Looking at the voting, no African city has even been close to hosting, either. Cape Town, South Africa made a run in 2004, but came in 3rd. Egypt has tried three times, all failures.
Africa: 18% of the world's population, and no Olympics.
Australia: 0.5% of the world's population, and two olympics, with a third one scheduled.
It has to do with the country's financial ability to build the venues, hotels and other required infrastructure. It has to do with the country's safety standards and regulations required to guarantee that the venues and other infrastructure will be safe. It has to do with the city's security situation and competency to ensure that everyone visiting will be safe. And many other concerns of that nature.
For any number of reasons, There are basically no African cities that can realistically guarantee they can deliver all of those requisites. The few that have the financial ability, infrastructure, and acceptable safety regulations (such as those in South Africa and perhaps Egypt and a few other Mediterranean countries) generally still can't guarantee safety. Heck, even Germany had a hard time back in 1972 and the world is very different now.
Is it "fair"? Nope, absolutely not. But it's the reality of the world. Fairness is secondary.
I wouldn't even call it unfair, given the fact that Australia is one of the most successful countries in the Olympics. In Paris they won 53 medals while all African countries combined got 35 (if I counted right). When it comes to gold medals only, it is 18 Australian vs 12 African.
Like the comment before mine said, it's a matter of money and security. The olympics are extremely hard to realize for many reasons, even Arab countries would have no chance to do so.
The so-called 1924 "All-India Olympic Games" held in Delhi (which is what I assume you are referring to) were just an Indian competition to select athletes that they would send to the actual Olympic games in Paris later that year.
They were absolutely not the internationally-recognized Olympic games themselves, regardless of what the local association chose to call them.
(Noting the All-India Olympic Games were of course later renamed the National Games of India.)
Africa: 18% of the world's population, and no Olympics.
Australia: 0.5% of the world's population, and two olympics, with a third one scheduled.
Doesn't seem fair.
It has to do with the country's financial ability to build the venues, hotels and other required infrastructure. It has to do with the country's safety standards and regulations required to guarantee that the venues and other infrastructure will be safe. It has to do with the city's security situation and competency to ensure that everyone visiting will be safe. And many other concerns of that nature.
For any number of reasons, There are basically no African cities that can realistically guarantee they can deliver all of those requisites. The few that have the financial ability, infrastructure, and acceptable safety regulations (such as those in South Africa and perhaps Egypt and a few other Mediterranean countries) generally still can't guarantee safety. Heck, even Germany had a hard time back in 1972 and the world is very different now.
Is it "fair"? Nope, absolutely not. But it's the reality of the world. Fairness is secondary.
New Delhi has never hosted any Olympic games.
The so-called 1924 "All-India Olympic Games" held in Delhi (which is what I assume you are referring to) were just an Indian competition to select athletes that they would send to the actual Olympic games in Paris later that year.
They were absolutely not the internationally-recognized Olympic games themselves, regardless of what the local association chose to call them.
(Noting the All-India Olympic Games were of course later renamed the National Games of India.)