Why Chicago Needs To Win

[Augie4040]

In 2016 it will have been 20 years since Atlanta and 14 since Salt Lake.

I believe the IOC is on the cusp of adopting a New Frontier mindset, Looking forward to giving the games to South America, Africa, and SE Asia.

If Rio doesn't win it will surely get 2020 or 2024. Cape Town, Rio, and Mumbai, will be on the short list well into the 2030s.

Chicago on the other hand wont be on anyones shortlist ever again. The very rumor that Tulsa, Oklahoma is bidding for 2020 shows how little faith the USIOC has in getting another summer olympics in the next 20 years.

I would love for Rio to win the 2016 games, and I don't want to be a snotty American, but America is DUE. We put soo much money into the Olympics and the IOC gets most of its revenue from the US, and if that means Chicago beating out a cooler Rio games than I think thats how it should be, AMerica needs 1 more olympics before the IOC starts giving games to the more obscure parts of the world(WHICH I AM 1000% IN FAVOR OF),

The Games should be used to break new grounds, but if Chicago doesnt get 2016 it will be a VERY VERY LONG TIME until Unite States or even Chicago ever have a prayer of winning the Games.

it very well could be:

2016 Rio

2020 Cape Town

sure they could give Amsterdam 2024 but 2028 will be Cairo or Bangkok or something odd.

[thorbr]

In 2016 it will have been 20 years since Atlanta and 14 since Salt Lake.

I believe the IOC is on the cusp of adopting a New Frontier mindset, Looking forward to giving the games to South America, Africa, and SE Asia.

If Rio doesn't win it will surely get 2020 or 2024. Cape Town, Rio, and Mumbai, will be on the short list well into the 2030s.

Chicago on the other hand wont be on anyones shortlist ever again. The very rumor that Tulsa, Oklahoma is bidding for 2020 shows how little faith the USIOC has in getting another summer olympics in the next 20 years.

I would love for Rio to win the 2016 games, and I don't want to be a snotty American, but America is DUE. We put soo much money into the Olympics and the IOC gets most of its revenue from the US, and if that means Chicago beating out a cooler Rio games than I think thats how it should be, AMerica needs 1 more olympics before the IOC starts giving games to the more obscure parts of the world(WHICH I AM 1000% IN FAVOR OF),

The Games should be used to break new grounds, but if Chicago doesnt get 2016 it will be a VERY VERY LONG TIME until Unite States or even Chicago ever have a prayer of winning the Games.

it very well could be:

2016 Rio

2020 Cape Town

sure they could give Amsterdam 2024 but 2028 will be Cairo or Bangkok or something odd.

Yes, "America" needs the games this turn... that's why it's going to Rio...

Come on... your post received the prize of the most prejudicial one ever here... you've surpassed Baron, the Phil' boy...

"America needs 1 more olympics before the IOC starts giving games to the more obscure parts of the world(WHICH I AM 1000% IN FAVOR OF)"

That's exactly why the US (not america) should get the games...

[Augie4040]

Im new to the Games Bids forums so I dont know those individuals you just mentioned.

Anyway, If you mean Im prejudicial because I want the US to win over another country than yes, but if you mean racial I dont think thats fair. Im just saying with FIFA giving the 2010 and 2014 WC to South Afirca and Brazil and vey likely a non-european nation the 2018 WC, the IOC wil want to follow suit and give newer countires a shot at the games Rio, Cape Town, Dubai, Bangkok, etc, that there is a VERY real chance that 2016 will be America's best last hope for a long time.

Without a 2016 win the US faces the posibility of a London-esque level games drought(1948-2012).

[thorbr]

Im new to the Games Bids forums so I dont know those individuals you just mentioned.

Anyway, If you mean Im prejudicial because I want the US to win over another country than yes, but if you mean racial I dont think thats fair. Im just saying with FIFA giving the 2010 and 2014 WC to South Afirca and Brazil and vey likely a non-european nation the 2018 WC, the IOC wil want to follow suit and give newer countires a shot at the games Rio, Cape Town, Dubai, Bangkok, etc, that there is a VERY real chance that 2016 will be America's best last hope for a long time.

Without a 2016 win the US faces the posibility of a London-esque level games drought(1948-2012).

