My sneaking suspicion: It’s Rio De Janeiro
September 28th, 2009 at 09:54pm Chuck Sweeny
Don’t get me wrong. I’m a fan of bringing “Da Lympics” to Chicago in 2016. It would not only be good for Chicago, it would help all of Illinois and the Midwest as an economic development bonanza.
However, I think that Mayor Daley sending in President Obama to make a last-ditch pitch in Copenhagen this week (they make the announcement Oct. 2) is potentially bad news for the City of Big Shoulders. I’m suspicious also because Daley has been making statements that even if Chicago doesn’t get the Olympics, the effort to compete for them was worthwhile.
OK, here’s my hunch. The International Olympic Committee is intensely political. Its members play geopolitics to the 99th degree. They must accomplish a continental balancing act.
Geopolitically speaking, Tokyo, the Asian city among the four finalists, won’t get the Summer Games. Tokyo had them in 1964, Seoul, Korea had them in 1988 and Beijing had them in 2008. Also in the Eastern Hemisphere, south of the Equator, Sydney had the Summer Games in 2000 and Melbourne had them in 1956. (Both are in Australia.)
Madrid won’t get the Games, either. Barcelona, also a Spanish city (even though Barcelona people think they live in a land called Catalan) had the Summer Games in 1992, and numerous European cities have had the Summer Games, including Athens in 2004. London will have them in 2012.
Chicago won’t get them because the U.S. has hosted the Summer Games in Atlanta in 1996, Los Angeles in 1984 and 1932, and St. Louis in 1904. Montreal, Quebec had the Games in 1976, and Mexico City had them in 1968.
That’s quite a few Summer Games for North America — and the Winter Olympics are coming to Vancouver, B.C. in 2010.
There are two continents not represented in the Modern Olympiad, which began in Athens in 1896: Africa and South America.
We have no African entries, leaving the final finalist, the one from South America — cue samba music:
Rio De Janeiro. Rio will win the 2016 Olympics because, quite simply, it’s South America’s turn. Finally.
I hope I am wrong about this, and I’d love Chicago to win. But I’m just sayin’………
Entry Filed under: I go to Rio, Olympics
9 Comments Add your own
1. Mr. Funfsinn | September 28th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
The economic benefits to the rest of the state and to the midwest are overplayed. In fact, it would probably be detrimental to most of downstate Illinois, which has been largely left out of the games. There are no planned venues for Rockford, nor are there any planned venues for the rest of the downstate. In fact, Madison, Wis., which is economically fairly well off, will host two venues and an olympic village. In fact, this area will probably be missed by any high-speed rail network. See http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/61986037.html
“Both Cieslewicz and Barrett also hope that a Chicago Games would speed development of high-speed rail on a corridor from Chicago to Milwaukee to Madison.”
Yet, we will pay. Between both states, Rockford, Beloit, and Janesville have been the hardest hit during this recession, but high-speed rail will skip this area between Chicago and Madison.
2. Egyas | September 29th, 2009 at 1:11 am
I have often wondered about that as well. I have always heard that, as Mr. Sweeny says, the Olympics is “an economic development bonanza.”
But would it really be? Chicago, which is already swimming in debt, would have to get major $$$ from the state, feds, bond sales, whatever they do, to build those facilities. In these economic times, would the end result REALLY be worth it? Would there be an “economic boon” that would even pay for itself?
I’m asking honestly here, not ones where I’ve already made up my mind.
3. jerry_thinks | September 29th, 2009 at 6:37 am
I agree with Chuck, Rio is probably the most logical winner. Chicago with it’s debt, is going to suffer if they win this deal. As we have learned from the past, when Chicago runs out of money, we ALL pay. The CTA is an example of that.
If Chicago is picked, some how, some way, Rockford will get sucked into the costs of the games, My vote goes to Rio.
4. denny johnson | September 29th, 2009 at 7:10 am
naw……. it’s Chicago. Otherwise President would not be going. It’s his last term in office. Why look like you tried and failed at bringing the bacon home to Chicago. He would have let Oprah, Gohr and Mrs. O. take the heat. He only wants to be there for the winning moments. As in the Congress and Senate, they are probably not letting those from RIO even make their case or be part of the discussion. So RIO will be out, Chicago in. I’ll bet a stack of Swedes on it.
5. carl | September 29th, 2009 at 7:26 am
I agree with Chuck’s assement, but
There is 1 reason Chicago can be choosen. $$$ The US and the TV markets make the Olympics what they are. The games in Rio would help the TV market by being in a similar time zone, but Chicago would get the whole country fired up to pony up dollars the the IOC.
Is it politics or is it money?
6. Chuck Sweeny | September 29th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Politics and money are intertwined. When politicans say it’s not about the money — IT’S ABOUT THE MONEY.
7. Mr. Funfsinn | September 29th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Even if there were a modest economic benefit, it is my contention and the contention of many other people that the benefit would not be distributed according to what people contributed. In fact, the benefit will be redistributed to the City of Chicago and, ironically, Madison, Wisconsin. Even if they preferred Madison to any other city in Illinois, they could at the very least put a high-speed rail line through Rockford. But there is a lot of competitive bicycle riding terrain in northwest Illinois that is being snubbed. Northwest Illinois happens to be controlled by Republicans, Madison by Democrats. Hm…wouldn’t it be something if a high-speed line went through Belvidere, Rockford, Beloit, and Janesville to Madison and the other branch through Freeport and Galena to Dubuque? But that is not in their plan.
8. hokumboy | September 29th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Brazil is the new China.
It will be Rio !
p.s.
you haven’t lived ’til you’ve stood on top of Sugar Loaf Mountain and seen Rio.
9. hokumboy | October 2nd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
It’s about time the world recognized the existence of the South American continent.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed