Shell's new Prelude FLNG vessel is even bigger [1], if you call that a ship. It's about five football fields in area IIRC. So still absolutely tiny compared to anything you could host the olympics on.
Fun story: I was talking to some Shell people a few years back, about the potential troubles with LNG sloshing in process equipment due to waves. I asked them, why not just make the ship big enough that waves don't affect it as much? They looked at me very strangely for a few seconds before explaining just how big it already is.
Maybe one vessel will not be big enough. But a fleet should be able to support every competition but the marathon and have quarters for all the athletes.
Because when they were held on Olympia for how many hundreds of years it didn't work and were considered unfair?
The United States has hosted eight olympics and there are about that many countries that never have. London has hosted it three times, Madrid ever has. And so on. The current method is already distinctly unfair. So I don't see how centralizing it into its own nation, like it once was, makes it worse than now.
> Because when they were held on Olympia for how many hundreds of years it didn't work and were considered unfair?
Probably because there were three other games--Pythian, Nemean, and Isthmian--that were held at other sites around the Hellenic world? And the "world" was small enough that the sites of each didn't feel inaccessible to (much of) the citizenry of the competing states?
(I find the Olympics generally disappointing and I have no love for them as an event, but a partial view of history doesn't really help anyone.)
Umm... what? You realize that those Olympics were not remotely global, right? That holds as much value as suggesting that England host it because "they host the EPL every year and no one thinks it's unfair"