No, it's because you said that after going to "America" (actually, you mean to the US, isn't it?), the games could go to the more "OBSCURE" regions..... gosh, you are so damn prejudicial that you haven't even realized.

What's the problem of the US facing a possibility of not hosting the games so for a long time??????????? There are more than a dozens of countries who haven't hosted yet... so why should one be complaining here about "AMERICA'S" chances.......

As I said... the AMERICAN continent will be very well represented with Rio in 2016.

[Soaring]

thorbr, quit being so hypersensitive. Anyway, I don't agree with Augie's rational, but Chicago will most likely not bid again anytime soon, but surely Rio will bid again, especially after a successful WC 2014.

All of the cities deserve the Olympics equally, as they have spent so much time and energy, and 3 out of 4 have never hosted before. The IOC doesn't "owe" the Games to anyone.

Not to get side-tracked, but in my opinion, the next WC will most likely be in Europe, and I support England.

[memorabilia]

In 2016 it will have been 20 years since Atlanta and 14 since Salt Lake.

I believe the IOC is on the cusp of adopting a New Frontier mindset, Looking forward to giving the games to South America, Africa, and SE Asia.

If Rio doesn't win it will surely get 2020 or 2024. Cape Town, Rio, and Mumbai, will be on the short list well into the 2030s.

Chicago on the other hand wont be on anyones shortlist ever again. The very rumor that Tulsa, Oklahoma is bidding for 2020 shows how little faith the USIOC has in getting another summer olympics in the next 20 years.

I would love for Rio to win the 2016 games, and I don't want to be a snotty American, but America is DUE. We put soo much money into the Olympics and the IOC gets most of its revenue from the US, and if that means Chicago beating out a cooler Rio games than I think thats how it should be, AMerica needs 1 more olympics before the IOC starts giving games to the more obscure parts of the world(WHICH I AM 1000% IN FAVOR OF),

The Games should be used to break new grounds, but if Chicago doesnt get 2016 it will be a VERY VERY LONG TIME until Unite States or even Chicago ever have a prayer of winning the Games.

it very well could be:

2016 Rio

2020 Cape Town

sure they could give Amsterdam 2024 but 2028 will be Cairo or Bangkok or something odd.

We are not blind.... Why do post the same message twice in this forum ?????????????? Even if the subject is interesting !!!

[Augie4040]

Ah, didnt realize I had done that. I wont do it again. and When I said "america" I did mean the USA, then again, if youre in London and hear someone talkign about "those americans" I assure you they are NOT talkign about Costa Ricans.

[micheal_warren]

Why do you believe that the IOC is on the cusp of adopting a New Frontier mindset???

[Augie4040]

Why do you believe that the IOC is on the cusp of adopting a New Frontier mindset???

FIFA is going to Brazil and South Africa

Comonwealth is going to India in 2010.

the IOC just awarded the games to Italy, Canada, London, and Russia, Im pretty sure they dont want to look like the only global sporting organiztion that doesnt understand that Europe and North America arent the center of the sportign universe.

Inida: population over a billion

Brazil: th worlds biggest soccer fanatics

South Africa: The Continents only developed and stable nation

All three have long standing obsessions with sports and all 3 have never hosed an olympics (save for Australai neither has the entire hemisphere), and all 3 have been selected for major Global spors competitions.

If they do well the IOC will look more favorably on their bids than from Europe.

They want to spread the olympic movement and FIFA and Commonweatlhs have opened the door.

London wil be very clean and nice and records will be broken, but it will be forgettable(ultimately)(remember Montreal). But a Brazilian or Indian city, that has never had the spotlight on it, putting its best face forward, and the host nation automatically qualifies 3 contestands in every sport, seeing these poorer sports mad nations getting into the top 10 medalist for the first time in forever and gettign the infrastructure to ensure good showings in the future would be remarkable. Seeing the south African Team black and white alike workign together as a team and winnign gold would be amazing for South Africa's pride.

After those you could see a Dubai bid winning. god knows they have the cash and to see Emirate women(middle eastern women) compeating in every swimming and athletic match and all those litttel arab girls seeing a UAE woman winnign gold on the track would an astonishing leap forward for the entire region. And the Dubai is the only place that could hold it successfully, because it is 1) the most stable of the middle eastern nations, 2) Money is no option 3) the legacy of arab women compeating alongside men would be the greatest of all Olympic legacies.

