The IOC (International Olympic Committee) has a long process for picking the host city for the Olympics, but the process has shortcomings when they select developing nations to host the Olympics. Brazil has been selected to host the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, and this will be used as a case study to showcase why developing countries should not be elected to host the Olympics. Brazil has been a favorite for international sporting events in recent years due to its selection for hosting the World Cup in 2014. There were better candidate cities in more developed countries that were up for selection, but somehow Rio was able to obtain the nomination. In the IOC's defense, the selection took place before certain corruption issues in Brazil were apparent, but the IOC should have been more cognizant of possible problems in developing countries. The 2014 World Cup proved that Brazil was not an ideal host country. This makes it hard to believe that Brazil will be a good host for an international sporting event just two years later. 

There are three main factors contributing to this issue, but many other problems within the country are relevant. Brazil showed that they were vastly unprepared for the World Cup; a trend that follows for the Olympics, Brazil holds a high risk for spreading illnesses for both its citizens and international travelers, and Brazil has been under a lot of criticism for all of the political unrest and protests on social issues. The IOC tends to take the "highest bidder" approach as a big consideration when it comes to the selection of a host. The IOC should adopt a more extensive, detailed selection process, so developing countries like Brazil are not chosen to host the Olympics. The IOC should thoroughly analyze the country's economic strength, safety, and societal stability and well-being before making selection.  Hosting the Olympics in developing nations causes more harm than good for the citizens, the visitors, and the country as a whole. The economy is strained, the people are introduced to health risks, and the citizens are left worse off than before.

The IOC predicts there will be around half a million travelers that will make their way to Brazil for the Summer Olympics. Brazil is already having trouble with their infrastructure to properly care for their own citizens, and adding an extra 500,000 people to care for with high living standards is a huge task for any developing nation to prepare for. The country had set out construction plans and promises for both the World Cup in 2014 and the Summer Olympics of 2016. It is doubtful that the Olympics promises will be kept because in 2014, only six of the thirty-five transportation projects were completed in time and the government had troubles finding private investors to help with other infrastructure (Wolff). With numerous unfulfilled promises, the president of FIFA even stated that in his experiences with World Cups he had never seen so much uncertainty in meeting deadlines. He went on to say how other promised developments that were anticipated to be completed, were not even started. In regards to the Olympics, the IOC's VP said that these are the worst preparations he has ever seen. The assurances made by the country are reasons why they secured the host nomination, yet Brazil did not come close to completing commitments. Clearly they are not capable of being awarded the hosting responsibility. When credible people are taking notice to these issues, hopefully this will change the way of thinking about the countries that are chosen. Given the results of Brazils performance, it would very surprising to see another developing nation like Brazil to be awarded a nomination. 

The same circumstances repeat themselves for the Olympic Games. In the summer of 2015, news reports describe that many venues had not begun construction, or had not even been finalized in their contracts. This will most likely lead to last minute, rushed completions right before the games begin, and in turn, will drive up the cost of preparation (Eisenhammer). As the Olympics approach and the issues of completion are more apparent, the demand to finish up the projects increases allowing the contracted companies to raise their prices. In addition, the quality of these structures and the working conditions of the employees will worsen. These companies are essentially ruining their own country and the success of the Olympics as they attempt to fill up their never ending pit of corporate pockets. They are causing the government to decide to either appropriate their Olympic budget to building less infrastructures because they can no longer afford to finance all of their plans, or funnel more money to the Olympic budget by compromising the spending of other government programs. In developing nations, a lot of the power lies with whoever has the most economic capabilities. The corporations have that, and are ruining the potential of success of the Olympics as they are making it harder for the government to make these ends meet. Given their current situation of a big recession, this is not being fiscally responsible for both the corporations and the government to hurt their economy even more. 

