lenaitch
Senior Member
The facilities need to be at, or able to modified to the Olympic standards, whatever they may be. Somebody's gotta pay for that. If the box office is purposely smaller, obviously there is a reduced revenue stream. Don't forget that the IOC is a non-profit that is largely funded by the games (no, I don't know the formula). They subsidize athletes, teams, etc. to attend the games as well as subsidize host countries. Perhaps with a smaller footprint using more existing facilities the costs would be reduced, but there would still be significant costs that somebody has to pay. Without a decent box office, advertising rights, etc. more pressure would be placed on other areas, probably media rights because that is a huge one. If they make that so expensive, at some point networks may simply refuse to play.I meant that the focus should be to ensure the athletes have the best playing field they can have. Having spectators is obvious, but if we cannot have 10,000, but instead can only have 5000, it should not mean we build another facility.
If host communities don't see an economic shot in arm from attendance (hotels, restaurants, etc.), why host?