DNIT Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 If Chicago wins the bid, is it meant that the US economic will be boosted, directly and indirectly? Usually, researches and projections linked to the Organizing Committees and the IOC itself claim that by organizing mega events such as the Olympics and the Fifa World Cup have significant economic impact. What is interesting in my research (I'm a Grad student at the UofC focusing in economics and International Business) is that independent economists could never find this link, or in other hands, there are no empirical evidences that such events have significant economic impact. Some economists argue that it could, it is something similar to the Stimulus Package from the USA gov. These economists believe that an increase in Government Spend by $1 would generate a greater than $1 effect in the economy. The “magic” behind it is that let's say you receive this $1, you put it in the bank (let's forget now that they could be in trouble for the sake of simplicity), this bank would leave let's say $0.25 at the FED (reserve requirements + extra reserves) and would lend the $0.75 for somebody, who would buy milk with it. The milk seller would pay taxes and deposit in the bank the rest, the bank would leave something in reserves and the rest lend. Actually it is a little bit more complicated than that, but I hope it gives the general idea. That's why developed economies have the so called “Money Multiplier” bigger than “cash economies”. This fact would be the argument for events funded by public money (probably with new “printed money”, let's forget about inflation). For countries where such events are usually funded by the private sector, I understand that the primary argument would be incentives, as the private sector has no incentives to badly manage money, whilst usually the public sector do not have the right incentives to do so. All candidate cities have a mixed of public and private money (well I'm not sure about Chicago, it seems that it would have public money only for overruns, correct me if I'm wrong). So you could say that Rio, Madrid and Tokyo lean towards the first and Chicago the second argument. That said, it's hard to find empirical evidence that the multiplier effect of the Government is actually higher than 1. Some articles that you my find interesting: Here in Steven Levitt's blog, a link to Rose and Spiegel's paper who argue that they found a correlation of hosting the games, but also find a high correlation of all bid cities: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...olympic-effect/ http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...coming-to-town/ Why bid for the Olympic Games? http://voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3455 Reports question financial benefits of Chicago 2016 Olympics: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/09...6-olympics.html Estimating the Cost and Benefit of Hosting Olympic Games: What Can Beijing Expect from Its 2008 Games? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa41...0/ai_n15705690/ Tourism and the Olympics by the ETOA (European Tour Operator Association): www.etoa.org/Pdf/Member/etoa_report_olympic.pdf This above is my “favorite” myth buster, as it shows from the people most interested in tourism growth, some facts behind the games. Clearly my view is more on the side that these games do not significantly cause any economic improve, in fact I've been arguing that the causal effect is the other way around, usually the IOC has been choosing host cities within developed countries. And as you probably know it is hard to find independent economists researching these things for Rio, Madrid, and Tokyo, but I would always take with a grain of salt projections and researches that come from institutions that are associated with such committees. But fell free to understand it the way you think it is more appropriate. Sorry for these extensive post, and let me know if you, or anybody else, want to go on with the economics discussion. I just think this is the impact you guys were looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakydoky Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 ^^^Interesting perspective. I suspect you're exactly right. Either Rio will run away with it or it will be very close between Rio and Chicago and either one could win. I suspect that if Obama had not gone to Copenhagen, it would've been the former scenario, but I'm not so sure anymore. I agree. His presence is definitely a game changer. However, I really can't fathom all the Obama arse-licking. I mean, what has he done? People just buy into his cult of celebrity not really knowing why they like him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakydoky Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Usually, researches and projections linked to the Organizing Committees and the IOC itself claim that by organizing mega events such as the Olympics and the Fifa World Cup have significant economic impact. What is interesting in my research (I'm a Grad student at the UofC focusing in economics and International Business) is that independent economists could never find this link, or in other hands, there are no empirical evidences that such events have significant economic impact. Some economists argue that it could, it is something similar to the Stimulus Package from the USA gov. These economists believe that an increase in Government Spend by $1 would generate a greater than $1 effect in the economy. The “magic” behind it is that let's say you receive this $1, you put it in the bank (let's forget now that they could be in trouble for the sake of simplicity), this bank would leave let's say $0.25 at the FED (reserve requirements + extra reserves) and would lend the $0.75 for somebody, who would buy milk with it. The milk seller would pay taxes and deposit in the bank the rest, the bank would leave something in reserves and the rest lend. Actually it is a little bit more complicated than that, but I hope it gives the general idea. That's why developed economies have the so called “Money Multiplier” bigger than “cash economies”. This fact would be the argument for events funded by public money (probably with new “printed money”, let's forget about