And if you htink the IOC is just gonna toss it from Chicago to Paris to Toronto to Melbourne and think its a winniing formula, no way. The IOC has had WAY too many scandals to pass on these golden opportunities to be legendmakers.

[baron-pierreIV]

Augie, read up on previous posts. This is a very savvy crowd, and there are some real churlish grinches out there like that "thorb."

[NYCD 2012]

We are not blind.... Why do post the same message twice in this forum ?????????????? Even if the subject is interesting !!!

Well, the Rio fanatics never fail to use the tagline "Its South America's turn"

[FYI]

The IOC just had a "New Frontier" host last year with Beijing, the capital of the world's most populous nation that never hosted until then. So, no, the IOC is not going to be looked at "as the only global sporting organization that doesn't understand that Europe & North America aren't the center of the sporting universe."

[Augie4040]

The IOC just had a "New Frontier" host last year with Beijing, the capital of the world's most populous nation that never hosted until then. So, no, the IOC is not going to be looked at "as the only global sporting organization that doesn't understand that Europe & North America aren't the center of the sporting universe."

ONE WORD, SARAJEVO

Before Beijing that was the last risk the IOC ever took, they had the 2012 vote 3 years before they saw how Beijing would turn out. They saw Beijing pass with flying colors, this is the first bid vote in the post-beijing era. They will be open to newer nations(india and such).

[Sir Rols]

ONE WORD, SARAJEVO

Before Beijing that was the last risk the IOC ever took, they had the 2012 vote 3 years before they saw how Beijing would turn out. They saw Beijing pass with flying colors, this is the first bid vote in the post-beijing era. They will be open to newer nations(india and such).

Yep, 20-24 years is probably the most likely timing between new frontiers.

[Athensfan]

If the U.S. loses out this time, I imagine our next realistic chance may be 2032.

If Rio wins 2016 -- 2020, 2024 and 2028 will probably be divided in some way between Europe, Asia and South Africa. Perhaps an American bid could sneak in earlier, but I think it would be very tough.

As an American, such a long wait would be deeply disappointing to me. I also question whether it would be very good for the Olympic Movement. However, I also firmly believe that the Olympics must not be passed around between the most powerful nations. Other countries deserve opportunities. I believe in the importance of exploring "new frontiers" and maintaining the practice of unofficial continental rotation. The Olympics do not "owe" the United States and it is arrogant and irresponsible to suggest this is the case.

I do think it is possible that American audiences may begin to lose interest in the Games if the country waits too long before hosting again. If American audiences start to diminish, it is possible that American sponsorship will diminish as well. I am not saying this is certain -- I'm just saying it's a possibility. Such a possibility is not necessarily a problem for the IOC -- it just means that the balance will change and other parts of the world will invest more in the Games.

[baron-pierreIV]

/\ A good number of the IOC members are businesspersons or have I think substantial business interests. I think the above scenario will hover big in their minds.

[Augie4040]

/\ A good number of the IOC members are businesspersons or have I think substantial business interests. I think the above scenario will hover big in their minds.

BARON,

I see your signature about 2014 WC and 2016 OLYMPICS would be a bad thing. You dont think that a WC and a SOG 2 years apart would make Brazil the temporary GLobal Capital of Sport? And that would be a good thing?

[baron-pierreIV]

BARON,

I see your signature about 2014 WC and 2016 OLYMPICS would be a bad thing. You dont think that a WC and a SOG 2 years apart would make Brazil the temporary GLobal Capital of Sport? And that would be a good thing?

Well, Augie, that "dicey" situation insofar as finding sponsors for BOTH events is also a consideration of the IOC. It is so stated in Rio's Evaluation.

But hey, amongst the IOC, the Brazilian people, and you and me, what are a few billions between friends?

[memorabilia]

If the U.S. loses out this time, I imagine our next realistic chance may be 2032.

If Rio wins 2016 -- 2020, 2024 and 2028 will probably be divided in some way between Europe, Asia and South Africa. Perhaps an American bid could sneak in earlier, but I think it would be very tough.

