Now, Who Do You Expect To Win?

[memorabilia]

So I don't know which is worse...dry, dry heat or high humidity (Chicago)??

Difficult to say, but that's why the final will be between Tokyo and Rio !!!!

[M_O_S]

Having just spotted this website and having skim read through comments in this post, here are some thoughts:

-London, whilst not being the strongest candidate managed to pull the games in 2012 thanks to great lobbying from it's former PM, Tony Blair. The USA, with Obama, is more likely to receive friendly smiles from IOC members than in 2012 and that should be positive. However, the prospects of a strong Latin American bid are likely to pull off very much appreciated support from less powerful countries in Africa and Latin America since it opens the prospect of more developing countries hosting such events.

-The fact Madrid is the only European bid should benefit primarily the Spanish city, with the vast majority of the 42 European IOC members being able to vote unlike in the 2012 Olympics where French and British members (which are quite a few) were unable to vote.

-The global economic crisis will also be given consideration. The IOC cannot afford to take risks, so properly financed (and most importantly, party-built) bids will come in strongly. Tokyo and Madrid, with great government support will be favoured. Chicago on the other hand, which relies heavily on private donations and corporate sponsoring, is likely to be seen as more weak.

And this is what will happen providing no surprises or turning events (such as Monaco's heir disgraceful comment on Madrid's security during the 2012 voting):

Chicago will be the first one to go down. Atlanta '96 and Salt Lake City '04 do not set a good precedent at all for the US in hosting the Olympics. Vancouver is getting the 2010 Winter Games, so that definitely does not play in favour of the Windy city, if we take the continental rotation seriously. They do have a great project (as all four bidding cities), support from the government and the intangible value of Obama's support as well as the influence of the major sponsors which, at the end of the day, are the ones that put the money on top of the table. That's probably why usually there's always a major US city in the final bidding process. Still, the US has to go a long way in proving their ability to host the games properly, and that's why NYC got kicked out first in the vote for the 2012 games.

Rio will be next. I know Brazil is a country perfectly capable of hosting them, and Rio would make wonderful games out of it. Proof of it is their strong bidding for 2016. But the Olympics requires zero risk taking. It's not a matter of financing or security, it's a matter of organisation and co-ordination: something that takes a few big events to build up on. And Brazil has never hosted a major sports event with an international repercussion. However, it is clear that in forthcoming years a new group of countries will start hosting major world events. And proof of that has been the Beijing Olympics, as well as the World Cup in South Africa. So, if by the next voting session, the World Cup in South Africa has been a success and by the looks of the building and organisation of the World Cup in Brazil the former seems of equal standard, Rio will undoubtedly be my personal favourite and, if presented with a good bid, will surely be the first choice for IOC members.

The final round will be between Madrid and Tokyo and here, to be honest, things can be pretty unpredictable. Both have strong bids and have the same weaknesses: Tokyo has already hosted the games, and Beijing is too close. Madrid has never hosted the games, but London and Barcelona (and one could say Sochi, although Russia can count as Asia too) are too close as well. Considering the technicalities of the project, Madrid should probably come first. Regarding geo-politics, Spain should be granted the support from most of Europe and Latin America, and that should be enough to beat Tokyo. London won the battle over Paris thanks to Anglo-Saxon dominance over the French-speaking world. Japan has a strong influence, but Spanish and Latin culture are up. And, most importantly Spain's influence in the sports world is way above that of Japan's. There are many former athletes amongst the IOC, so it is something to be taken into account. Be it football, basketball, tennis, athletics or even non-olympic sports such as F1, MotoGP or even golf, Spain has over the last few years put itself on top on many occasions. Spanish names have increasingly been are all over the place in sports news. It takes me some time to think of any Japanese sportsman or women in the top charts.

The IOC is, after all, a private organisation that responds to no-one. They do not have any duties to keep a continent rotation or to satisfy anyone. They will vote out of their own interest, and that is, hosting a new successful Olympiad. Sydney won over Beijing because China didn't offer 100% guarantees in 1993 but it did in 2001 and they won. Madrid will most likely win because of that same reason: it offers a unparalleled guarantee of success given the strong support and outstanding technical qualities of the bid. It's eco-friendly, compact like Tokyo's boosting very appealing facilities. And it has never hosted them before.

