I agree with everything you wrote, except for the first 10 words. This isn't a trollish idea. It's a practical solution that solves a real problem. Any time in conversation this topic comes up, I make the same argument that it doesn't make financial sense to move from city to city like a plague.
It’s practical in the sense that it would logically work.
But it’s impractical in the sense that it doesn’t actually satisfy the needs of anybody in the IOC or the bid committees that try to get tax money to enrich themselves, or the needs of politicians who want to bask in the halo of “winning and hosting the games."
When most people think of the olympic games, they don't think about the IOC. They could care less about the IOC. They think about athletes, and sports, and national rivalries.
Most people would not give one fat hoot if the whole IOC got left in the dust to whither and die, while a new organization got set up to host similar events in one location.
If the IOC died, the worldwide championships of each sport would gain importance. Such championships are held in different cities every year, which makes me think that the IOC is just inheriting the behavior of moving cities. Probably 70% of the people just want to watch sports and, being a democracy, it's difficult to outweight their choice of spending public money on Olympics.
>But it’s impractical in the sense that it doesn’t actually satisfy the needs of anybody in the IOC or the bid committees that try to get tax money to enrich themselves, or the needs of politicians who want to bask in the halo of “winning and hosting the games."
In which case almost all anti-corruption drives are impractical.
