> The Olympics are an international event. I don't get why it can't be held internationally. Why do we need soccer in the same country as track and field?
Because its a money losing proposition for the host(s) in any case, and the payoff (such as it is) is the prestige of being the unique host. I suspect that splitting the events N ways would result in per-host costs of greater than 1/N times the single-host cost, and per-host perceived benefits of less than 1/N times the single-host benefits, and even less willingness to host.
That may be true, but doesn't the theory of marginal utility tell us that an entity might be willing to pay $X for Y units of a good, but that they're less likely to be will to pay $NX for NY units.
In concrete terms, I'll pay $1 for a liter of water, but I won't pay $1M for a megaliter.
> I suspect that splitting the events N ways would result in per-host costs of greater than 1/N times the single-host cost
I suspect the opposite. Many cities and nations have the infrastructure to support a 1/N sized event with little to no investment. If events are hosted by cities that already have the facilities then costs consist of things like borrowing extra buses from nearby cities and paying overtime for police which seem negligible compared to current Olympic costs.
> per-host perceived benefits of less than 1/N times the single-host benefits
This rings true for me and I would add that the total esteem of the Olympic games would diminish. I think that it would be in the interest of host nations to split up the games, but against the interest of the International Olympic Committee.
Because its a money losing proposition for the host(s) in any case, and the payoff (such as it is) is the prestige of being the unique host. I suspect that splitting the events N ways would result in per-host costs of greater than 1/N times the single-host cost, and per-host perceived benefits of less than 1/N times the single-host benefits, and even less willingness to host.