stryker

If the Tokyo Olympics get cancelled because COVID19 is still an issue in the summer of next year that will be an unprecedented financial loss with all the construction and logistics for Japan. IMO that would be more than enough for a Sapporo bid to be dead on arrival. Suddenly 2030 is wide open.

So there is some precedent for saying no to venue construction that would be too expensive. On the topic of the aquatics venues (problematic for the reasons highlighted in an earlier post) we're seeing some movement in terms of recent world championships and the Olympics away from the expensive permanent venue to existing stadiums/arenas that can be fitted with temporary pools (though I think London's as well as Sydney's have fulfilled their legacies well. I'd add Atlanta's to that as well). Kazan used a football stadium for the world championships. Fukuoka is planning to hold the world championships inside a convention center/arena. Los Angeles is using Dedeaux Field (I assume they can save costs by using the filtration system for the university pool which is adjacent to the stadium and being used as a warmup pool) to save costs but I expect there will be some pushback from FINA over an open air venue in the LA heat. There's also the issue as was pointed out regarding test events. I would assume the USC baseball team would have to spend a significant portion of their 2028 season on the road then there's the issue of NCAA playoffs with regionals and super regionals which run into June. Wasn't one of the reasons LA moved the aquatics venue from Banc of California Stadium was LAFC would have had to play an extended road schedule and they did not agree to this? My guess would be holding the test events in summer 2027, take the infrastructure down, and reassembling it after the baseball season ends. I don't know what kind of time frame would be needed for this.

It's very premature for Coates to be talking about a Queensland Olympics being the catalyst to recharge the economy after the COVID19 pandemic. We're only scratching the tip of the iceberg in terms of the widespread economic damage that's going to result from this. I've mentioned in other threads about the prospect not just of a global recession (that's a given) but a second great depression and that would make Olympic bids a tough sell in countries who are hard hit with high unemployment rates. On the other hand, yes, Australia has done a better job than many others in terms of controlling the outbreak (I see where Morrison announced a three phase plan to lift restrictions). The question remains how bad will the economic situation get especially with China's threats over Australia's calls for an investigation into the COVID19 origins in China. All that said, 2032 is a ways away giving Australia more of a cushion in terms of economic recovery than say Italy and Milan in 2026 and perhaps because Australia took decisive action early then the economic fallout will be mitigated. On another note, I'll be curious to see when a preliminary venue plan is released (one besides the possibilities in the feasibility study).

This is where the host cities have to push back. With the limited number of bidders as it is, IMO the host cities have significant leverage over the IFs right now. Sure they might throw a fit over the use of an existing venue that's not in the host city limits(UCI did this when Tokyo declined to build a new velodrome) but eventually it's still the Olympics and they'd have no choice but to accept it. I can't think of any recourse an IF would have to try to get an Olympic host to build the venue they demand.

In terms of volunteers and organizers, well, its certainly not an ideal situation with spread out venues. On the other hand, IMO when you factor in the costs of construction plus annual upkeep, it's hard to see some extra shuttling and accommodations across the country being more expensive than constructing a new slalom canoe complex in L.A. If the IOC is willing to allow Paris to host surfing in Tahiti then I am sure they'd have no problem with L.A. hosting slalom canoe events in Charlotte. As for reducing the number of sports, I'd put slalom canoeing, golf, and modern pentathlon on the chopping block first with track cycling (velodromes are another problematic venue) next. As long as a permanent tenant is lined up after the Olympics, then yes the athletics stadium is not a white elephant. The trouble is, when a city bids and has no tenant lined up afterwards, it is a white elephant, and evidence continues to mount that the so-called temporary stadium or building a large capacity stadium and significantly reducing the seating later is not a cost effective solution. The latest evidence, Budapest and Qatar's WC venues. Budapest originally planned a 50-60,000 seat stadium for the IAAF world championships that could be scaled down to 20,000 afterwards. The capacity was later reduced to 40,000 because of the logistics and costs involved in reducing the seating. Qatar originally proposed most of their WC stadiums would have large amounts of temporary seating that could be donated to less fortunate countries afterwards. Take a look at the new stadiums built already and you'll see this is not the case. Los Angeles and Paris were fortunate in that they had existing stadiums ready to go. Frankly, I'd like to see NYC give a another go at a SOGs in the future but I know it's not likely for multiple reasons, one of which is there's no need for an athletics stadium in the city. As for the IFs, it's past the time for host cities to tell them no when they demand a shiny new venue whose legacy is listed as a community sports center. Tell them this is the venue you get, take it or leave it. Looking back at Tokyo, Yokohama Arena would've been more than reliable for volleyball but the FIVB strong armed Tokyo into building Ariake Arena as an example. Another mistake for Tokyo, the Gymnastics Arena, which was supposed to be temporary, but is too complicated and too costly to dismantle.

