Uma Cidade Maravilhosa para 2016

With Barack and Michelle, Oprah, His Royal Airness, and other prominent Chicagoans campaigning to get the 2016 Olympics in their city, it’s pretty easy to get patriotically riled up. Frankly, I can’t think of any other city in the world that would have such impressive ambassadors. Let’s not forget though that there are three other cities vying to get the attention of the IOC as well. Along with the Windy City, there’s Madrid, Rio de Janeiro, and Tokyo that are in the running as the final resting place for the torch in the summer of 2016. There’s no doubt that all four of these major metropolises are worthy of consideration, but I think that there’s one that is most deserving.

At the risk of becoming more hated than Steve Bartman, I’m not endorsing Chicago. Now I don’t want to be labeled an expatriate and forever banned from enjoying deep-dish pizzas for these sentiments. After all, if the Olympics are to be held in Second City, the Twin Cities would serve as a satellite location for some sports, including the University of Minnesota’s brand new stadium just a few blocks away, so I would have something to gain from it. I would also like to clarify that I’m not about to advocate for my beloved Spain either. As for Tokyo, last year’s Games were held just across the Yellow Sea in Beijing so Asia just got its turn.

Rio de Janeiro, you’re my pick.

Okay, okay, so I realize that it scored the lowest on the IOC’s evaluations last year. I can’t argue that it’s the safest and most apt candidate city. It’s going to take some work and understanding from other countries as Brazil prepares itself over the next seven years. It’s the principle of what the Olympic Games stand for that earns Rio my vote.

This event is meant to be a global coming-together of athletes proudly representing their country once every four years. Every nation gets an opportunity to display what its most talented citizens can do on the field, court, track, and in the pool. Although a medal would be an ideal outcome, above all, it’s about being an honorable symbol for your homeland that receives the most respect. Yet, despite the intentions of giving the whole world the chance to celebrate in its splendor and harmony, the location of the Olympics has been dominated by Europe and North America.

Excluding Beijing in 2008, eight out of the last ten Olympic Games have been held in First World, Western regions. That doesn’t include the upcoming 2012 Games in London. The ratio for the Winter Olympics is even more one-sided. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva put it perfectly when he said, “It can’t be a European or an American Olympic Games. It has to be world Olympic Games.” It wasn’t until the XVII (or seventeenth) Olympiad that a non-Western country hosted it when Tokyo did in 1964, sixty-eight years after the inception of the Games. It would take until the summer of 1988 for Asia got another shot when the IOC selected Seoul. There’s no denying that there’s Occidental favoritism when it comes to the host cities, and we haven’t even touched where all the IOC presidents happen to be from.

For those of you who think our Eastern neighbors are getting gypped, don’t look to Central and South America for sympathy. The only Olympic Games to take place south of Los Angeles on our side of the Atlantic was when Mexico City was given the spotlight in 1968. If Rio doesn’t get it, then Latin America will go over half a century without seeing the Games come to them. And you can’t say that they haven’t tried: Buenos Aires has thrown its hat into the ring multiple times.

If Carnaval, Amazon wildlife, and Victoria’s Secret models aren’t enough to attract you to Brazil in 2016, then here’s what should. If we’re going to keep promoting the Olympics as a manifestation of global unity and encourage fairness and integrity amongst our athletes, the IOC should apply that philosophy to its host city selections. How unified and fair is it when only those in the G8 and their closest friends get a chance to put their focal points on exhibition?

As I mentioned earlier, I’m well aware that Brazil is a Third World country and granting them the 2016 Games presents inherent risks. It’s easy to look down our noses at them from above the equator, but don’t you think its time we give Central and South America a break and let them have this chance? Sure, they may not be as developed as us, but they never will be if we continue to propel ourselves and block them out. Like when it comes to dealing with kids from the inner city, they’re not going to believe in themselves if no one else believes in them. By being considered a legitimate equal and trusting them with this responsibility, these nations have a chance to better themselves internally and their image externally. A wise man once told me that “Brazil is the country of the future, and always will be,” referring to its struggle to get over the hump towards becoming a developed nation. Give it a push, IOC. And believe me, it would mean a lot to residents of Rio, or Cariocas; Pelé himself said getting the Games to Brazil would “be similar to winning his fourth World Cup.”

When all eyes turn to Copenhagen tomorrow and Jacques Rogge announces which city the IOC has picked to host the Games of XXXI Olympiad, support and encourage the victors but also reflect on what it means. Perhaps the Committee decides to play it safe in the best interest of the entertainment of the event or maybe, just maybe, they humble themselves and let someone else into the club and give him a chance to prove himself and capture the gold. As da Silva put it, “I believe the Olympic Games are not only a privilege for rich countries.” I'm with you there, Sr. Presidente.

Rio de Janeiro para 2016!