Brazil has to allocate a lot of its economic resources to fulfill the demands of hosting such international events. In 2014, Brazil spent upwards of 14 billion USD for the World Cup and they have far surpassed their estimates of costs for the 2016 Olympics (Studebaker). With a much lower amount of revenue compared to the cost, Brazil simply cannot afford to host these events. What is supposed to promote economic expansion throughout all social classes, brings hardships not only for the economy, but for their society as well. Brazil's leaders insist that the Olympics will bring prosperity to their country. The idea is that they can prove themselves as an emerging economic power that is open for trade, and it will also accelerate the construction of needed infrastructure (Appelbaum). The problem is that the economic pay off is no where near what is desired, and realistically the country can only focus their time and money on the infrastructure that is a necessity for the Olympics, not fitting the people's needs. In fact, bringing Brazil to the world stage with these events has had a negative impact on the country's world presence. With the increased focus on Brazil, people all around the world are realizing all of the problems going on with the country and are realizing that Brazil cannot keep their promises that they set up for themselves. Brazil has is plagued with corruption and a lack of resources that it is hard for the country to come together to and succeed. Developing countries have a tendency to boast that they can support such commitments so they can give themselves a bigger world presence, but they have to come to realization that their country cannot back their guarantees. This type of deception gives false hope to the IOC when they have to choose their host, it gives false hope to the country that the Olympics will be successful for them, and it gives false hope for the competitors that the games will be a positive experience for them. 

Related to the idea of unpreparedness, there are major health concerns for having the Olympics take place in Brazil. Like many developing nations, pollution is a big problem because of poor treatment facilities and sanitary standards. In Brazil's case, the water quality is horrendous. Untreated raw sewage is the cause of this problem and is currently unavoidable. From the moment one lands in the Rio airport, the smell can be noticed. The raw sewage flows in the streams and rivers and eventually makes its way to the open waters where water sports such as swimming, rowing, kayaking, canoeing, and sailing will take place. The waters are contaminated with 1.7 million times the level of viruses and bacteria that would be considered hazardous in a California beach. Accidentally ingesting just three teaspoons of this water contains a 99% likelihood of infection. The large amounts of adenoviruses found in the water cause respiratory and digestive illnesses, including explosive diarrhea and vomiting, but can also lead to more serious heart, brain, and other diseases (Brooks). This is not a safe environment to be hosting the Olympics. Brazil promises to have the waters cleaned up in time for the commencement of the Olympic games, but the World Cup and current preparations for the Olympics have proved their promises are just empty words. It is especially hard to be certain whether or not that promise will be kept because cleaning up pollution is an extensive and lengthy process, and being in the vicinity of a highly populated city makes it hard to control the environment. The IOC should conduct an ample amount of research in the environment of possible candidates for host countries to make sure that the environment is either safe, or near safe, so it is feasible enough to fix the problem with plenty of room for error.

It is highly irresponsible on both Brazil and the IOC's part to run the risk of putting guests in harms way of contracting an illness that could potentially be fatal.  To try to remain healthy, the athletes will have to get multiple vaccinations, douse themselves with hand sanitizer, shower as quickly as they can after racing, and resort to home remedies (Ford). This is extremely inconvenient, unnecessary, and appalling for world renowned athletes to have to go through at such a prestigious event. The IOC should be able to guarantee that the host country they select will be a safe place for the athletes to compete and safe place for visiting spectators to tour and enjoy when not attending an event. However, there are some health risks that can appear without warning and are out of the IOC's control. Although it couldn't have been foreseen, the Zika virus is an epidemic that has swept through Brazil, and is still a current problem even though the media has shifted its focus on other stories. Like the Olympics, when mass gatherings take place, the close interaction of large numbers of people from all over the world can facilitate transmission of infections spread from person to person (Wilson). Unfortunately, it is unavoidable for travelers to stay clear of large crowds that could potentially have people carrying transmittable diseases. It is worth observation, however, that most diseases and attention grasping epidemics spread through developing countries more often and quicker than their developed counterparts because of poor medical assistance and poor sanity conditions. Statistically, a visitor for the Olympics is less likely to catch an illness if it is hosted in a developed country over a developing one. The attendance has a possibility to go down which will lead to a less successful Olympics.