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1093758/paris-2024-aquatic-tender-award-costs-up Paris has chosen a tender for the aquatics centre and no surprise the costs have gone up. Still no word on the aquatic center that would host swimming. I assume it will be a temporary venue adjacent to the permanent one (water polo, diving, artistic swimming)?

A permanent host is a problem for the reason you've mentioned but I don't see why existing venues in a region couldn't be used. For example, Brisbane uses the Penrith Lakes course for slalom canoeing for a future U.S. summer bid uses the velodrome in Los Angeles. In terms of being spread and, yes, I agree about the transportation issues, but IMO this is something that the IOC and the respective IFs are going to just have to deal with. Drut also suggested the Games have too many sports (agreed but how do you reduce that number?) and I'd even add maybe it's time to consider smaller capacity venues especially for some of the indoor sports or consider possibilities such as open air speed skating ovals or having boxing outside (how many matches have been done in casino parking lots?)

Apparently an idea being considered for saving money is to combine the Olympic and Paralympic ceremonies into one so there'd be two ceremonies (one opening and one closing) rather than four.

This reminds me of the race between Moscow and Los Angeles for the 1976 Olympics albeit on a smaller scale and there's no compromise candidate (I thought a city in India might fill that role this time around). Regardless, it's a no brainer. Doha should win in a landslide. Unless Saudi Arabia is going to dramatically liberalize even further (not likely in conservative Riyadh) is the OCA really going to award the Asian Games to a country where there will be gender segregation, strict dress code requirements for women including foreigners, and above all, no alcohol?

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1093623/pandemic-opportunity-to-reinvent-games I saw an article yesterday where Guy Drut commented about the Olympics needing to be "reinvented" in the post-COVID19 world and insidethegames picked up on it today. I was rather surprised at how he directly called out Paris 2024 as being "obsolete and outdated." The more I think about though, I think he's directly referencing the economic fallout that is sure to come that will likely have serious ramifications for the Olympics going forward especially in the bidding process. I've touched on the economic implications for Milan given that Italy is broke and still has to find a way to pay for the WOGs. Drut hints at Agenda 2020 but goes even further even as far suggesting permanent venues for certain sports though I think a permanent home for surfing isn't exactly necessary (I still think Paris was ridiculous for choosing Tahiti or Biarritz). However, his comments on venues like the slalom canoe course are spot on. Does Paris really need a slalom canoe course? Would it get much use after the Olympics or more importantly would it be profitable? A far cheaper option would be the course at Pau-Pyrenees which is already the home of France's slalom canoe team anyway. I think there will be further changes for Paris (I could see Paris dropping the temporary venue for volleyball and using an existing facility somewhere else). Milan would be best served by getting Torino back in to the fold. Even Los Angeles could afford cost cutting (does LA really need a slalom canoe course at Sepulveda Basin when the U.S. National Whitewater Center in Charlotte could serve the same purpose?) Sure the sports federations would groan but the financial losses many of them are facing due to COVID19 will sap much of their influence at least in the short term. Of course there's still the problematic Olympic Village and the biggest white elephant of them all- the athletics stadium. Much like after the Great Recession, citizens in western democracies suddenly became much more aware of how their tax dollars were spent hence giving rise to No Olympics movements that were successful in places like Munich, Boston, and Calgary. Post COVID19 could very well be a second great depression which means you are going to see even more scrutiny given the government spending. Agenda 2020 and the New Norm are not going to be enough for the IOC. They will have to go even further given the economic crisis the world is now entering and one that will likely not be the V shaped recovery hoped for.