inflation). For countries where such events are usually funded by the private sector, I understand that the primary argument would be incentives, as the private sector has no incentives to badly manage money, whilst usually the public sector do not have the right incentives to do so. All candidate cities have a mixed of public and private money (well I'm not sure about Chicago, it seems that it would have public money only for overruns, correct me if I'm wrong). So you could say that Rio, Madrid and Tokyo lean towards the first and Chicago the second argument. That said, it's hard to find empirical evidence that the multiplier effect of the Government is actually higher than 1. Some articles that you my find interesting: Here in Steven Levitt's blog, a link to Rose and Spiegel's paper who argue that they found a correlation of hosting the games, but also find a high correlation of all bid cities: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...olympic-effect/ http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...coming-to-town/ Why bid for the Olympic Games? http://voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3455 Reports question financial benefits of Chicago 2016 Olympics: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/09...6-olympics.html Estimating the Cost and Benefit of Hosting Olympic Games: What Can Beijing Expect from Its 2008 Games? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa41...0/ai_n15705690/ Tourism and the Olympics by the ETOA (European Tour Operator Association): www.etoa.org/Pdf/Member/etoa_report_olympic.pdf This above is my “favorite” myth buster, as it shows from the people most interested in tourism growth, some facts behind the games. Clearly my view is more on the side that these games do not significantly cause any economic improve, in fact I've been arguing that the causal effect is the other way around, usually the IOC has been choosing host cities within developed countries. And as you probably know it is hard to find independent economists researching these things for Rio, Madrid, and Tokyo, but I would always take with a grain of salt projections and researches that come from institutions that are associated with such committees. But fell free to understand it the way you think it is more appropriate. Sorry for these extensive post, and let me know if you, or anybody else, want to go on with the economics discussion. I just think this is the impact you guys were looking for. I appreciate that post - certainly lots of good information! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wills Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is has been working on the Rio 2016 Olympic bid for three years. He was been actively lobby for the Rio 2016 bid for years. He is spending October 1, 2009 one day before the vote to lobby IOC members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNIT Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Sorry about my English mistakes in the previous post, Portuguese is my first language and I wrote it really fast without proofreading. I also forgot to mention this passage on the Beijing article: "Economic impact studies have become standard operating procedure for supporters of public funding for sports teams or events. Their prevalence has led to acceptance of their findings by the public, media, and even academic circles with little or no critical evaluation. Because of the high profile of such events, large (and positive) economic effects are taken as given; the studies confirm what is already believed. Short et al (2000) provides an example of a typical statement: "The promise of worldwide exposure and economic gain has made hosting these major and regularly scheduled sporting affairs a lucrative goal for aspiring cities around the world" (Short 2000, p. 320). Sports economists, on the other hand, have found economic impact studies lacking both in theory and practice. Ex-post studies have consistently failed to find evidence of any economic benefits related to sports teams and facilities. In examining recent retrospective studies, Coates and Humphreys (2003, p. 6) concluded "building new sports facilities and attracting new professional sports teams did not raise income per capita or total employment in any US city." A closer look at the methodology of such studies reveals an appealing but fundamentally flawed line of economic reasoning that virtually guarantees a forecast of large economic benefits." One could think about the ex-post for the last cities that hosted games: Sidney, Athens, and Beijing. Have they really developed economically by hosting the games? What fundamentally changed there? Remember that Beijing was projecting an increase of tourism - it receives twice as many international tourists as Rio. Well it actually felt during the games, they we're unlucky with the crisis ongoing. One thing that worries me about Rio and Brazil, is that if Rio is the host city the country may be facing the next "bad cycle". There are no way yet to project business cycles; however, they have been occurring in periods from 5 to 10 years. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stir.ts Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Give it to RIO, you never know until you try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyelBrazil Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Give it to RIO, you never know until you try. Do we really need your sarcastic comments? Do you really get happy with this... Because it's silly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kngkyle Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Instead of criticizing the United States for hosting so much, you should be thanking us for keeping the Olympics alive. Many of the times we hosted is because nobody else wanted to do it, or none of the other cities were genuinely capable of doing it at the time. Without the United States stepping up in those situations the Olympics might have very well ceased to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 This is especially true in 1984. