I think the general issue of a Toronto bid, the costs, the risks, and the notion that at least in theory the benefits of the games could and should ideally be arrived at w/o the cost and hassle have been well covered.
What I would add is, the Olympics are simply too large.
Too many 'sports', too many 'events', too many competitors and coaches.
In Paris we saw 10,714 athletes, that's w/o the coaches and other national team staff, and of course, accommodation for all the broadcast teams. All in service of a whopping 329 events!
By comparison the Athens games of 1896 saw 241 athletes and 43 events.
***
I'm not suggesting the Olympics need be trimmed back to a strict track and field meet with a side of swimming......... but surely we can admit that this has become a bit silly.
In general, I would argue for removing sports that require judging for a start. Judging implies that something might be better characterized as an athletic artform, as opposed to sport in the traditional sense.
I would also be inclined to ask whether we need sports that seem to exist only for the Olympics (velodrome indoor cycling, and ski jumping come to mind)
Then, I would look to ask whether wee need races at every concievable distance, 100M, 200M, 400M, 5000m and 10000M, 1/2 marathon and marathon.........never mind 'race walking' and 'mountain running'........
This just seems like an excuse to try to get every country on the podium.
Lastly, I would look at shifting more indoor events to the winter games. To me, basketball is a winter sport, its in the summer games solely to appease the NBA who don't want a break in their season.
With a bit of work, the cost of hosting the winter games could be reduced modestly, while the cost of hosting the summer games could be dropped by 1/2. Still expensive, but not quite so preposterous.
www.infrastructureontario.ca
antoinemountain.ca
