Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Firstly, Id like to thank Miss Sender for her speech.

It was
quite well-written, although I dont quite agree with her on a number of points. Personally, I am of
the opinion that the Olympic Games should not have a permanent site and that the current
arrangement of switching hosts should be retained. I, like Miss Sender, feel that the Games belong
not to any one country, but to the world. It is for this very reason that I feel that it would not be right
to have one country host the Games all the time. Such an arrangement would not truly reflect the
international spirit of the Games. Having said that, Id like to present my case for retaining the
present arrangement of holding the Games in different venues.
I will start by pointing out some of the flaws in Miss Senders argument. She presents a historical
argument for holding the Games in Athens, Greece. It might have even been a reasonable one, were
it not for the fact that the Games were not even held in Athens! They were actually held in Olympia,
a sacred city in Western Greece. They were a religious festival held in honour of Zeus. Her argument
is further weakened by the fact that the Games were even moved to Rome for a time. Were we to
follow the argument from history, the evidence actually suggests that the present system should be
kept as the Games did not have a fixed venue even back then! Besides this, we arent even sure
about the dating of the Games because our present calendar system is different from theirs. This
leads us to question the reliability of historical records and whether we are holding the Games in the
same way that they used to be.

Of course, all this is of little consequence as the whole argument from history is rendered invalid by
the fact that the current Olympic Games are entirely different from the old Olympic Games. The only
thing that the two have in common is a name. The modern Olympic Games were founded by Pierre
de Coubertin in 1896, almost 1500 years after the last ancient Olympics. These bore no resemblance
to the old Games. When they were first founded, they were not even held quadrennialy, unlike the
ancient Olympics. Even the symbol of the Games, the Olympic Rings, have modern origins, contrary
to popular belief. They were designed by Pierre de Coubertin around 1913. Besides this, we also hold
a Winter Olympics with events like skiing that were not part of the ancient Olympic Games. All this
just shows that the present Olympics are nothing like the ancient ones.

Many have complained about how America and Europe have monopolized the Games. It may seem
unfair that most of the Games have been hosted in Western countries. However there is a good
reason for this. The cities that host the Olympic Games are selected by the International Olympic
Committee (IOC). A city that bids to host the Olympic Games must have sufficient facilities,
resources and infrastructure to successfully host such a large function. Its no secret that Western
countries are usually more developed and are better equipped to host the Olympics than other
countries. So it should not come as a surprise that the Games are usually hosted by America and
Europe. The reason that the Olympics are not usually hosted in other countries isnt because the
West has monopolised the Games, but because most Eastern countries dont have sufficient
resources to host the them. Of course, people may still say that its unfair that the huge revenues
generated from the Olympics tend to go to Western countries. However, the Olympic Charter clearly
states that all profits derived from the celebration of the Olympic Games shall be applied to the
development of the Olympic Movement and of sport. This means that it really doesnt matter if the
Games are usually held in the West because the profits from the Games do not go to the countries
themselves.
Its one thing to suggest that the Games should be permanently held in Athens, but one needs to
look at the possible repercussions of such an action. Its obvious that the Games will not be
depoliticised by a permanent venue, unlike what Miss Sender claims. In fact, the opposite is more
likely to happen. Such a drastic move is bound to have massive social, economic and political
implications. Holding the Games in Athens permanently would spark more debate and arguments.
People would complain and question the fairness of such a decision as well as Athens rights to the
Games. If the Games were to be held in Athens every four years, it would be considerably disruptive
to local life. The locals would be forced to have their peace disturbed by pesky tourists every four
years. This may lead to riots and demonstrations and god knows what else. We also need to ask if
its technically feasible to hold the Games in Athens permanently. The costs involved in
transportation, logistics and security would be massive. It would be impossible to ask a nation as
small as Greece to foot the bill every four years. Realistically, its not a very feasible idea.

It has been suggested that the terrorist threat would be reduced if the Games were given a
permanent site. Perhaps this is so, but just how big an issue is this? Consider the example cited by
Miss Sender; the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. The incident was truly a
tragic one, but we must remember it occurred at a time when political tensions were high and
security was low. Today, the risk of a terrorist attack is much lower and we are better prepared for
such attacks. It would probably not make a huge difference if the Games were to be held at different
venues as long as security is still tight and people are wary.

The rotation of Olympic sites actually provides significant benefits to the nations that host them. A
city that hosts the Olympics would have a chance to build up its infrastructure and facilities. Being
host of the Olympics would also help cities boost tourism and their national prestige. It would also
open up job opportunities for people. Such benefits would only go to one country if the Games
were to have a fixed site.

The Games are meant to be a symbol of friendship and trust among the nations of the world. They
do not belong to Greece or any other nation. Holding them in a permanent site would not reflect the
true Olympic spirit and would cause the Games to lose their meaning. For the sake of sport and
competition, the Olympic Games should not be assigned a permanent site.









Miss Sender has also raised the issue of corruption amongst IOC officials.
gives countries a chance to develop their infrastructure promotes tourism employment job
opportunities



control eff games Olympics and west
Games belong not to any one country, but to the world.


Would not have to develop infrastructure as much in a single country.
less money on terrorist threats, security. However, the decreased likelihood of a terrorist attack
should not be a reason to lower security.