Oslo pulling its bid for the '22 Games is something that "should not come as a shock" to the IOC but instead should "be a cattle prod to broad and meaningful change," according to Christopher Clarey of the N.Y. TIMES. Beijing and Almaty, Kazakhstan, are the two remaining candidates to host the '22 Games, and in a "normal bidding cycle," they would have been "long shots." That is "not simply because of their dubious internal politics." Asia already has the Olympics in '18 (Pyeongchang) and '20 (Tokyo), and it is "hardly in a global movement’s best interests to give a third straight Games to the same continent." Beijing also hosted the '08 Games, and it is "hardly in a global movement’s best interests to give the Chinese capital -- less than a generation later -- the Winter Olympics as well." Almaty might well be a "worthwhile candidate a decade from now," but the IOC "just finished its big, fraught and extremely expensive developmental gamble with the Sochi Games." Why "roll the dice again on Almaty, particularly when Human Rights Watch considers Kazakhstan’s record poor and the IOC just finished thrusting and parrying its way" through Vladimir Putin’s games? What most IOC members "should want and surely do want after recent adventures and misadventures is a Winter Olympic return to the traditional power base of winter sports." That "should have meant Europe, but the Europeans -- from Munich to Krakow to Stockholm to Oslo -- all have bailed out" (N.Y. TIMES, 10/3). The AP's John Leicester wrote both Beijing and Almaty are "eye-wateringly awful choices." Both have "authoritarian governments that muzzle critics, poor records on human rights and noxious air pollution." It also is an issue "trying to ski in places with next-to-no snow -- a problem with China's proposed alpine skiing venue north of Beijing." But both cities "have money" and can "push through an Olympics without worrying too much about what citizens really think about the whole extravaganza, cost, disruption and environmental damage" (AP, 10/2).
COSTS OF GAMES ARE JUST TOO HIGH: ESPN's Tony Kornheiser said countries are backing off bidding for the Olympics "because the costs of construction are so high" and they believe the IOC is "essentially corrupt." Kornheiser said the IOC should hold the Games in "sites that they've had them before, where the structures already exist." He said, "What you get without that it is you get authoritative governments are the only governments that bid on this, because the people don’t have a say in it." ESPN's Michael Wilbon said the IOC "thinks there's more Sochis out there" ("PTI," ESPN, 10/2). Fox Business' Melissa Francis said cities "build these enormous stadiums and stuff so that you host the event." Francis: "They turn into giant white elephants afterwards. You drive regular people out of town. The number of tourists that you think are going to come don't. It's a disaster. I mean how are we ever going to fund these Olympics in the future? No one wants them" ("Money with Melissa Francis," Fox Business, 10/2). NBC's Brian Williams noted the $51B Sochi Games were "so expensive they scared off most other cities" ("Nightly News," NBC, 10/2).
NORWEGIAN WOOD: 3 WIRE SPORTS' Alan Abrahamson wrote the IOC has "spent a great deal of this past year building bridges between the worlds of sport and politics." Then Norway "decides not to bid" for the '22 Games. The IOC in response issued a statement in which it "opts not for its usual measured tones in assessing the Norwegian government and political establishment." The release calls the Norwegian decision a "missed opportunity.” It says that the Norwegians "didn’t come to a meeting -- that the Norwegians themselves asked for, the IOC notes -- and thus the move to bow out of 2022 was taken on the 'basis of half-truths and factual inaccuracies'” (3WIRESPORTS.com, 10/2).