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRes Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Tourism and the Olympics by the ETOA (European Tour Operator Association):www.etoa.org/Pdf/Member/etoa_report_olympic.pdf This above is my “favorite” myth buster, as it shows from the people most interested in tourism growth, some facts behind the games. Clearly my view is more on the side that these games do not significantly cause any economic improve, in fact I've been arguing that the causal effect is the other way around, usually the IOC has been choosing host cities within developed countries. And as you probably know it is hard to find independent economists researching these things for Rio, Madrid, and Tokyo, but I would always take with a grain of salt projections and researches that come from institutions that are associated with such committees. But fell free to understand it the way you think it is more appropriate. Sorry for these extensive post, and let me know if you, or anybody else, want to go on with the economics discussion. I just think this is the impact you guys were looking for. I do appreciate the information you've posted as it does have a lot of good analysis. I also agree that the long term economic and tourism impacts are frequently overstated. There isn't an automatic improvement but rather an improvement for certain cities based upon their current brand status, ability to tell a story, etc. Everything should be considered on a case by case basis. The one piece I would take issue with is the ETOA survey as it contains numerous weaknesses (4 big ones to be exact). I'm not trying to pick on this study, but I just spent 2 hours discussing this one in particular with a couple of colleagues over too many beers last week. 1-The work doesn't control for economic conditions subsequent to the games. A few prime examples that support the tourism lag: -the global recession of 1989 (Seoul). -the European-focused recession of 1993 (Barcelona) -the global recession and post 9/11 tourism decline of 2001 (Sydney) 2-There can be a cross-over from sports tourism to non-sports tourism. Think of the non-sports coverage of the host city as a 2 week photo essay. To succeed at post-Games tourism, that photo essay needs to do two things: (1) it needs to show people something new about a city and (2) they need to like what they see that they didn't know before--at least enough to spend some coin to visit. Reason one is why New York, or Paris, or London likely wouldn't see a tourism bump. What new is there to show? Reason 2 is why a city like Atlanta has a difficult time expanding its tourist base. Looking at every host from 1988 to 2000: 88 in Seoul: Plenty of new things to show, but unfortunately, Seoul is not an appealing tourist city, and I say this as someone who has been there. It's a business/governmental city with little to capture a tourist's imagination--boring architecture, relatively little to do in the evening for a city of its size, etc. When you see photos and panoramics during 88 Olympic coverage, you don't jump out of your chair and say, "Gosh, I need to run off to Seoul." My four most lasting non-sports images from that Games was (1) the poor birds getting torched during the opening ceremony (2) pretty drab skyline and cityscape pan shots (3)a trip to the DMZ (4) an introduction to Korean cuisine, which did get me as far as a Korean restaurant. 92 in Barcelona: at the time, people generally knew something of Barcelona, but generally not a lot, unless you were European. It is a beautiful city with a lot of new and attractive things to show in a two week snapshot. Tourism ramped up considerably there in the last 25 years. 96 in Atlanta: it's a case of Seoul part 2. Think Frankfurt. As a North American, if I'm going to Germany for a two week tour, I'm not spending much time in Frankfurt. Why would a non-North American seek out Atlanta of all places in the US? 00 in Sydney: plenty to show, but the city already had a pretty strong tourism identity. Such as: Australians are generally hospital people, the weather is great, they have a beautiful harbor and beaches within proximity, the opera house, etc. The brand was already pretty strong, so gains were going to be fairly modest. Of the cities in the running this time (based upon my subjective rankings of global brand): -Tokyo--already iconically known as a global hub of activity, nightlife, density, skyline, etc. -Rio--already well known for stunning topography, beaches, nightlife, hospitality, modernity, and beautiful, beautiful (did I say beautiful?) women. -Madrid--flies under the radar somewhat in Europe. A beautiful city with nightlife, art, history, nice boulevards, food, wine, etc. -Chicago--probably the city here with the weakest branding. If I had $5 for every time I heard I never knew Chicago had such a nice lakefront, wasn't an industrial wasteland, etc, I'd be a real estate mogul here. 3-When the study did attempt to control for the economy by comparing the subsequent tourism growth in Barcelona et al to other cities over the same time period, their selection of those other cities was extremely suspect. -Prague was the IT city a few years after the Eastern Bloc opened (think roughly 1992)...until Budapest became the new Prague...followed by Dubrovnik and so on. If you can give people the Charles Bridge, Kafka, 25 cent liters of Pilsnery goodness, and a decent hotel room for 40 bucks a night they will show up in droves...and they did...until it got more expensive, and growth stabilized. -What happened to Ireland in the 90s and 00s? It boomed more than any West European nation and they pumped huge money into tourism, not to mention another topic covered with the Italian cities below. -Italian cities...and the diaspora coming home to sow its touristic seeds in the motherland. Ancestral pride in the US from people 2-3 generations removed from Ellis Island is probably most commonly felt for Ireland and Italy in terms of pure numbers. Baby boomers with cash + stories of grandpa Guiseppe or Seamus took that cash "home" for a visit in the last 20 years. -the New Zealand vs. Australia comparison. Discarding for a moment the ecotourism boom in NZ during this period when it was a relatively unknown location, think back to what transpired 2000-04. International tourism took a general hit in Sep 01, so Australians and Kiwis alike stayed closer to home. They went to places such as one another's country, Thailand, and