Here’s my big idea: Have an Olympic Games every year.
This means, say, a Winter Olympics one year, a Summer Olympics the next year, a Winter Games the year after and a Summer Games the year after that. In other words, there would be an Olympics of some kind every year. This would replace the current, longtime practice of a Winter Olympics every four years and a Summer Olympics the same.
But why change?
First, there’s an insatiable appetite for televised sports, especially for an immensely popular, iconic event like the Olympics. It nicely fills in “dead” space in the sporting calendar, like the depths of winter or the dog days of summer. What would you rather watch in mid February: the Olympic hockey final (with its 10 million Canadian viewers) or two irrelevant NHL teams going through the motions? Even if you have to get up at 6 am for the former.
But, you might argue, the Olympics are already horrendously expensive for host countries to stage. Wouldn’t a doubling of Games just exacerbate that. Especially when many freshly built facilities are torn down or repurposed right after the closing ceremonies.
Here’s my solution: Have three permanent hosts for each of the Summer and Winter Games, plus a rotating fourth for one-time hosts. So for the Winter Games, your three permanent hosts could include Salt Lake City, the French Alps and Beijing, with Toronto snaring a one-time fourth. For Summer Games, how about London, Los Angeles, Tokyo and a one-time Brazil? Permanent hosts could reuse their facilities, plus maintain a large pool of professional managers and trained volunteers.
Double-down Olympics would also be a tremendous boon for competing athletes, who spend year years training, developing skills and gaining experience. Under the current format, athletes must wait four years between Games. But what if, on the appointed day/s, they’re too injured or sick to compete? Or get run over by a Korean speed skater or forced to ski in a sudden blizzard? Too bad. Just four more wasted years of their prime,
But under my two-year cycle, they might squeeze in four or five shots at Olympic glory.
Currently, fans quickly form attachments to their nation’s athletes and keenly follow their successes or failures. But once the Olympic lights go out, the fans don’t see, or think about, these athletes for another four long years.
Shorten that wait to two years and stronger bonds are formed. Being in the spotlight every two years could also help these athletes make more money, attract more sponsors and perhaps form professional leagues, like women’s hockey.
Under my two-year Olympic formula, sponsors, advertisers and television networks could conceivably make twice as much money, while higher licensing revenues could help organizers defray costs. Alas, it would also probably lead to more money going to the venal IOC, which frankly should be abolished.
A higher profile could perhaps also prompt national governments to increase spending on their Olympic athletes, who bear the brunt of entertaining we fans. The Canadian government hasn’t increased funding for Olympic athletes since 2005, athletes who often spend $100,000 out of pocket per year. Shameful!
But annual Olympics? Who says no?
Marathon Mouth 