The IOC needs to do more than just analyzing the logistics and operations of the Olympics as an event and the measurable health of the nation as a whole. The IOC should to pay attention to the smaller picture and consider the well-being of the inhabitants of the country. In developing countries, the living conditions, social statuses, and social issues are worse compared to those of developed nations. The IOC needs to make sure when the Olympic Games go to a country, the quality of life for the people doesn't get worse. The Brazilian people have come together in numbers to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the government that serves them. Brazil enjoyed an economic expansion in the later half of the first decade of 2000 which inspired happiness and wide-spread support of the leaders among the people. However, that feeling was, unfortunately, short-lived. The citizens wanted to reap the benefits of their country's success, but the politicians embezzled money and did not return the country's growth in forms of social services. To the citizens, the country remained a land of heavy taxes, poor public education, poor health services, chaotic urban transportation, inflated consumer prices, and an elite run political system for personal gain (De Onis). The IOC should feel obligated to evaluate if the country's societal problems are in need of more focus by the government. If issues are present, the IOC has to evaluate if the government can be trusted to divert attention to organizing the Olympics while still effectively tackling the social problems within the country. The Olympics are just games that have alternative places to happen, the people on the other hand, are in need of help and they don't have alternative lives to live. 

The government has a responsibility to serve the will of their people which takes precedent above all else. The Brazilian people want an end to the government's oppression, so they starting gaining support for protests when the World Cup was starting to capture the attention of the world. Brazil is a country that incorporates soccer as a part of their culture, but even as the excitement of the biggest event to the sport sweeps through the nation, the people are still discontent with the progress of social necessities. They wanted the World Cup to bring money for better schools, hospitals, and transportation systems, but they didn't have confidence that they will improve (Bishop). The people express their wish for progress, but the government is not fulfilling that wish, so the people are compelled to protest. The start of the protests centered around a significant bus fair increase in Sao Paulo, but the protests spread to encompass other social issues such as corruption, public safety, and education. The IOC should look into social injustice within the country before it gets exposed through protest. They need to recognize the potential of outcry in the citizens and consider if adding an extra stress of hosting the Olympics would fare well for the country. Because of the discord between the people and their government, the country's unity between the two weakened. Partisanship is a good way to unify groups of people to politics. As a result of these protests, a significantly increasing amount of people do not affiliate themselves with a party (Winters). This divides the country even more. The connection between people and the government lessen, and the over all mood of the country turns bitter and diminishes the likelihood of cooperation and satisfaction between the two. Instead of the Olympics adding a unifying sense of nationality to the citizens, it is creating discord.

Both the IOC and the government need to listen to, care for, and work with the people. Throughout Rio de Janeiro, more than 4,100 families have been forcefully evicted from their homes in the favelas to be destroyed to make room for the Olympics. Some residents refuse to leave and they protest the unfairness of eviction and corruption of money used for the Olympics. Their protest shows that the Olympics are causing negative effects to the citizens. To the city, it seems fair because cash compensations and government-sponsored housing options are offered to the affected residents, but to the residents, its about more than just the monetary value of their homes. The city is destroying parts of their lives. The city is destroying a community that those people built and have strong affections towards (Gregory). This is not what the people want. Once again they express concern that the money should be used for improvements in their communities. There is a common theme amongst all of the Brazilian people that they care about progress in the places they spend their lives more than hosting costly international sporting events. The government is looking at these people as obstacles to overcome in preparation of the games, rather than looking at ways to make sure they will benefit from the them. The IOC needs to make sure that the country they choose to host the Olympics will not damage the lives of residents as it is happening in Brazil, but instead, enrich their lives.

Brazil has proven itself, and other developing nations, that they just simply are not ready to responsibly take on the sizable task of hosting the Olympics. Like Brazil, many developing countries need to allocate all of their efforts to building their nation and solving internal problems before they can be burdened with an additional large, demanding, multi-faceted project like the Olympics. The IOC must have higher standards when they are faced with the selection of a location. Every aspect of the candidates' economic strength, safety, and societal stability and well-being should be analyzed when the IOC is considering their choices. The IOC possesses a large responsibility, and if they chose the wrong place, the ramifications can be quite extensive and could severely damage people's lives and even the country as a whole. The IOC should mean well and promote a unifying international experience. The IOC should remain aware of the Olympics' prestige perceived by the world, and should preserve that respect by delivering the best possible setting for celebrating and showcasing superior athleticism that dates far back in history to the first Olympics and its origins, however, when developing nations are chosen to host the event, this is not accomplished.

