The IOC made a brave, correct decision

People celebrate after Rio de Janeiro won the nomination to host the 2016 Olympic Games at the Copacabana beach, in Rio de Janeiro, Friday, Oct. 2, 2009. Nearly 50,000 people erupted in celebration when Rio was announced host, jumping and cheering in a Carnival-like party on Copacabana beach. AP Photo/Silvia Izquierdo

The IOC was lambasted two months ago for its approval of golf as a future Olympic sport. It was, according to many, yet another decision that catered to the commercial worth of the Games, yet further eroded the core values of the Olympics. But in awarding Rio de Janeiro the 2016 Games, they should be applauded for doing the right thing.

The IOC has often spoken about the need to spread the Olympic movement around the world, and it has finally delivered on this promise.

Forgoing Tokyo, Madrid and Chicago for Rio fills a glaring omission in the history book of the Olympics.

The fact that South America has gone without hosting the Games in the hundred plus year history of the Olympic movement highlights the economic and political instabilities of the continent in the 20th century, but also the conservatism of the IOC and the predictability of its host selections.

This point was intelligently used in Rio’s presentation to the IOC and obviously made an impact.

But as the celebrations subside at the Copacabana, the true test now begins for Brazil as they ready themselves for the two biggest sporting spectacles, staged only two years apart.

Commentators had wondered whether the hosting of the 2014 FIFA World Cup would impede Rio’s 2016 bid, but the fact is this was a huge advantage, giving Brazil’s infrastructure, transportation and organisational skills as big of a test as possible before the Games. It was the perfect time to venture to the continent, limiting the risks involved.

An economy as vulnerable as Brazil’s, however, will be severely tested by the World Cup and Olympics, but you sense this is part of a wider campaign to stamp the country on the global political and economic map.

However, Rio remains one of the most dangerous cities in the world and Brazil still struggles from decades of political instability and economic strife that has created such a huge and visible divide between the rich and poor.

The argument that a country with millions living in poverty should not be committing to the financial burden of staging such sporting events is one that must be debated.

Hopefully the World Cup and Olympics will bring increased economic activity to the country, which filters down to the impoverished. Hopefully Rio doesn’t bankrupt itself. Hopefully the IOC, FIFA and the rest of the international community work with the Brazilian government to ensure there is a lasting positive impact for all classes of Brazilian society, especially the millions of children born into poverty.

They all have a burden of responsibility to ensure this is strived for amongst all the pomp and ceremony by the glamorous beaches.

With South Africa hosting next year’s World Cup, the two premier sporting events are looking to new frontiers like South America to spread their influence. The IOC would be hoping to reap the benefits of a Brazilian economy finally showing signs of genuine and sustainable growth.

This movement is at the expense of the more traditional hosts of such events and as Rio partied, disbelief consumed Chicago.

Chicago’s bid was strong – especially compared to New York’s half-hearted 2012 effort – but the search for answers in defeat may uncover some uncomfortable truths.

Had they been successful, America would have staged three summer Olympic Games in the space of four decades and some believe the IOC were keen to avoid another American Games, one which would only have propagated the belief that the huge American television contracts and sponsorship dollars were taking over the Olympic movement and ‘Americanising’ the Games.

There have been growing tensions between the IOC and USOC such as the disagreement over the latter’s Olympic television network plans, the misfortune of Atlanta ’96 and the scandal involving Salt Lake City officials buying votes in their Olympic bid.

Also, perhaps President Obama’s highly publicised involvement in the culminating stages of the bidding stage for his hometown condemned Chicago’s bid. The IOC could have been perceived as bucking to the charisma of the Obamas had they awarded the Games to Chicago.

And what does this defeat mean for America’s commitment and hunger for the 2018-2022 FIFA World Cup bid?

President Obama has also been very pro-active in his support of a World Cup in the USA, and you sense a renewed determination in the wake of Chicago’s embarrassing failure; a chance for redemption perhaps.

The geopolitical factors that influenced the 2016 decision will be heavily debated, especially in Chicago where ‘anti-Americanism’ has already been wheeled out as the principle reason for the IOC snub.

But, even if it wasn’t for wholly altruistic reasons, the decision to award Rio and Brazil the Games was the correct and just one.