What City Will Receive More African Votes?

[Felipe Menegaz]

In the last elections, the votes from Africa were decisive. Today, what city tends to get the African votes?

[Felipe Menegaz]

This is the 500th topic for General 2016 Summer Olympic Bid ! One more topic for the last days until the final decision.

[Sir Rols]

The trouble with topics such as these, or pondering who the Europeans, or the Asians, or the Latins etc will vote, is that it assumes these groups will vote in blocs.

In reality, there are, what is it?, 113 or so individual IOC Delegates who will all vote for their own individual reasons and idiosyncracies.

Yeah, sure, some might vote on “cultural” ground, others purely on “technical” grounds, some for sympathy, some might get swept up by campaigning, lobbying or the final presentations, some might vote purely for commercial considerations (broadcast and sponsorship reasons).

There’s just so many factors. Pure cultural blocs might only be worth half a dozen of votes for any bidder (which, admittedly, is enough to mean the difference between winning and losing) and any bid city needs such a basic foundation of supporters, but the fun of observing these bid races is weighing-up and considering all these various factors – and then just basically try and make informed guesses.

[baron-pierreIV]

With President Obama there, CHicago of course.

Why should they vote Rio? That'll kill a CapeTown 2020.

Why should they vote Madrid? They know that Spaniards have harrassed black football players.

Why Tokyo? They hate sushi!!

[lucas_leobas]

With President Obama there, CHicago of course.

Why should they vote Rio? That'll kill a CapeTown 2020.

Why should they vote Madrid? They know that Spaniards have harrassed black football players.

Why Tokyo? They hate sushi!!

"Africans are black, Obama is black and supports Chicago, so Africans will vote for Chicago". Sorry, this seems way too simple. I hope you are showcasing your typical irony here

[baron-pierreIV]

"Africans are black, Obama is black and supports Chicago, so Africans will vote for Chicago". Sorry, this seems way too simple. I hope you are showcasing your typical irony here

It's NOT that. If you will give them more CREDIT, if they want the Games in their continent in 2020, then they should think that 2016 should not go to another southern hemisphere city. Duh!!

[Felipe Menegaz]

It's NOT that. If you will give them more CREDIT, if they want the Games in their continent in 2020, then they should think that 2016 should not go to another southern hemisphere city. Duh!!

As well as they hate SUSHI!

[Rob2012]

Copied from another thread, but here are my thoughts on this.

I'd generally agree with Rols, they won't vote as a bloc and may have a multitude of reasons. But, that said, I think a lot of their votes could go to Chicago. And Obama is not my reason for thinking this, Cape Town 2020 is:

1) If Chicago wins it removes the USA from the 2020 race. This would be a huge boost to Cape Town 2020 as a Chicago failure for 2016 would make America the hot favourite for 2020, especially if Tokyo or Madrid are the eventual 2016 victors.

2) Voting Chicago is the most likely way of preventing Rio winning 2016. The IOC won't risk two developing nations in a row, especially if by the IOC session in 2013 it looks like Rio is struggling with its preparations. So African members hoping Cape Town has a chance in 2020 won't want to see Rio win 2016; it would all but kill off their continent's chances.

3) A Chicago victory would weaken a repeat Rio bid in 2020 more than a Tokyo or Madrid victory would. This is purely because of timezones. Cape Town won't want to bid against a strong "new frontier" such as a second Rio bid; but if they have to they'll want that bid to be out of sync with the IOC's unwritten rotation cycles. The USA, because of its power and money, could follow South America but I can't see it happening the other way around.

I'd suggest a sensible and fruitful strategy for Chicago would be to subtly point out what Africa has to lose by voting Rio, and what it has to gain by voting Chicago. Cape Town 2020 isn't unrealistic if Chicago wins (esecially if, as looks likely, South Africa pulls off a good world cup). It is unrealistic if Rio wins. I don't think it'll take much persuasion, and I think Chicago could pick up most of the African votes because of this simple fact.

[DannyelBrazil]

If Chicago wins, forget Rio de Janeiro until 2028...

[Rob2012]

But if African delegates think that gives them a good chance of Cape Town getting 2020, why should they care about that Danny?

[Cinderella]

Copied from another thread, but here are my thoughts on this.

I'd generally agree with Rols, they won't vote as a bloc and may have a multitude of reasons. But, that said, I think a lot of their votes could go to Chicago. And Obama is not my reason for thinking this, Cape Town 2020 is:

1) If Chicago wins it removes the USA from the 2020 race. This would be a huge boost to Cape Town 2020 as a Chicago failure for 2016 would make America the hot favourite for 2020, especially if Tokyo or Madrid are the eventual 2016 victors.

