Maybe it's time to consider a permanent site for Olympics

At the first modern Summer Olympic Games in Greece in 1896, Greece's King George I made a modest proposal. Why not provide a permanent site for the games at Olympia, Greece where the ancient games were held? The American delegation wrote an approving letter.

Baron Pierre de Coubertin, the organizer of those games, pretended not to hear. His vision was for the games to rotate among cities in Europe and America - and nowhere else - to promote peace. One wonders how he would think about it today.

As the Beijing Winter Olympics approaches, China's human rights record intrudes and the politics of the International Olympic Committee's selection process - rife with rumors of backroom deals and plain old bribery - taints.

So, is it time to resurrect the idea of creating permanent sites for the games? It is not a bad idea. It is brought up every time the games are held but especially vigorously when there is political controversy surrounding the host country. At its worst there have been boycotts, as we saw at the 1980 Moscow Olympics, because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, or the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, because ... well, just because, so there!

This week there will be no senior American officials at the Beijing games to show our displeasure over human rights abuses in Xinjiang against the Uyghurs and in Hong Kong. Other nations are following the U.S. lead. However, Vladimir Putin will come - even though Russia, the country, is banned from the games because of a massive doping scandal (Russian athletes still compete under the Olympic flag). Some believe Russia will not make a move against Ukraine during the Olympics because President Xi asked Putin not to do anything to distract from "his" games.

Beyond the politics, there is the cost. The Tokyo Summer Games cost $13.6 billion to put on and the need to build new facilities and Olympic villages for each of the games uses valuable urban land, because the games are inevitably held in cities. Many believe that when Chicago failed to win its bid for the 2016 Games, the city dodged a financial bullet.

So, could nations agree where to host the games? There seems to be an obvious choice for the winter games - neutral Switzerland and its Alps, or perhaps Sweden. The Summer Games would be trickier. Many have suggested Greece - perhaps creating a site on a sparsely populated island. Some have suggested that the IOC should move everything to Switzerland. Another suggestion is Los Angeles, the last city to make a profit on the Olympics (though the weather in San Diego is better).

To allow for the honor of hosting the Olympics to move around, the title of official host could be passed around to different countries and would be reflected in the opening ceremonies and other parts of the games. Perhaps a special pavilion for the "host" country.

Others have suggested creating permanent sites for individual sports around the world - ice hockey in Canada, speed skating in the Netherlands, judo in Japan, basketball in New York City, soccer in Brazil.

If there could be a permanent site, the cost savings would be substantial. Bonds could be floated against future media revenue. NBC paid $7.75 billion for the media rights for the games through 2032, so there is ample funding. The area could receive a special designation from the UN and the facilities could become a center for sports medicine, training methods and other competitions.

The philosopher Goethe observed that everything has been thought of before, but the problem is to think of it again. Perhaps the idea of a permanent site for the Olympics is an idea whose time has come.

• Keith Peterson, of Lake Barrington, served 29 years as a press and cultural officer for the United States Information Agency and Department of State. He was chief editorial writer of the Daily Herald 1984-86.