[Rob2012]

Having just spotted this website and having skim read through comments in this post, here are some thoughts:

-London, whilst not being the strongest candidate managed to pull the games in 2012 thanks to great lobbying from it's former PM, Tony Blair. The USA, with Obama, is more likely to receive friendly smiles from IOC members than in 2012 and that should be positive. However, the prospects of a strong Latin American bid are likely to pull off very much appreciated support from less powerful countries in Africa and Latin America since it opens the prospect of more developing countries hosting such events.

It may have that effect, but a Rio victory would mean a developing country would almost certainly not get 2020. This might mean African votes aren't so certain for Rio.

-The global economic crisis will also be given consideration. The IOC cannot afford to take risks, so properly financed (and most importantly, party-built) bids will come in strongly. Tokyo and Madrid, with great government support will be favoured. Chicago on the other hand, which relies heavily on private donations and corporate sponsoring, is likely to be seen as more weak.

Agreed. Though I'm unsure whether this will be a massive weakness.

Chicago will be the first one to go down. Atlanta '96 and Salt Lake City '04 do not set a good precedent at all for the US in hosting the Olympics. Vancouver is getting the 2010 Winter Games, so that definitely does not play in favour of the Windy city, if we take the continental rotation seriously. They do have a great project (as all four bidding cities), support from the government and the intangible value of Obama's support as well as the influence of the major sponsors which, at the end of the day, are the ones that put the money on top of the table. That's probably why usually there's always a major US city in the final bidding process. Still, the US has to go a long way in proving their ability to host the games properly, and that's why NYC got kicked out first in the vote for the 2012 games.

1. They were knocked out in the second vote, not the first

2. It wasn't because of a belief that the USA can't host properly; it was more due to their stadium project falling through at the last minute. That was a local issue to that particular bid and not an indictement of the US' ability as a whole.

3. Atlanta was a while ago now and has an unfair press in many parts. The Salt Lake scandal was obviously a problem, but the games themselves were succesful, and they were in '02 by the way.

Rio will be next. I know Brazil is a country perfectly capable of hosting them, and Rio would make wonderful games out of it. Proof of it is their strong bidding for 2016. But the Olympics requires zero risk taking. It's not a matter of financing or security, it's a matter of organisation and co-ordination: something that takes a few big events to build up on. And Brazil has never hosted a major sports event with an international repercussion. However, it is clear that in forthcoming years a new group of countries will start hosting major world events. And proof of that has been the Beijing Olympics, as well as the World Cup in South Africa. So, if by the next voting session, the World Cup in South Africa has been a success and by the looks of the building and organisation of the World Cup in Brazil the former seems of equal standard, Rio will undoubtedly be my personal favourite and, if presented with a good bid, will surely be the first choice for IOC members.

Agree to an extent. If the IOC want a low-risk games they won't choose Rio. But who knows what they want. However, the next vote is in 2013, a year before their world cup. If the IOC want to wait to see Brazil organise a World Cup it'll be 2024 before Rio gets the games.

I actually think the World Cup will be a bigger factor than most believe, and it will hurt Rio's bid because the IOC will want Rio 2016 to be the focus for Brazil if they are given the right to host.

The final round will be between Madrid and Tokyo and here, to be honest, things can be pretty unpredictable. Both have strong bids and have the same weaknesses: Tokyo has already hosted the games, and Beijing is too close. Madrid has never hosted the games, but London and Barcelona (and one could say Sochi, although Russia can count as Asia too) are too close as well. Considering the technicalities of the project, Madrid should probably come first. Regarding geo-politics, Spain should be granted the support from most of Europe and Latin America, and that should be enough to beat Tokyo. London won the battle over Paris thanks to Anglo-Saxon dominance over the French-speaking world. Japan has a strong influence, but Spanish and Latin culture are up. And, most importantly Spain's influence in the sports world is way above that of Japan's. There are many former athletes amongst the IOC, so it is something to be taken into account. Be it football, basketball, tennis, athletics or even non-olympic sports such as F1, MotoGP or even golf, Spain has over the last few years put itself on top on many occasions. Spanish names have increasingly been are all over the place in sports news. It takes me some time to think of any Japanese sportsman or women in the top charts.