2) Voting Chicago is the most likely way of preventing Rio winning 2016. The IOC won't risk two developing nations in a row, especially if by the IOC session in 2013 it looks like Rio is struggling with its preparations. So African members hoping Cape Town has a chance in 2020 won't want to see Rio win 2016; it would all but kill off their continent's chances.

3) A Chicago victory would weaken a repeat Rio bid in 2020 more than a Tokyo or Madrid victory would. This is purely because of timezones. Cape Town won't want to bid against a strong "new frontier" such as a second Rio bid; but if they have to they'll want that bid to be out of sync with the IOC's unwritten rotation cycles. The USA, because of its power and money, could follow South America but I can't see it happening the other way around.

I'd suggest a sensible and fruitful strategy for Chicago would be to subtly point out what Africa has to lose by voting Rio, and what it has to gain by voting Chicago. Cape Town 2020 isn't unrealistic if Chicago wins (esecially if, as looks likely, South Africa pulls off a good world cup). It is unrealistic if Rio wins. I don't think it'll take much persuasion, and I think Chicago could pick up most of the African votes because of this simple fact.

I've stated it on the "Who will vote Madrid" topic and I fully agree with you. Nevertheless, "voting Chicago is the most likely way of preventing Rio winning 2016" is just a thought to discuss deeply. The sooner they eliminate Rio on the ballot, the better chances Cape Town has for 2020. And this will happen earlier if they vote for a bid that has bigger chances of failing in the first round (Tokyo or Madrid). Chicago is just unlikely to fall on the first round, and the contenders for Rio are the other two, so Africans will know that and will vote accordingly.

There's always been a strong sympathy vote for the European bids coming from Africa, and Madrid (although what Baron unfairly stated) has always been a second home for several African countries. I don't see either that the fact of Obama being black will get the block voting from Africa. Is kinda racist thinking this way.

[DannyelBrazil]

But if African delegates think that gives them a good chance of Cape Town getting 2020, why should they care about that Danny?

I'm sorry, my comment wasn't about African voters... Just a thought... If Chicago wins now, Rio should not bid to 2020 and 2024...

[Rob2012]

Oh ok, that's fair enough.

[NYCD 2012]

I always thought Rio would have the edge when it came to Africa. Sort of a exchange of votes between South America & Africa for 2020, just like BA & Cape Town back in 1997.

[Soaring]

Now when you say Africa, I assume you are not including North African IOC delegates from Morocco, Algeria and Egypt?

I agree that voting for Chicago ensures South Africa the strongest chance for landing the 2020 Games, but I do not feel taking Obama completely out of the equation is a realistic view. I think it is more of a combination of 2020 and Obama appeal. I think many would feel proud to be able to vote for a son of an African immigrant.

At the end of the day these delegates should say to themselves... "Do I want my continent to be the last to host an Olympics?" Sure, South America (and even Brazil for that matter) economically would seem to be in a better position than Africa as a whole, but I support South Africa over Brazil.

Maybe its because I have been there. Also, maybe its because they have overcome so much adversity, and I think it would be a great symbol to the world.

[Felipe Menegaz]

Copied from another thread, but here are my thoughts on this.

I'd generally agree with Rols, they won't vote as a bloc and may have a multitude of reasons. But, that said, I think a lot of their votes could go to Chicago. And Obama is not my reason for thinking this, Cape Town 2020 is:

1) If Chicago wins it removes the USA from the 2020 race. This would be a huge boost to Cape Town 2020 as a Chicago failure for 2016 would make America the hot favourite for 2020, especially if Tokyo or Madrid are the eventual 2016 victors.

No Future U.S. Olympic Bids, For Now – USOC CEO

[Rob2012]

"there will be absolutely no consideration of any future bids - winter or summer - from the U.S. while Chicago is on the international stage."

That's absolutely not the same as saying there will be no 2020 bid from the US. I expect, if Chicago loses, USOC will move on and start looking towards 2020, but they can't admit that now. They have to back their horse and keep both eyes firmly fixed on the finish line.

But if Chicago does lose the US would be crazy not to bid for 2020, as the pressure for a games in the US will only keep building.

So, my point about Chicago winning, removing the USA from 2020 and therefore giving Cape Town a better chance, still stands.

[Felipe Menegaz]

"there will be absolutely no consideration of any future bids - winter or summer - from the U.S. while Chicago is on the international stage."

That's absolutely not the same as saying there will be no 2020 bid from the US. I expect, if Chicago loses, USOC will move on and start looking towards 2020, but they can't admit that now. They have to back their horse and keep both eyes firmly fixed on the finish line.

But if Chicago does lose the US would be crazy not to bid for 2020, as the pressure for a games in the US will only keep building.

So, my point about Chicago winning, removing the USA from 2020 and therefore giving Cape Town a better chance, still stands.

