When the Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga announced the country will bid to hold the 2024 Olympics there were mixed reactions from the public. Many felt like it was simply a gimmick. Not that it is entirely unheard of for an African country to make the bid. After all,Two other African cities have unsuccessfully bid for the Olympic Games: Cairo in 2008, and Cape Town in 2004. Official campaigning for the bids starts in 2015, and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) will make the decision in 2017. France, America and Canada are also said to be interested in making a bid. This gives you an idea of the kind of competition the county would be up against.

Many factors go into consideration when selecting a host nation, but the ultimate one has to be the country’s economic strength. The capacity of a government to fulfil its guarantee of successfully holding the games is considered. This is done by comparing the size of investment (overall funding package) to the country’s GDP. The overall funding for the London Olympic Games was £9.298bn¹ (USD 17.722bn).  According to the IMF Kenya’s GDP per capita in 2012 is USD 964.761 and has almost tripled in the last decade. The nominal GDP is USD 36,102 billion. The country ranks as a C in the Coface rating system. C denotes: ‘very unsteady political and economic environment, frequently bad payment record.’

And all that doesn't seem to optimistic does it?

So What Else Do They Look At?

Beyond GDPs and Coface ranking, much more goes into consideration in selecting the host. Perhaps it is necessary to examine Nairobi as an Applicant City according to criteria the IOC uses. IOC looks at things such as existing and planned venues, the best environmental and meteorological conditions, accommodation capacity of 40,000 rooms in 3-5 star hotel rooms, transport (road, airport), medical services and doping control, safety and security, telecommunication infrastructure, energy, government and public support, and finance and marketing. Governments usually work with corporate sector to sponsor the project.

As it stands, the city has three main stadiums, with Moi International Sports Centre as the venue with the largest sitting capacity: Kasarani Stadium has a 60,000 sitting capacity; the indoor arena has a 5,000 sitting capacity. It has the added advantage of being right next to the Thika Highway erm.. super highway? But hosting the games would require the construction of a new Olympic stadium somewhere within the city, with a capacity of 80,000 seats like London’s Olympic Stadium. There are still big enough places in the outskirts of Nairobi to construct new venues. The city’s main strength would be its hotels and service industry, possibly the best in the East African region. The current growth in ICT would be very influential in the construction of a media hub or broadcast centre. Remember, we are talking about the next five years where growth in the various sectors has been projected to increase steadily.

Winning a bid would mean reconfiguring the entire city, building more roads and railway tracks. There would need to be massive investment in the transport system, much more than we have already witnessed. Perhaps entirely abandoning the current planning and adopting a new system; building a new city, really. Cycling could become an alternative way of getting places. Imagine millions of visitors in current Nairobi and the kind of potential traffic nightmare. Host cities have also constructed aquatic centres, velodromes and other venues for various games.

Infrastructure

One main challenge would be the country’s level of energy infrastructure. The fact that fluctuations in oil prices easily affect electricity prices means that the energy would be unsatisfactory. The city would have to invest much more in production, transmission and distribution of energy to meet the energy demands of the Olympic Games. Attention would have to be paid to diversification of imported fuels. Fortunately, Turkana will yield us enough oil for this. Focus is also paid to alternative energy strategies and technologies, especially those technologies which are environmental friendly. Other challenges would be in medical services, and safety and security. Issues that we are still struggling to deal with.

Hosting the games has major financial implications. Even the bid itself is an expensive endeavour. There have been very positive figures from the London Olympics. 98% of contracts led by the authority responsible for building permanent venues were awarded to UK-based companies, and two-thirds of them were awarded to small and medium-sized enterprises. In addition to the potential of creating 50,000 new jobs, returns from industries such as tourism, leisure, hospitality, retail, creative media are expected to amount to twice as much as the amount spent in the games. Hosting the games would not be such a bad idea if we can get our act together. A lot can change in the next five years before the 2024 host is chosen. In short, I would not entirely dismiss the city’s bid as a pipe dream.