This year’s Olympics, hosted in Rio De Janeiro, was meant to symbolise worldwide cooperation; a conglomerate of countries putting aside differences in order to show off the prowess of their best athletes. However, the games were marred with controversy before they even commenced, with many questioning Brazil’s ability to host the games. Brazil’s lack of funding, rates of violence, and its ongoing Zika virus outbreak caused many countries to worry for the safety of their athletes.

This raises the question: should a host city be chosen only if it has proven itself to have complete safety and adequate funding? Although it may seem like a “yeah obviously duh” kind of question, the answer, in my opinion, is in a surprisingly grey area.

Obviously, the safety of the world’s best athletes must be considered. The possibility of the Zika virus spreading, is a very real possibility, and it is right for countries to fear for their safety and security. The pollution present in Guanabara Bay, whose waters were used for sailing and windsurfing competitions, posed a real threat to those competing. Brazil’s economic recession resulted in very limited funds to spend on cleaning up Guanabara Bay. Thus, its waters were still heavily polluted when the games rolled around.

However, if a host city is chosen based on the amount of money it has, the possibility of a “bottleneck” type situation could occur. Only a select few countries would then be able to host the games, since there are only so many countries that have enough resources to spend on the games and still have some left over. This would result in less diversity, which is the opposite of what the Olympics are about.

Why would it result in less diversity, you ask? The Games are about highlighting the beauty of every country on Earth. Simple as that. The Games are about showing the fascinating cultures that people may not know about. If only a few countries are able to host future Olympic games, there would be almost no exposure to the diverse cultures that exist in the world.

Nonetheless, the fragile political environment in Brazil and various health hazards present during the Games posed a threat to the athletes. Even if they, and viewers around the world, were exposed to such a beautiful country and culture, I do not know if it was worth it. 

Although nothing particularly bad happened during the Rio Games, the possibility was there. The IOC should take into account current political stability before making decision on where the Olympics should be hosted. I think there were safer alternatives for the host of the 2016 Olympics. Although this issue may not come to light again for a while – the 2020 Olympics are being hosted in Tokyo, one of the safest cities in the world – the topic will always remain a relevant topic as long as the Olympics exist.

Poon Singhatiraj