Live from Abu Dhabi Connect the World takes you on a journey across continents, investigating the stories that are changing our world.
On Friday the International Olympic Committee selected its choice to host the 2016 summer Olympic Games.
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/10/01/rio.art.jpg caption="Rio de Janeiro has never hosted the Olympic Games."]
Three of the final four cities short-listed, Chicago, Madrid, and Tokyo, hail from regions that frequently host the world’s premier sporting extravaganza.
The fourth, the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro, represents a continent that has never won the right to host the Games. Indeed South America has not hosted a major sporting event on a global scale since Argentina brought football’s World Cup to the region in 1978.
Spain’s Olympic vice-president Jose Maria Odriozola reportedly labeled the Brazilian city as "the worst of the four candidates,” and raised questions about security. This prompted Rio’s organizing committee to lodge a complaint with the IOC.
The enormous cost of staging the Games, in terms of improving a city’s sporting and non-sporting infrastructure, puts a lot of pressure on the IOC to select the bid they feel is most capable of delivering success.
Does this mean that richer, industrialized countries in Europe and North America are a safer bet in this respect?
Next year an African nation will host the football World Cup for the first time. The decision to award the tournament to South Africa raised plenty of eyebrows given the country’s significant social and economic problems. However FIFA, the sport’s governing body, clearly took the view that the benefits of bringing football’s showpiece event to Africa far outweighed the potential costs.
How should you decide who hosts the Olympics or a World Cup? Is it about cold, hard pragmatism or the romance of seeing new, untested cities sharing the experience?
Tell us what you think below.