Ooops...

[Kenadian]

The only people that vote are the IOC and they report to no one but themselves. There is absolutely nothing to prevent them from voting for Rio one year and then Cape Town (or Buenos Aires or Montevideo or even London or Beijing) four years later. It is just consensus that says that it is highly unlikely to have back to back games in a "new frontier" or on the same continent. But there is no steadfast rule in the IOC charter or in any official IOC policy that says anything remotely like that.

[Soaring]

^^^ ummm, no one said that, but come on, it is obvious that it would be a hurdle.

Plus does the IOC want be seen as FIFA in reverse? I think not.

[baron-pierreIV]

^^^ ummm, no one said that, but come on, it is obvious that it would be a hurdle.

Plus does the IOC want be seen as FIFA in reverse? I think not.

Exactly. There will be a lot of backroom horse-trading here before Oct 2.

[ken]

Consider this: Chicago wins 2016.

South Africa decides to bid for 2020 with Cape Town or Durban.

Will it be easy for them to get it?

Maybe you have Kyoto, Istanbul, a major European city, say Paris, and an Arabic country running.

If there is another new frontier this argument could not be used by S.Africa.

Can South Africa leave behind all the poverty and social issues Rio's bid is facing?

I tend to think Brazil is more of a heavy weight compared to S.Africa and S.America represents a more logical step; that is, differently from the very political FIFA decision, I don't see Africa (excluding Meditarranean area) hosting a SOG before S.America.

Put in this way, Africa could profit from a well staged SOG in another develping country first.

Anyway, there are lots of "if's" in what I've just said - it's all conjectures.

But my point is saying Africans wouldn't vote for Rio because it would weaken them in the future is not so obvious to me.

Probably 2020 would be almost impossible for S.Africa if Rio gets 2016. But for 2024 S.Africa could have a much stronger case - just a matter of waiting the right time.

But again, just a few thoughts.

[baron-pierreIV]

Consider this: Chicago wins 2016.

South Africa decides to bid for 2020 with Cape Town or Durban.

Will it be easy for them to get it?

Maybe you have Kyoto, Istanbul, a major European city, say Paris, and an Arabic country running.

If there is another new frontier this argument could not be used by S.Africa.

Can South Africa leave behind all the poverty and social issues Rio's bid is facing?

I tend to think Brazil is more of a heavy weight compared to S.Africa and S.America represents a more logical step; that is, differently from the very political FIFA decision, I don't see Africa (excluding Meditarranean area) hosting a SOG before S.America.

Put in this way, Africa could profit from a well staged SOG in another develping country first.

Anyway, there are lots of "if's" in what I've just said - it's all conjectures.

But my point is saying Africans wouldn't vote for Rio because it would weaken them in the future is not so obvious to me.

Probably 2020 would be almost impossible for S.Africa if Rio gets 2016. But for 2024 S.Africa could have a much stronger case - just a matter of waiting the right time.

But again, just a few thoughts.

well, consider this. South Africa will have to prove itself next year. Brazil is an unknown quantity in organizing the World Cup. That won't happen until 2014. As for a PanAM Games, then they're equal with Chicago which already organized that in 1959. But at least 2010 can be a solid calling card for So. Africa. Brazil only has pie in the sky...as per their video too.

[Rob2012]

Put in this way, Africa could profit from a well staged SOG in another develping country first.

Three years before the 2020 vote, South Africa will have already staged a very successful world cup in my opinion. It'll be a new frontier for the IOC, with the added bonus that the world's second largest sporting event will be proof of its abilities on the world stage. That's quite a combination - new frontier appeal and a proven track record.

If South Africa 2010 is as good as I think it will be, even a strong European or Asian bid will worry about Cape Town bidding for 2020.

So, at the moment there are a lot of 'ifs and buts' regarding an African games, but I'm willing to gamble that the picture will be a lot clearer and more positive after next year's world cup. And if it is clearer and more positive, African delegates won't want to look back at Copenhagen and wish they hadn't cast the votes that won it for Rio, scuppering what ought to have been Africa's best ever chance at landing the Games in 2020.

So I have to disagree completely when you say "Africa could profit from a well staged SOG in another develping country first". Africa will want to strike while the iron's hot, while SA 2010 is still fresh in people's minds, and without the added hurdle of another new frontier host preceding them.

[Soaring]

...and if you were in South Africa's position would you want to place your hopes and dreams on Rio's capability to host smoothly? What if something organizationally went completely wrong? What if it was reminiscent of Athens x2? I am not saying that it will, but it is a risk (not for 2020, but subsequent bids).

Also, if IOC members choose Rio in 2016, they would already have the touchy good feelings about giving it to South America. Why rush to another new continent?

That can wait until the 2030's or 40's!