Jump to content

Conclusions


Recommended Posts

I think it is much more interesting what kind of conclusions the IOC has drawn behind close doors...

e.g.

I wonder if it will give Olympic Games another time to a dictatorship?

or if it had learned not to raise expectations, which Olympic Games can't fullfil?

Of course Rogge would rather swallow his tongue than to say something about that, but what do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is much more interesting what kind of conclusions the IOC has drawn behind close doors...

e.g.

I wonder if it will give Olympic Games another time to a dictatorship?

or if it had learned not to raise expectations, which Olympic Games can't fullfil?

Of course Rogge would rather swallow his tongue than to say something about that, but what do you think?

O.K. - I'll take a stab at this.

What is going to happen is that the IOC will wait another 30 years to go to a "New Frontier." So Chicago or Tokyo will probably be the front runners for 2016 because Rio is deemed too risky, not because of any fault of theirs but because the IOC needs a sure thing to restore some of the luster lost after Bejing and the sure to be lost revenues.

So the games will go back to Europe a few times - maybe back to Australia once - then to either Toronto/Montreal or Guadalajara/Monterrey and then the IOC will try again at reinventing the world.

And the tradition continues . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O.K. - I'll take a stab at this.

What is going to happen is that the IOC will wait another 30 years to go to a "New Frontier." So Chicago or Tokyo will probably be the front runners for 2016 because Rio is deemed too risky, not because of any fault of theirs but because the IOC needs a sure thing to restore some of the luster lost after Bejing and the sure to be lost revenues.

So the games will go back to Europe a few times - maybe back to Australia once - then to either Toronto/Montreal or Guadalajara/Monterrey and then the IOC will try again at reinventing the world.

And the tradition continues . . .

I find it interesting you put in Mexico, I would say going to Mexico would be more dangerous then going to South Africa currently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting you put in Mexico, I would say going to Mexico would be more dangerous then going to South Africa currently.

Mexico is safe from an economic standpoint, especially after NAFTA. CBC and NBC would pay big bucks to broadcast and the Canadian and U.S. military's would pitch in for security. Really no upheaval down there and it also provides that Spanish flair the Europeans love.

Think why Mexico City won out over Detroit in '68. And if Chicago doesn't get 2016 I still say Mexico would get them before Canada or the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to restore some of the luster lost after Bejing and the sure to be lost revenues.

I agree with most of what you said except for the "lost revenues" part.

The Beijing Games will see record revenues and you won't hear any major sponsors criticise China and/or the IOC and withdrawing from the TOP programme.

Even if there is some controversy around the Beijing Games, Vancouver and London are safe choices for the sponsors and you can expect theses Games to break all records in term of revenues (London has already signed more top tier domestic sponsors than any previous OCOG at this stage of preparation).

But I do agree that the more negative coverage Beijing gets, the more likely the IOC is going to go with a safe choice for 2016, in which case Chicago, Tokyo or even Madrid would have the edge over Rio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Queen can now safely abolish Parliament and return total rule to her family in time for the 2012 outing.

Hold on, but according to Al Fayed we're already a totalitarian state headed by Prince Philip. He can't be wrong.....(or can he?) :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is much more interesting what kind of conclusions the IOC has drawn behind close doors...

e.g.

I wonder if it will give Olympic Games another time to a dictatorship?

or if it had learned not to raise expectations, which Olympic Games can't fullfil?

Of course Rogge would rather swallow his tongue than to say something about that, but what do you think?

As we know, there are only a small percentage of nations who could pull off a SOGs. The IOC won't give the games to another dictatorship simply because there isn't another dictatorship (that I can think of) that could pull off a SOGs! In this sense, the IOC are off the hook; they'll just say "sorry your bid isn't good enough" and will not have to worry about wading into muddy political waters and moral and ethical debates.

As for whether the IOC will be less willing to give the Games to new frontiers, I'm not so sure. I'm not sure Beijing is the litmus test for this one because, although China and Brazil, for example, are both "new frontiers" they're like chalk and cheese. Nobody has ever doubted China's technical capability and their ability to be ready on time; with virtually every other new frontier nation that would be a worry because, unlike China they are not ruthlessly efficient dictatorships but large, messy democracies. In fact, China's situation - politically, socially, economically etc. - is so different that putting it in the same bracket as other new frontiers and indeed using their Games as a measure of the problems other new frontiers may face, is wildly misleading.

The litmus test for other new frontiers is imminent though we'll have to wait a little longer than the end of 2008 for its final outcome. It is, of course the FIFA World Cups. Given that the two remaining new frontiers for the IOC are South America and Africa and given that their most likely SOGs hosts are both hosting a world cup in the next decade, I think the IOCs collective mind will, to a large extent, be swayed by the football world's experience. The next six to eight years could very well determine the mindset of all international sporting organisations for the next few decades.

Edited by Rob ♪
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is going to happen is that the IOC will wait another 30 years to go to a "New Frontier." So Chicago or Tokyo will probably be the front runners for 2016 because Rio is deemed too risky, not because of any fault of theirs but because the IOC needs a sure thing to restore some of the luster lost after Bejing and the sure to be lost revenues.

I agree with Rob on this one. Yes, China is a new frontier for the games, but I don't think we can talk about them in the same way as we often talk in GamesBids about the other new frontier areas like South America and Africa.

Beijing may have always been a risk politically, but it was always anything but technically. Just remember the context of when it was elected _ the games were coming up for Athens, and the alarm bells were already ringing about whether those games facilities would actually be ready in time. The IOC was already musing about issuing its famous "orange light/red light" warning to Athens about its tardy and chaotic preparations.

In that contest, Beijing must have seemed like as safe a bet as could be imagined for the games _ a pretty well iron-clad guarantee that it would present a games in spectacular venues on time and with no pesky problems about the budget. Tiananmin was 12 years past, the Chinese economy was booming, governments and corporations around the world were scrambling to build friendly relationships with China. And while there was also the odd concern about China's politics, well, didn't Sydney also bring out the aboriginal activists; gay rights, race and homelessness raised its head in Atlanta; Barcelona smoothed over Catalan separatism and the legacy of Franco; and Seoul was always used as the IOC's great advertisement for what the games could achieve in speeding political progress. It would have all seemed very attractive at the time.

In hindsight, we can now see that poltics was always going to be Beijing's failing and achilles heel. And the Tibetans have shown that they knew oh so well how to play their cards for maximin effect. The Beijing games are already tarnished.

I don't think the Beijing experience is going to lessen the IOC's appetite for new frontier games _ they've scarely shown any appetite for them anyway. It may, for a decade or two, have them running shy of any politically risky ventures (it would be interesting if Sochi would have still won if the vote for 2014 was this year), but really they'll just continue to keep trying to find "safe" technically reliable hosts. If a Brazil or a South Africa can demonstrate they can organise a games with minimum acceptable economic or technical risk, they could still well go for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...