The IOC is, after all, a private organisation that responds to no-one. They do not have any duties to keep a continent rotation or to satisfy anyone. They will vote out of their own interest, and that is, hosting a new successful Olympiad. Sydney won over Beijing because China didn't offer 100% guarantees in 1993 but it did in 2001 and they won. Madrid will most likely win because of that same reason: it offers a unparalleled guarantee of success given the strong support and outstanding technical qualities of the bid. It's eco-friendly, compact like Tokyo's boosting very appealing facilities. And it has never hosted them before.

That's some prediction. Madrid are long shots with all the bookies..

It's interesting that you think the Latin vote will be such a decisive factor yet think Rio will go out early. It's also interesting that you think anglo-saxon dominance won it for London yet will wane when it comes to Chicago four year later. It's also intrguing that you think Vancouver doesn't play well for the Windy City, yet think London and Sochi won't prevent Madrid from winning.

Welcome to the forum by the way. Very interesting first post; I disagree with your conclusions but it's nice to read some thoughtful analysis rather than some of the more nationalistic nonsense most first time posters come out with.

[baron-pierreIV]

Having just spotted this website and having skim read through comments in this post, here are some thoughts:

-London, whilst not being the strongest candidate managed to pull the games in 2012 thanks to great lobbying from it's former PM, Tony Blair. The USA, with Obama, is more likely to receive friendly smiles from IOC members than in 2012 and that should be positive. However, the prospects of a strong Latin American bid are likely to pull off very much appreciated support from less powerful countries in Africa and Latin America since it opens the prospect of more developing countries hosting such events.

-The fact Madrid is the only European bid should benefit primarily the Spanish city, with the vast majority of the 42 European IOC members being able to vote unlike in the 2012 Olympics where French and British members (which are quite a few) were unable to vote.

-The global economic crisis will also be given consideration. The IOC cannot afford to take risks, so properly financed (and most importantly, party-built) bids will come in strongly. Tokyo and Madrid, with great government support will be favoured. Chicago on the other hand, which relies heavily on private donations and corporate sponsoring, is likely to be seen as more weak.

And this is what will happen providing no surprises or turning events (such as Monaco's heir disgraceful comment on Madrid's security during the 2012 voting):

Chicago will be the first one to go down. Atlanta '96 and Salt Lake City '04 do not set a good precedent at all for the US in hosting the Olympics. Vancouver is getting the 2010 Winter Games, so that definitely does not play in favour of the Windy city, if we take the continental rotation seriously. They do have a great project (as all four bidding cities), support from the government and the intangible value of Obama's support as well as the influence of the major sponsors which, at the end of the day, are the ones that put the money on top of the table. That's probably why usually there's always a major US city in the final bidding process. Still, the US has to go a long way in proving their ability to host the games properly, and that's why NYC got kicked out first in the vote for the 2012 games.

Rio will be next. I know Brazil is a country perfectly capable of hosting them, and Rio would make wonderful games out of it. Proof of it is their strong bidding for 2016. But the Olympics requires zero risk taking. It's not a matter of financing or security, it's a matter of organisation and co-ordination: something that takes a few big events to build up on. And Brazil has never hosted a major sports event with an international repercussion. However, it is clear that in forthcoming years a new group of countries will start hosting major world events. And proof of that has been the Beijing Olympics, as well as the World Cup in South Africa. So, if by the next voting session, the World Cup in South Africa has been a success and by the looks of the building and organisation of the World Cup in Brazil the former seems of equal standard, Rio will undoubtedly be my personal favourite and, if presented with a good bid, will surely be the first choice for IOC members.

The final round will be between Madrid and Tokyo and here, to be honest, things can be pretty unpredictable. Both have strong bids and have the same weaknesses: Tokyo has already hosted the games, and Beijing is too close. Madrid has never hosted the games, but London and Barcelona (and one could say Sochi, although Russia can count as Asia too) are too close as well. Considering the technicalities of the project, Madrid should probably come first. Regarding geo-politics, Spain should be granted the support from most of Europe and Latin America, and that should be enough to beat Tokyo. London won the battle over Paris thanks to Anglo-Saxon dominance over the French-speaking world. Japan has a strong influence, but Spanish and Latin culture are up. And, most importantly Spain's influence in the sports world is way above that of Japan's. There are many former athletes amongst the IOC, so it is something to be taken into account. Be it football, basketball, tennis, athletics or even non-olympic sports such as F1, MotoGP or even golf, Spain has over the last few years put itself on top on many occasions. Spanish names have increasingly been are all over the place in sports news. It takes me some time to think of any Japanese sportsman or women in the top charts.

