In Micah Rice’s July 28 column, “Problems surrounding Rio Games show selection process needs to change,” he proposes limiting the Games to just five locations, three of which are in North America.
As Rice points out, the Sochi Games and the Rio Games both encountered concerns ranging from the Zika virus to corruption. However, cities in the United States, Canada or Japan also have their issues, including homelessness, poverty, and pollution. Restricting the Olympics to these locations would not avoid the concerns which have plagued the last Olympic Games, and it would overtax the resources of these cities.
For developing countries, hosting the Olympics could provide a needed influx of tourists and capital, promoting development. Furthermore, these countries have much to provide to the world, culturally and intellectually. The sort of geographic preference advocated by Rice would telegraph the message that only developed, Westernized countries are worthy of recognition, and that is contrary to the mission of the Olympics as a symbol of international unity and cooperation.
The majority of the world’s population doesn’t live in Canada, the U.S., Japan, or the Alps. To ensure their continued relevance, neither should the Olympics.
