Are the end of the Olympics in sight?

[kphoger]

"End" is singular. Just saying.

[Brandon]

I know they do it in hockey as well, but the pros playing in America tend to play for their own country during the Olympics, spreading the talent to many different nations.

In hockey, it kind of becomes the ultimate all-star game every four years (which is not necessarily a bad thing).

[english si]

The city I've always seen proposed as the permanent site is Athens, which would make sense thematically. Unfortunately the 2004 venues have greatly deteriorated since then, so a lot of money would still have to be sunk into repairing or replacing them. With the Greek economy the way it is, that makes the prospects of that happening dicey.

Somewhat dicey - but if the IOC nudge the EU, I'm sure the Euro-supremists in Brussels would cough up to have a Global games permanently in part of their empire.

On the other hand, the influx of tourism money every four years might end up being a boon to Greece.

As opposed the massive influx of tourism money every year? Seriously, I'm rather unusual in a Brit that I've holidayed in America multiple times, but never been to Greece.

You would probably be able fill the seats with visitors from the rest of Europe.

They didn't really go in 2004 (which was a very forgettable Games especially in terms of delivery and crowd), so I'm not sure you'd get many more than go from Europe currently to games that aren't in Europe - just as Atlanta's crowd was almost certainly mostly Georgians, Athens' crowd was almost certainly mostly Greeks.

[kkt]

Maybe the Olympics should have several locations with satisfactory venues in different parts of the world and rotate between them?  Like, Europe, South Asia, East Asia, North America, South America.  Five Olympiad rotation.  No need for all new stadiums every time.  Put them in places where they'd get some use in between times.

Also, trip the sports a bit.  How many countries really play basketball?  If it's 95% a U.S. game, there's no need for it to be an Olympic event.

[Brandon]

Also, trip the sports a bit.  How many countries really play basketball?  If it's 95% a U.S. game, there's no need for it to be an Olympic event.

The Serbs, Aussies, and Spanish might differ with you there (seeing as they got silver, 4th, and bronze).

[kkt]

Also, trip the sports a bit.  How many countries really play basketball?  If it's 95% a U.S. game, there's no need for it to be an Olympic event.

The Serbs, Aussies, and Spanish might differ with you there (seeing as they got silver, 4th, and bronze).

Okay, but what was the margin of victory for the gold over the silver?  What would be wrong with a world championship series where the different national champions can compete?

The Olympics shouldn't try to be the championship for all sports, they should pick the sports that are played widely in many parts of the world.

[english si]

Leaving aside the fact that the idea of college players being paid to play sports in the first place is utterly absurd

Indeed that is absurd - if college sports was like the UK (outside of Oxbridge Rowing attendances are unlikely to reach triple digits) - it's students playing sports and there's no reason to pay them more than expenses.

US college sports, however, is a massive cash cow, watched by massive crowds. College athletes are athletes who are 'paid' in tuition so that they are students. It's absurd that they can't make money from it.

The Amateur spirit of the Olympics was basically to deny the working classes entry into doing it. It comes from the same Victorian notions of Cricket amateurism, where rich people would be a patron of a team, and invite their friends to join in, but also some not-rich people were paid to play as they were good. These concepts (which also included amateur players being 'Mr. Surname', and professional players being 'Surname' in the media) went in the 60s, along with the strict Olympic rules on not being paid to play (which were mostly circumvented anyway - eg the USSR employing someone as a soldier, but the only thing they did was being a sportsperson).

And the Olympics is much better for it - professional sportspeople can focus on being the best they can at a sport and amateur rules stops it being 'the best in the world'.

[roadman]

US college sports, however, is a massive cash cow, watched by massive crowds. College athletes are athletes who are 'paid' in tuition so that they are students. It's absurd that they can't make money from it.

With respect, college is supposed to be about EDUCATION, not sports.  And the majority of college athletes are paid by being given scholarships.  So your argument that college students should be paid an additional stipend for participating in an extracurricular activity is what's absurd.

And the Olympics is much better for it - professional sportspeople can focus on being the best they can at a sport and amateur rules stops it being 'the best in the world'

Except that the countries that cannot load their teams with paid athletes that already make idiotically large salaries are automatically at a disadvantage.  But let's continue to make the Olympics more and more about the money rather than the talent.

[wxfree]

"End" is singular. Just saying.

I were bothered by that, too.

[The Nature Boy]

US college sports, however, is a massive cash cow, watched by massive crowds. College athletes are athletes who are 'paid' in tuition so that they are students. It's absurd that they can't make money from it.

With respect, college is supposed to be about EDUCATION, not sports.  And the majority of college athletes are paid by being given scholarships.  So your argument that college students should be paid an additional stipend for participating in an extracurricular activity is what's absurd.

It's absurd to think that these kids are actually receiving an adequate education. Most kids in big money sports like football and basketball are filtered into cupcake majors (or as we learned from the UNC scandal a couple of years back, majors with fake classes) so they can devote more time to their sports. These kids spent 40+ hours per week practicing and even more doing media commitments. They spend so much time participating in the charade that is college sports that they can't actually get a part time job that would get them some pocket money. The colleges make a ton of money off of these kids and they see none of it. It's absurd, ridiculous, and it makes a mockery out of what it means to get an education.

[kkt]

Some college athletes are getting a real education.  But it has to be something they are motivated to do themselves, because the college isn't going to insist on it.

[english si]

Except that the countries that cannot load their teams with paid athletes that already make idiotically large salaries are automatically at a disadvantage.  But let's continue to make the Olympics more and more about the money rather than the talent.

That's what you are proposing - rather than taking the best athletes, you seek to exclude them if they earn money from their talent.

Just as (if not more so) the IOC shouldn't profit off the back of host cities who struggle to scrape by by hoovering up most of the money, they shouldn't profit off athletes that struggle to scrape by by banning them from making money.