to. To do it on a yearly basis would just remove some of the mystique associated with the event. It would become just another ho-hum televised event like the so-called Superbowl where people end up looking forward to the advertisements more than the actual game itself.
I would like to see more emphasis on the actual sporting events and less on the pomp and ceremony. Honestly, I usually skip watching both the opening and closing ceremonies but perhaps they mean something special to those who have the opportunity to physically attend the games.
I also agree with the re-implementation of amateur status as a prerequisite for participation.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^But having only amateurs, means some of the country’s best athletes, are not on display….

Aethelwine's avatar

I’m thinking the same as @SergeantQueen. So much time is spent on training for the athletes. They’d have no down time if it was every year.

rojo's avatar

@MrGrimm888 true, but it is not about the athletes per se but about athletic competition.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I think it’s about different things, for different people.

Darth_Algar's avatar

Yay, 4x times the cities driving themselves into debt for decades for the benefit of multinational corporations. Montreal still hasn’t full paid off the debt it incurred from the Olympics it hosted 42 years ago. The Olympic games are a great big gilded turd.

As an aside, my understanding is that professional athletes were finally allowed to compete because it was argued that state sponsorship of athletes by nations such as China and the Soviet Union made them de facto professionals. (Plus, I’m sure, ratings, etc.)

MrGrimm888's avatar

I’m no expert. But I thought it heavily benefited Atlanta. I’m close by, and the region seemed to do well. Other than the bombing…..

Darth_Algar's avatar

Did they? I know they benefitted some privately owned sports teams who got nice shiny new venues at no cost to them. I know hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars were spent to host the games.

thisismyusername's avatar

No Boston Olympics was fortunately successful at stopping the Boston 2024 bid. Check out the site for some basics on why hosting is really destructive for a city. Check out the work that LA is doing to stop LA 2024.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

The level of competition would be reduced.

The people in the Olympics have worked their way up in local, national and international qualifying events.

If the Olympics were yearly, there would be no time to weed people out with events like the U.S. Figure Skating Championships and European Track Cycling Championships .

elbanditoroso's avatar

And let’s not forget that Denver, who had been awarded the Olympics in 1970, had a referendum in 1972 that caused the Olympics to be moved. Denver voted it down for cost and environmental reasons.

Rarebear's avatar

I am not a fan of the olympics. The IOC is corrupt, and bamboozles cities and countries to put up billions of dollar to build facilites that as soon as the Olympics are over will fall into disrepair. The Olympics are a money making event for NBC and the IOC, while the athletes get their 15 seconds of jingoistic fame where they get criticized upon their gender whether or not they put their hands over their heart.

I would be in favor of the Olympics in the following scenereos
1) Athletes do not represent countries—only themselves
2) Athletes get paid a stipend.
3) The IOC committee members forgo any payment.
4) The Olympics are held in the same places every time (say, Switzerland for winter and Athens for summer)
5) I’m okay with television coverage as long as a significant portion of the ad profits goes back to the athletes, and the remainder goes to help global hunger and disease.

But I will watch the curling.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Why not every Sunday, so they can compete with football?

I agree with others…it’s special because it’s rare. I didn’t even realize it had gone to 2 years. :(

Adagio's avatar

@Dutchess It is my understanding that Summer Olympics are 4 years apart, Winter Olympics are 4 years apart but there are 2 years between the Summer and Winter Olympics.

I am very definitely not in favour of yearly Olympics

Dutchess_III's avatar

Ah. I see. Thanks.

Response moderated (Spam)

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther