With the Olympics becoming harder and harder financially to host, I'd say Riyadh has more chance of a Games than say Copenhagen.
I have been absently pondering recently if we might start seeing a different type of games hosting in the future.
While claims of 'sustainability' are always questionable in these kind of things, Paris made much of the fact they're doing it somewhat on the cheap, with only two new permanent venues being built.
Likewise, one of the main reasons cited for London winning their bid (against Paris, somewhat ironically) was the 'legacy' aspect, the fact that any new venues would have an ongoing use.
So, I wonder if what people come to expect of the Olympics, and thus how much it costs to put them on, might change.
Of course, that could make it make it more prohibitive in a different way, if hosts are required to have a lot of the existing infrastructure already. The football World Cup demonstrates how much of an issue that can be, and that's just one sport!
I mean, part of me thinks the IOC should just invest in the infrastructure themselves, store it somewhere and then lend the host city whatever prefab venues they don't already have. F1 being a lot of their own buildings for their travelling circus...