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1093589/paris-2024-aquatic-centre-proposals This is a bit of a head scratcher but Paris is now planning to host all the aquatics events at one site? I didn't think this was possible with the addition of women's water polo which essentially required a second pool for the water polo competitions since one facility alone wouldn't be enough due to timing and scheduling constraints. If I'm reading this correctly, all the aquatics events will be held at one site but the pool for water polo/diving/artistic swimming will be kept permanently while the pool for swimming will be removed. I'll be curious what the layout is like for the games. Seems like it could be a bit complicated converting the place to a smaller permanent venue.

Speculation yes. No one really knows how the world economy is going to come back from the biggest crisis since the Great Depression. Regarding Italy and the Olympics, no it's not a foregone conclusion and I agree really the only way Italy wouldn't host would be for them to give it back. It's a longshot given it's still 6 years away, but I'm considering it as speculation based on the fact that Italy is broke. They are approaching an economic crisis along the lines of what Greece dealt with in the 2000s and still hasn't recovered from. Italy will not be able to repay the debt they are incurring right now in the fight against COVID19. It either has to be forgiven in which case the banks in the EU that hold it will have to guarantee it if they want to survive. The other option is a default. A default would send shockwaves through the EU and lead to a decline in the value of the Euro so I would assume the banks would step in to guarantee that debt. So where would Italy get the money to pay for the Olympics? There'd still be time to trim the costs (I've hinted that I expect Torino ultimately to be a part of the Olympics as a cost cutting measure). I'm looking at it from a numbers perspective in terms of where the money comes from to pay for this, but yes, I'll say that the chances are that Italy doesn't give up the WOGs at least not in the near future, however, the longer the economic crisis drags on, the chances go up a bit.

Couldn't agree more. A global recession is already here. A second great depression is a real possibility. When this is all over there's not going to be a quick bounce back the way some people think.

https://www.espn.com/olympics/story/_/id/29076093/tokyo-ioc-odds-massive-cost-olympics-postponement Tokyo and the IOC at odds over who's picking up the tab for the postponement? I'm not surprised though I am surprised it's come out already. A Tokyo spokesman asks the IOC to remove a comment from its website from Abe suggesting that Tokyo would pay most of the costs. Meanwhile, John Coates says the IOC is chipping in a few hundred million (a drop in the bucket really) and that's it. Add to that the current cost of the Olympics is at $12.6 billion but a government audit suggests the actual costs are at least twice that. I'd venture to say the actual cost is somewhere close to $30 million, of which only $5.6 million is with private funds. When all the costs are counted with the postponement, who knows how costly this could get. Maybe Tokyo becomes the SOGs version of Sochi in terms of actual costs? Regardless of what the final figures are, Japan is entering a recession as it faces what is just the tip of the iceberg in COVID19 cases. This has the making of a perfect storm in terms of a PR disaster for the IOC regardless of what the host city contract says.

The IOC has said nothing. All their talk and focus has been on Tokyo and the damage the postponement will cause. In terms of finances, I know the Lombardy region is the wealthier part of Italy but I question whether that will even be enough for Milan to go through with all the costs needed. I was reading an editorial the other day on COVID19 and the world economy and one of the things mentioned was countries that have incurred high amounts of debt in fighting COVID19 like Italy who's already in huge debt anyways won't be able to pay it back. It will have to either be forgiven or Italy will default. A default would be enough IMO to end Milan's Olympic hopes.