NEWS emerged late on Tuesday evening that Edmonton, Canada has withdrawn its bid to host the 2022 Commonwealth Games which now leaves only Durban, South Africa, in the running to host the event.
Edmonton's withdrawal means that South Africa's third city is now almost certain to be awarded the right to host the 2022 Games when the announcement is made by the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) this September.
Edmonton has made the decision not to pursue its bid following the Alberta government's fiscal programme going from a $500 million surplus to a $7 billion deficit due to the change in world oil prices. The city announced that it will now transfer its bid to the 2026 Games.
But does this development call the entire future of the Commonwealth Games into question? What prospects are there for an event for which only one single city has any desire to host? On the face of it, this week's events appear worrying but, in reality, Edmonton's withdrawal is perhaps not as troubling an issue as it initially appears.
First of all and most importantly, Africa is now almost certain to be awarded the right to host its first-ever international multi-sport Games. South Africa hosted the 2010 football World Cup but a major multi-sport event has never been held on that continent. That they will now, in 2022, is huge. Africa deserves the opportunity to host the Commonwealth Games and if the objective of the CGF is to develop and promote sport across the globe, then their flagship event must visit every continent.
Secondly, there is now an almost guaranteed bidder for the 2026 Games, something that could not have been presumed upon had Edmonton continued with its bid for 2022, only to ultimately fail to take the Games to Canada, where they were first held in 1930. In this current financial climate, in which even the Olympic Games, particularly the Winter Olympics, acutely struggles to attract bidders, this fact should not be taken lightly.
The future, or lack thereof, of the Commonwealth Games is a ceaseless issue. There are suggestions that the event lacks relevance, particularly when one considers the fact that the concept of the Commonwealth has become increasingly anachronistic. Yet Glasgow 2014 debunked every one of these accusations.
The success of last year's event, the presence of countless world-class athletes, including the most famous athlete in the world, Usain Bolt, and the interest around the world in the Games proved that there, unquestionably, remains a place in the sporting calendar for the Commonwealth Games. When the Games go to Africa in 2022, this commendation may increase even further.
While a single bidding city is clearly not ideal, neither is it disastrous. Durban had every chance of being awarded the 2022 Games, irrespective of their opponents. Furthermore, the number of bidding cities has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of the Games delivered. There was only one bidding city for both the 2002 and the 2006 Commonwealth Games, which Manchester and Melbourne won respectively, and there can be little argument that both of those Games were overwhelming successes.
So, the 2022 Games is not the first to have a single bidding city, nor will it be the last. There needs to be an acceptance that in the current financial climate, cities are thinking very carefully as to whether they can afford to host major sporting events, particularly with the thorny issue of legacy being more imperative than ever in order to justify the public spend.
However, this does not mean that no city will be interested in being a host, nor does it mean that the Games are substandard due to less competition throughout the bidding process. Glasgow 2014 took the Commonwealth Games to a new level. Durban 2022 might just move that on even further.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article