The recent decision to hold the 2016 Olympic games in Rio de Janeiro (which is, in fact, not Chicago) prompted me to Google search the topic so I could see the logo for the event.

Needless to say, I was extremely disappointed not only with the 2016 logo, but the 2012 emblem, as well.

Many may be asking why the logo even matters, but it matters because it represents a sporting event that has thousands of years of tradition behind it. Also, the logo matters because it is representative of not only the country hosting the games, but to some extent, of the nations competing.

First, let me express my disgust for the 2012 emblem.

If you aren’t familiar with the symbol, allow me to describe it: a collection of what appear to be five jagged puzzles pieces with “London” slapped on the upper left piece. Apparently, the design is supposed to be the numbers 2-0-1-2, as in 2012, but when looking at the logo, those numbers don’t really translate … at all.

The abomination of a logo can be traced back to the design consultancy Wolff Olins, Inc.

In a sporting event that includes nations from across the planet, you’d think the emblem would have some kind of unity, but it doesn’t. It looks as though it’s catering to teenagers or maybe even infants.

What adds insult to injury is the color scheme. Every version I’ve seen is a day-glow shade of pink, blue, green or orange. The 2012 Olympic logo casts a poor reflection on the event and makes it seem trite.

The 2016 Rio de Janeiro bid logo is almost as bad (a bid logo is essentially a placeholder until an official logo is decided upon).

It looks like it’s playing off of the “i-something” fad created by Apple’s ubiquitous advertisements. Of course, the designers may vehemently refute that statement, but I guarantee that the iPod is one of the first things you think of when you see it.

For those who haven’t seen the egregious mistake that is the logo, allow me to describe it: When read left to right, the first thing you notice is some sort of ridiculous butterfly/heart hybrid (I’m not even sure what it’s actually supposed to be) followed by “rio 2016,” with the number one as an inverted “i.”

The color scheme is light greens, blues and yellows.

If the designers of the 2016 logo had used the 2012 color scheme, it would look like Lisa Frank had designed it. Add a few unicorns and orcas flying through space and you’ve got a 10-year-old girl’s binder.

Since it is a bid logo, chances are it will be changed, but the fact remains that the emblem is, for now, representing the event.

It’s a shame that neither designer bothered to look to the past for inspiration when designing the logos because, for the most part, previous symbols were tactful and looked official.

A few notable logos that come to mind are the 1932, ‘60, ‘64 and ‘72 logos.

The designers of those logos were able to represent the games respectfully while still being creative in reflecting the time and place in which they were made.

Unfortunately, this cannot be said for the designers of the 2012 or 2016 Olympic logos.