The IOC is, after all, a private organisation that responds to no-one. They do not have any duties to keep a continent rotation or to satisfy anyone. They will vote out of their own interest, and that is, hosting a new successful Olympiad. Sydney won over Beijing because China didn't offer 100% guarantees in 1993 but it did in 2001 and they won. Madrid will most likely win because of that same reason: it offers a unparalleled guarantee of success given the strong support and outstanding technical qualities of the bid. It's eco-friendly, compact like Tokyo's boosting very appealing facilities. And it has never hosted them before.

Uh-huh. And you didn't learn anything after reading thru our posts?

You said Atlanta '96, Salt Lake it's '02 - and Vancouver '10. Well, what about Athens 04, Torino '06, London '12 and Sochi '14? Right there you almost FIVE Olympics in a row in Europe, hmmmmmmmmm?? And they will pick Madrid again? What sort of message as an INTERNATIONAL body does that send? Madrid's strength? What about Paris, Berlin, Prague, Budapest who might want to line up for 2020 or 2024? Certainly they won't be supporting a Madrid bid because that would mean putting off their dreams as well?

BTW, welcome to the board. But the going can get rough here sometimes.

[M_O_S]

It may have that effect, but a Rio victory would mean a developing country would almost certainly not get 2020. This might mean African votes aren't so certain for Rio.

But it will set a precedent, which is much needed. If Rio comes out successfully, then bids from cities like Istanbul which have been trying to host them for years will become more plausible. Obviously its on a long term perspective, but still.

1. They were knocked out in the second vote, not the first

2. It wasn't because of a belief that the USA can't host properly; it was more due to their stadium project falling through at the last minute. That was a local issue to that particular bid and not an indictement of the US' ability as a whole.

3. Atlanta was a while ago now and has an unfair press in many parts. The Salt Lake scandal was obviously a problem, but the games themselves were succesful, and they were in '02 by the way.

Thanks for the corrections

In any case I still think that the US' reputation in organising big events is not as good as it was back a few years ago. The NY problem might have been particular to that bid, but it can still be used to prove that same point.

Agree to an extent. If the IOC want a low-risk games they won't choose Rio. But who knows what they want. However, the next vote is in 2013, a year before their world cup. If the IOC want to wait to see Brazil organise a World Cup it'll be 2024 before Rio gets the games.

I actually think the World Cup will be a bigger factor than most believe, and it will hurt Rio's bid because the IOC will want Rio 2016 to be the focus for Brazil if they are given the right to host.

But the next voting will be after South Africa's World Cup, which will give the IOC a taste of how an upcoming country manages a big event, especially regarding security which is a large concern both in SA and in Brazil. If SA's World Cup is a success, Rio's chances will be greater even if Brazil hasn't hosted theirs yet.

About the focus you do have an interesting point there, and I believe it is fairly grounded. Maybe managing two big projects is too much for the IOC.

That's some prediction. Madrid are long shots with all the bookies..

It's interesting that you think the Latin vote will be such a decisive factor yet think Rio will go out early. It's also interesting that you think anglo-saxon dominance won it for London yet will wane when it comes to Chicago four year later. It's also intrguing that you think Vancouver doesn't play well for the Windy City, yet think London and Sochi won't prevent Madrid from winning.

Welcome to the forum by the way. Very interesting first post; I disagree with your conclusions but it's nice to read some thoughtful analysis rather than some of the more nationalistic nonsense most first time posters come out with.

The Latin vote is not that big (21 members I think), and whilst it won't make much of a difference in the first round of voting where votes are more spread out, it can have an edge in the final rounds.

Chicago will lobby hard, I'm sure of that, but as I said before, there is only one European candidate city compared to 4 (although you could argue Moscow, being Russia such a huge country is a bit special and can count as Asian as well), which gives Europe more importance in the overall voting. And Europe, except the British Isles, is not as likely to vote for Chicago, at least in the first round. All this bearing in mind IOC stick to cultural and political issues, which they not always do.

Vancouver plays as bad for Chicago as London does for Madrid. Sochi I think does not count as strongly, since Russia is not seen as Europe in all parts of the world even though it's capital sits on the European Plain.