No, if as I hope, Rio is the host for 2016, the games will come back to the USA in 2020 (because of marketing & tv rights). And 2024 will come to Europe (Roma, Berlin, Paris.... they could may be train in 2020 but will success in 2024). New frontier will be for 2028 in concurrence with Asia (a kind of new frontier.... because except China & Japan....)

[FYI]

The thing is though, Rio would be back for a 2020 run, especially as how FAR they've gotten in this 2016 campaign. Chicago probably won't, &/or better yet, the USOC most likely won't be back for a 2020 bid, considering they've also lost 2012 already. So why not go with the benefits of marketing & tv rights now with Chicago & have Rio later, when you know that they'd be back for a 2020 showdown. Plus, the IOC wouldn't have that conflict of interests with the marketing of the FIFA World Cup 2014 & maybe a Rio 2016 Olympics.

[Augie4040]

The thing is though, Rio would be back for a 2020 run, especially as how FAR they've gotten in this 2016 campaign. Chicago probably won't, &/or better yet, the USOC most likely won't be back for a 2020 bid, considering they've also lost 2012 already. So why not go with the benefits of marketing & tv rights now with Chicago & have Rio later, when you know that they'd be back for a 2020 showdown. Plus, the IOC wouldn't have that conflict of interests with the marketing of the FIFA World Cup 2014 & maybe a Rio 2016 Olympics.

good call

[Triffle]

All of the cities deserve the Olympics equally, as they have spent so much time and energy, and 3 out of 4 have never hosted before. The IOC doesn't "owe" the Games to anyone.

I disagree with that. Yeah they may have all put in "so much time and energy", but that doesn't mean they deserve it equally. Clearly Rio is the most deserving bid because South America has never hosted; why then would a nation which has hosted EIGHT olympics be as deserving.

I think you'll find most people from neutral countries support the sentimental favourite. Even more will have no sympthay for a failed US bid at a ninth Olympics.

And Augie4040, what's wrong with having a new frontier dominated era, without American olympic games? Most Non-Americans would be relieved we don't have to put up with ANOTHER US hosting attempt at a sporting event; usually boring, predictable, commercialised and without any cultural aspect or interest.

[Triffle]

Big deal if Chicago doesn't have another opportunity to host for a while. Paris hasn't hosted in 85 years, Rome in 49 years and Tokyo in 45 years and they are 3 of the world's most famous cities.

[Stu]

Rio provides an Olympics in the same time-zone as North America - US broadcasters will be able to show live coverage of all the main events in an exotic and exciting new location - i'm sure marketing the Olympics in Rio to the US public will meet with very few obstacles.

The Olympic Games are a huge global event - in many ways bigger than the host cities themselves - whoever hosts will have relatively few problems finding sponsors and supporters throughout their seven years of preparations.

Many of the arguments in favour of Chicago on this thread seem very weak - and are far outweighed by fresh memories of recent US Olympics and the prospect of taking the Games to an new location.

[FYI]

ONE WORD, SARAJEVO

Before Beijing that was the last risk the IOC ever took, they had the 2012 vote 3 years before they saw how Beijing would turn out. They saw Beijing pass with flying colors, this is the first bid vote in the post-beijing era. They will be open to newer nations(india and such).

Well, Seoul was considered a big risk back in 1981 for the 1988 Games. The IOC could've gone with the safer choice of Nagoya, Japan, but they didn't.

And for the IOC to take those "big risks" with the New Frontier cities, these New Frontier places have to bid in the first place. For 2012, to use your example, there were no New Frontier bidders on the 5-city short-list for those Games. Every 5 of those countries in that race had hosted before with another city. And since Seoul's election back in '81, there have been only a handful of New Frontier cities with the actual capability of being able to host.

I can't see the IOC going the way of FIFA of setting a "rotation policy" so they can get all the New Frontier cities out of the way in a couple of swoops. The Olympics & the World Cup are 2 different animals that have to be looked at in 2 different angles.

An Olympics *demands* every resource, accommodations, transportion capability, security & logistics concern from ONE city, while the World Cup is spread out through an entire nation. And the World Cup is only one sport, while the Olympics is many & require far more facilities for these sports. And those are the main reasons why the IOC is likely to jump into the big pool of uncertainty with New Frontiers one step at a time, rather than just dive in like FIFA did.