Why not develop countries stop the games and fund the same budget to poor African countries?
353493
Sounds like a good idea in theory, but here is the problem, there are so many wars in Africa, more than I can count. If you could get every war lord, every dictator, every ruler in Africa to stop fighting, than something like that could be done. But until then good luck.  The only thing you can do is local help in areas of Africa were there is no fighting or little fighting. However these are the places in Africa there are realatively well off.  The fact is WAR CAUSES POVERTY, therefore the more war there is the more poverty there is.
419291
Prevention is better than cure. It can happen anywhere anytime again, so what we should do is helping poor countries to develop. If they have no reason to strike, they are less likely to do it.
1026158
Irrespective of whether they are or are not better physically, many factors outside of talent go into winning WC. Not least, money and financial support and sponsorship. Many African Nations are not wealthy and do not as such have the ability to promote the sport, train and support players full time or attract coaching staff. Corrupt Governments divert money to themselves, not the people or the promise of lifting them out of obscurity. Of course that is not all African Nations. I think some have done extremely well with limited opportunities and availabilities. Ghana have performed outstandingly and as the sport develops, someone from that continent will challenge in years to come. It's not always as clear as having a talented side of footballers. What does this achieve if you cannot get them out there to compete against and travel to other countries to improve their level of experience.
602986
Hungry children and half of Affrica has aids. no one cares.\nThey don't have money to steal. Iraq will cost tax payers $2 trillion over 10 years. Our young people are screwed.
356126
its bcoz of lack of infrastructure and funds available for its development.The indian goverment should encourage olympic sports as they do in cricket
708273
I think Africa or South America should host the 2016 games, since neither continent has had the opportunity yet.
234119
I think they should. Africans cannot pay for this because over half of them are in very low poverty who cannot even afford a loaf of bread. I have the most horiffic feeling that if these prices do not go down or are not free, that an extreme of Africans will die.
879175
Good Reason:  Darfur, Sudan\n\nAnswer:  No.  They are too unwieldy, and not well supported, even by their own membership.  \n\nBut they are whiz-bang great balls of fire fun to have at a Scrabble tournament.
671858
Because in the scheme of things, the rest of the world doesn't care about Africa.  The biggest and wealthiest nations support other countries.  But they don't support places like Africa, Haiti, Jamaica, etc.  What do these places have in common?  The race of most of the inhabitants of those places is the same.   It's a culture and ethnic reason why they are so far behing.  Costa Rica doesn't have that problem.  India doesn't have that problem.  Spain doesn't have that problem.  You think about it, and it will become clear.
1129068
Part is given to the participating nations. A lot is spend for teams from developing countries to get their football up to the standard.\nFIFA itself is a huge organization that needs quite some amount for their normal operations.
819698
The Games themselves may not be a waste but the pointless tedious cermonies at the beginning and the end are certainly no use to anyone and should be scrapped in favour of a simple parade of all the competitors.\n\nThe construction of new arenas and stadia etc should be justified solely on the basis of the benefit to the local community AFTER the Games.\n\nPersonally I think that one venue should be selected and used for every Olympics ... such as a Greek Island. This will stop all the political squabbling and millions of dollars wasted in competing for the right to host the Games which would be much better spent on just about anything else.
402664
Poor countries want what wealthy countries have, even if it means taking it rather than earning it.  Inequality leads to conflict.  The only way many people know to solve conflict is through violence.  Learing to talk, use diplomacy, is the only hope we have.
442003
Probably not Africa, few enough national governments there are stable or organized enough to fully exploit a resource like that. I am Canadian, so I'll have to pick the home team.
1129451
The most important thing that can be done by developed countries is to mediate conflicts; if a developing country is in civil disorder like most of Africa, all the other aid that is given will be completely useless. However, this does not mean settling a conflict no matter what the cost. For instance, if a rebel group \n(or the government for that matter) is terrorizing society for its own gain, forcing a 'national unity' government can be the worst thing that can be done. Just because a group is in rebellion or in control does not mean they have a legitimate claim to power.\n\nAfter that, the BEST thing a developed country can do is to help create a stable currency in the developing country. If the developing country cannot pay its police and soldiers, even if they are good people they will have to find other means of feeding their families (this could mean selling their weapons and equipment to war lords, stealing, accepting bribes from criminals etc). Once the police and soldiers find they have to become bandits, the cost to society is horrendous.
883745
Typical of this Government , they are in  deep trouble with the Olympics and it,s Massively Escalating costs , so they have decided to "Park It" on to another body ,  == Money no Object -- "Lets just Dump It" and Run for Cover  well before the S H I T  Really hits the Fan -- "Happily we will all be out of Office by then , Enjoying Our Vast Pensions -- Blame the Opposition .
255699
Don't know what government you're talking about.  Here in U.S., only local/state governments would contribute, definitely not Federal.\n\nAnswer to your question depends on the opportunity costs of the expenditure by government.  It might make sense for a government to invest in the Olympics if the associated infrastructure development will be useful for economic expansion following the events.
498069
I think a lot of money goes into AIDS research, and although there is obviously no cure yet, there are drugs that greatly prolong life.  Treatment and drug distribution should be a major concern, however.  The AIDS epidemic in Africa is devastating, and it is genuinely horrifying to realize that I live in a country (U.S.) that would rather funnel my tax money into a phony war that I don't support than use it to help masses of people who suffer indescribable conditions every day of their lives.  First world powers, capable of stepping in, are just leaving the African continent to rot.  The vast majority of AIDS sufferers in Africa don't have access to the medication that could improve their health and prolong their lives, and government leaders constantly avoid discussing this issue.  Even in my own country, where we do not have socialized medicine, there are people living with this disease who have no means of paying for treatment.  Health care costs are exorbitant, and fewer and fewer companies are willing to provide workers with these benefits.  I constantly hear people referring to the U.S. as one of the richest nations in the world.  Well, that may be, but I'm not in the least bit impressed with the way in which our government allocates resources.  Obviously tax cuts for the richest 1 percent of our population are more important than providing decent health care to the middle and lower classes.  It's disgusting, and things have to change.  Greed is running rampant and we are squandering one of the world's most precious resources, human life.