Thanks for the welcome, it's a pleasure

[M_O_S]

Uh-huh. And you didn't learn anything after reading thru our posts?

You said Atlanta '96, Salt Lake it's '02 - and Vancouver '10. Well, what about Athens 04, Torino '06, London '12 and Sochi '14? Right there you almost FIVE Olympics in a row in Europe, hmmmmmmmmm?? And they will pick Madrid again? R u crazy or what?

Athens was a decision made out of politics rather than bid at all. The Greeks wanted the '96 Olympics to celebrate the Centenary of the Modern Olympiad but got raped by the US. They finally got it in 2004 and had to rush it-and rush it really bad- in order to make the deadline. They were still very good Olympics (the Calatrava stadium is beautiful) but, being honest, they didn't have to fight for it at all. Proof of that is that they came first in every round of voting by a comfortable margin.

You are right about Turin. But then again all the cities in the bid where in Europe anyways.

London is probably the biggest threat to Madrid (or to any other European city for that matter).

About Sochi, I've already said that Russia is not only in Europe and stretches all the way to Asia. If, say, Vladivostok had been selected for the winter games, it would be a few thousand miles from Tokyo yet still in Russia.

[baron-pierreIV]

The Latin vote is not that big (21 members I think),

WIth Brazil's 2 IOC members, South America has 7 votes as we speak today. But the two Brazilian members CANNOT vote while Rio is in the running. So that's really just 5 votes from South America. You don't know how the 2 Mexican votes will go.

[M_O_S]

but then again all the cities in the bid were in Europe anyway.*

[Rafa]

Some IOC members want low risk Games.

The rest want splashy, luxury, free goodies, sparkling venues Games.

This is an IOC member vote, not an IOC executive commission vote.

You watch the presentations, choose the prettiest and hit a button.

[M_O_S]

WIth Brazil's 2 IOC members, South America has 7 votes as we speak today. But the two Brazilian members CANNOT vote while Rio is in the running. So that's really just 5 votes from South America. You don't know how the 2 Mexican votes will go.

Only 7? I thought there'd be more.

[baron-pierreIV]

Athens was a decision made out of politics rather than bid at all. The Greeks wanted the '96 Olympics to celebrate the Centenary of the Modern Olympiad but got raped by the US. They finally got it in 2004 and had to rush it-and rush it really bad- in order to make the deadline. They were still very good Olympics (the Calatrava stadium is beautiful) but, being honest, they didn't have to fight for it at all. Proof of that is that they came first in every round of voting by a comfortable margin.

You are right about Turin. But then again all the cities in the bid where in Europe anyways.

Well, regardless, Athens is still in Europe. 2004 wasn't going to be handed to Athens on a silver platter.

You do know that the IOC had to get a separate flame secretly from Olympia in 1984 and have that as a back-up flame because the Greeks were playing prima donna with Los Angeles 1984 regarding the flame. And since there is an authentic Olympia-originated flame now in Lausanne, the Greeks can't hold any future organizing comittee hostage insofar as the whole Flame megillah as they tried to do with LA.

My point here is that the IOC doesn't regard Athens or Greece any more special than any other NOC in good standing. So Athens' 1997 win was legitimate, and remember the runner-up was Rome, so in either case, 2004 would've been a European-Mediterranean turn regardless.

About Sochi, I've already said that Russia is not only in Europe and stretches all the way to Asia. If, say, Vladivostok had been selected for the winter games, it would be a few thousand miles from Tokyo yet still in Russia.

Even if geographically Sochi sits on the eastern doorstep of Europe, it will still be a Euro-Russian Games. Do you think the powers that be in Moscow will have it any othe way? And which of Russia's Asiatic athletes will excel in the Winter sports? None. Gone are the Nelli Kims. It's the Euro-Russian athletes that are being developed and will shine -- and that will be the slant of those Games.

[baron-pierreIV]

Only 7? I thought there'd be more.

See Soaring Higher's original post at the top of this thread. He broke it down continent by continent.

[M_O_S]

Well, regardless, Athens is still in Europe. 2004 wasn't going to be handed to Athens on a silver platter.

You do know that the IOC had to get a separate flame secretly from Olympia in 1984 and have that as a back-up flame because the Greeks were playing prima donna with Los Angeles 1984 regarding the flame. And since there is an authentic Olympia-originated flame now in Lausanne, the Greeks can't hold any future organizing comittee hostage insofar as the whole Flame megillah as they tried to do with LA.

