Should the Olympic Games be held at a permanent site? Where?

[Willistonite]

Originally Posted by Crashj007

Yes, that infrastructure has been retained to a large degree. Although the designated locale is Beijing, I think the skiing is far away. The indoor events could be anywhere in town. International access is good.

Smog is so bad in Beijing. I think Europe perhaps the best. Seems to make more sense to have one
place instead of cities going broke hosting them.

[jteskal]

No. The Olympics is worldwide and represents many countries. I love seeing the host country's culture, opening/closing ceremonies, and beautiful terrain. It is so awesome to see the world come together at one time to support our athletes. You see each country differently.

[JJG]

Originally Posted by Crashj007

I would like to read your ideas on why you feel that way so strongly. You may have a convincing point of view, eh?

It kinda kills part of the reason why the Olympics exist. It's not very welcoming when you only have it in one spot.

Although I do believe that certain nations are better off hosting than others, the idea is to be welcoming to ALL nations. So any nation can host.

[Natural510]

I'm not sure about the Winter Games, but the Summer Games should be a rotation of three or four cities max: L.A., Beijing, London/Paris maybe Tokyo. This way cities/countries aren't bankrupting themselves after hosting the games, and infrastructure is in place to prevent the kind of problems which happened in Rio and Sochi. But of course there will be the inevitable butthurt by certain countries if they aren't chosen, so I doubt it will happen.

[MLSFan]

Put it in Greenland, where no one would visit otherwise