My point here is that the IOC doesn't regard Athens or Greece any more special than any other NOC in good standing. So Athens' 1997 win was legitimate, and remember the runner-up was Rome, so in either case, 2004 would've been a European-Mediterranean turn regardless.

They did present a good bid, I'm not underestimating that. But I still believe the IOC had to pay their dues somehow. About the 1984 flame thing, I didn't know! To be honest I wasn't even born back then!

[M_O_S]

See Soaring Higher's original post at the top of this thread. He broke it down continent by continent.

I would still include Cuba as Latin America still, with very strong ties with Spain in any case. I don't know if Puerto Rico is pegged to the US and hence does not vote.

[baron-pierreIV]

I would still include Cuba as Latin America still, with very strong ties with Spain in any case. I don't know if Puerto Rico is pegged to the US and hence does not vote.

Cuba has 2 IOC members. You just don't know how they will vote. They could even split - Madrid and Rio. And they wouldn't necessarily go for Spain either. Sending their delegation to Chicago would be cheaper for them than sending them to Madrid or Rio.

2016 is the Americas' turn.

My predictions:

first round - Madrid out

2nd round - Tokyo out

it will be close between Rio and Chicago. But TV fees will then kick in for the closing round.

[Soaring]

Welcome to the boards M O S. While I can see some of your points, I clearly disagree with many of them.

First, you make it sound like Rio is more capable of hosting than Chicago. With all due respect to Rio, there only bell weather is the Pan Ams, which went OK, but are no where near the scale of a SOG, and it had its problems.

Sure, Atlanta does not stand out as a wildly regarded Games, but it was financially sound.

Now I truly do believe it can be anyone's game, but every scenario I run through my mind, Madrid is out first.

[ChiTown16]

Welcome to the boards M O S. While I can see some of your points, I clearly disagree with many of them.

First, you make it sound like Rio is more capable of hosting than Chicago. With all due respect to Rio, there only bell weather is the Pan Ams, which went OK, but are no where near the scale of a SOG, and it had its problems.

Sure, Atlanta does not stand out as a wildly regarded Games, but it was financially sound.

Now I truly do believe it can be anyone's game, but every scenario I run through my mind, Madrid is out first.

By the way, Chicago has also hosted the third Pan-Am Games (1959):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_American_Games

and started the Special Olympics movement in 1968:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Olympics

addressing the talents of non-mainstream athletes and has hosted the opening games of the 1994 World Cup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_FIFA_World_Cup

if we're judging cities based on whether they've successfully hosted global sporting events before.

CHItown '16

[Rafa]

Cuba has 2 IOC members. You just don't know how they will vote. They could even split - Madrid and Rio. And they wouldn't necessarily go for Spain either. Sending their delegation to Chicago would be cheaper for them than sending them to Madrid or Rio.

2016 is the Americas' turn.

My predictions:

first round - Madrid out

2nd round - Tokyo out

it will be close between Rio and Chicago. But TV fees will then kick in for the closing round.

I think Tokyo will bow out first.

Then a shock...Rio bows out.

Chicago narrowly defeats Madrid 53-51

[Soaring]

I think Tokyo will bow out first.

Then a shock...Rio bows out.

Chicago narrowly defeats Madrid 53-51

To be honest, I could see that happening too. It seems like expectations don't always fair well in the round voting with the IOC. Madrid received surprisingly high votes in some rounds for 2012. I am also surprised that 19 people still voted for New York in the first round, even though their stadium plan failed, and sentiment against the U.S. was high, and it was even closer to SLC and Atlanta (I wouldn't have even voted for NYC).

[M_O_S]

Welcome to the boards M O S. While I can see some of your points, I clearly disagree with many of them.

First, you make it sound like Rio is more capable of hosting than Chicago. With all due respect to Rio, there only bell weather is the Pan Ams, which went OK, but are no where near the scale of a SOG, and it had its problems.

Sure, Atlanta does not stand out as a wildly regarded Games, but it was financially sound.

Now I truly do believe it can be anyone's game, but every scenario I run through my mind, Madrid is out first.

To be honest, I could see that happening too. It seems like expectations don't always fair well in the round voting with the IOC. Madrid received surprisingly high votes in some rounds for 2012. I am also surprised that 19 people still voted for New York in the first round, even though their stadium plan failed, and sentiment against the U.S. was high, and it was even closer to SLC and Atlanta (I wouldn't have even voted for NYC).

I honestly regard the four cities equally capable of hosting the games. The four cities surely have their problems, but overall I think, like it happened with the 2012 bidding, it is going to be very competitive- probably more than some people think.

When the IOC report comes out, and assuming there's no last minute surprises, I expect Madrid to be in the highest position with Tokyo not far way. Chicago will be third and Rio will come out last. Although I don't think the differences between scores are going to be very big. And as London demonstrated in 2012, the IOC report might well have zero influence.

Chicago and Rio, at least theoretically, hold the biggest chance of hosting the games since Asia and Europe have had their fair set of games over the last few years. But I think that, when it comes to lobbying in Copenhagen it's Madrid and Chicago that will lead the way. Madrid because of it's experience and familiarity with members (remember that many IOC members are not even sports people but royal personalities-and that's why the Royal House of Spain with the King and Queen in front is leading Madrid's bid delegation), Spain's increasing lead in sports and, of course, Samaranch. Chicago has Obama and the big multinationals.

Nevertheless, as I already exposed in my first post, voting is going to be very spread out in the first round and there 1 or 2 votes can make a difference. support for Tokyo and Madrid should be stable and the fight, in my opinion, is going to be in the Americas. And that's why I eliminated Chicago first, because I believe that the US is not going to be able to pull off enough votes because of Rio, which has a much broader appeal to developing countries which make up a big chunk of the IOC. However, once Chicago is out, all those that voted for it will not vote for Rio if they want to keep an American bid alive for 2020. That will pull out Rio. After that, the difference between Madrid and Tokyo might not be very high but it will still be enough. My scenario is obviously one of infinite possibilities but I know that Madrid will pull it out to the last voting round and will win.

In any case, it's fair as well to say Madrid will not make it pass the first round, since it's very unlikely that European members will want yet another set of games in their continent. But I'm sure the lobbying will make it's way through and enough support will be gathered both by Tokyo and Madrid to pass that deadly first round.

[Rob2012]

Your comparisons to 2012 are interesting and have exposed a point I hadn't thought of before.

Back then I had personal interest in that my home city was bidding so I was much less detached from the whole process. Nevertheless, it was generally expected that Moscow would bow out first and, after NYC's stadium plan began to look shaky, I think most thought they'd be out next. I suspect even those cities' bid teams expected that to happen although they remained optimistic. And so it transpired.

The calibre of the cities this time may not be the very top like London, NYC and Paris (that's not meant as an insult to any of them; 2012 was truly exceptional) but we will be shocked whoever bows out first - as will the losing city's bid team and citizens. It will, to the losing city (assuming we don't have a winner in the first round), feel like a hell of a snub.

[Soaring]

Yes, if Chicago is out first, I will be very upset. I do think this should be an Americas battle, but Madrid and Tokyo have the right to be in the fight as well.

[Rafa]

Rio have Mike Lee. They will definitely be lobbying, perhaps even "Blairing" the night or 2 before the announcement.

[bh7812]

I still think this is going to come down to Chicago vs Rio. Although we have no way of knowing how the voting is going to pan out, the general consensus I'm reading is saying Madrid will be out 1st and Tokyo second. I am leaning toward that scenario. I honestly think Madrid is a place holder-although they have a hell of an impressive bid. All 4 are totally capable of pulling off and hosting it but I have a feeling it's gonna be either Chicago or Rio. I just had a dream the other night about the announcement and Chicago was picked. I have an odd knack for having dreams about things that eventually end up happening so maybe it'll pan out. Regardless of which one ends up winning it's not going to be by many votes.

We shall see, just under 5 months to go until the vote It's going to be fiercely competitive right up until Oct 2nd and all 4 cities get to make their last presentations to the IOC. I suspect by then a lot of minds will be made up though.

Could one city get all 60 votes right away and be the winner or is this designed so that it's narrowed down to 2 and decided from there?

[Soaring]

I find it highly unlikely that this would be wrapped up in the first round. Even Beijing went to two rounds, and everyone knew they were going to win. But yes, if a city received 60 or so votes, only one round would be necessary. SLC won in the first round.