Indonesia. Then the Bali bombings happened...then a bunch of poor Aussies and Kiwis were swept out to sea in a tsunami in locations without optimum infrastructure and emergency response systems. NZ is looking like a safer bet for Australians and vice versa. If both countries travelled as frequently and were the same size, they would fare similarly. Except they aren't the same size, with Australia being nearly 5 times more populous, so NZ tourism fares a lot better with visiting Aussies than the other way around. If the Barcelona comparison used cities with a more similar brand identity without some of these external factors, like a Copenhagen, Stockholm, Monaco, etc, I'd give it some credence...but they didn't. 4-Just because this study came from a tourism board doesn't mean they don't have an agenda. This is a regional organization, which means their biggest interest is the long-term growth and stability of the regional tourism market...not Madrid's or Berlin's or Barcelona's. Assuming there is a long term benefit to hosting on a city level, a continental authority is not necessarily going to feel the positive impact because: a-a big piece of the long term tourism increase for a host city is going to come at the expense of other destinations in the region. Barcelona is to a great extent cannibalizing its regional market. b-any additional regional growth in tourism disregarding cannibalization is coming at a pretty high cost for the industry. Tourism might be 20% higher in Barcelona than it otherwise would have been, which is good for Barcelona. But what if the market declines in the Costa del Sol and south of France nearly offset Barcelona's gains as a result? From the ETOA's perspective, the regional industry has to build new accomodations, hire new workers, and fire trained personnel in the neighboring markets for a very modest net increase in tourism. The cost does not justify the gain on a regional basis, although it could for the Catalans. Just some observations...Sorry for rambling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNIT Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 4-Just because this study came from a tourism board doesn't mean they don't have an agenda. This is a regional organization, which means their biggest interest is the long-term growth and stability of the regional tourism market...not Madrid's or Berlin's or Barcelona's. Assuming there is a long term benefit to hosting on a city level, a continental authority is not necessarily going to feel the positive impact because:a-a big piece of the long term tourism increase for a host city is going to come at the expense of other destinations in the region. Barcelona is to a great extent cannibalizing its regional market. Interesting points, I left especially the part that I feel more pressure to comment. Yes they do have an agenda, perhaps they want to increase "their type of tourism" and not let's say "backpacking one". I don't know that much about tourism, I just thought that it was an interesting point as everybody blindly accepts the fact that these events increase tourism. About Atlanta, I completely agree, but somehow this happens to Chicago also. I'm from Brazil and I'm living in Chicago for 1 year now, and believe me, Chicago is not a destination for internationals, people go to NYC, Miami, California, Vegas and Grand Canyon, and then they think about the Midwest. I have been to Germany several times, and I have never gone to Frankfurt, I definitely agree with your Atlanta/Frankfurt. I would say that Frankfurt is like Sao Paulo, but without the food and night life. One think that you didn't mention is geography. Let's face, Barcelona is lucky in terms of geography, as it is in the heart of Europe, something that makes easy for people to visit not only Barcelona, but also Madrid, Paris, London, etc. The Geographic position doesn't favor too much Chicago and Rio for international tourism increase. As for Tokyo, when I visit Japan I went to Tokyo, Nikko, Yokohama, and Kyoto, and I missed MANY places, I will in the near future return there. Oh and Barcelona had Gaudi, Example, Miró, Dalí way before the Olympics Rio, and Brazil in general, has big issues with infrastructure and transportation in general, a area that I agree that it would benefit form these events; however, I believe that it should be improved regardless of these events. Rio is not lucky as Barcelona in terms of geography, the shortest flight to Europe is around 9 hours, from Miami is 8 hours. Brazil has many interesting places to go besides Rio de Janeiro and the Northeast beaches. In the Minas Gerais state there are wonderful cities such as Ouro Preto, Mariana, and São João del Rey and Diamantina, etc. Natural wonders such as the Chapada Guimarães, Diamantina, Veadores, the Iguazu Falls, Pantanal, Amazonian Forest, etc. Not to say the cities in the South Part of the country. However, it is such a hassle to go to these places that people usually go to Iguazu falls, and then the Sao Paulo - Rio de Janeiro corridor. From what I've heard, our Tourism Agency is expecting an increase of 15-20% of international tourism, I would say that this is not realistically unless Brazil improve access to places such as the one I listed, decrease criminality rates, etc. Another issue that I would like to talk is what I call the "proud factor" gain. I happened to be in Germany during the last world cup, and I could see with my own eyes German people once again proud of their national flags and anthem. I believe that all 4 candidates would gain from this, perhaps Brazil a little bit more than the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotguy Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 It is not as easy as saying a nation who has not had the games before should have it. That is not a reason to grant a country the hosting of the biggest sporting event in the world. American cities have the infrastrucure, and venues available and generate vast ammounts of money for the sports and the IOC. In time of recession and economic instability, it may be wise to go with a city that seems financially sound. Plus take Madrid, More people technically could go to the venues and sports because of its location and travel times, hence more ticket sales and more spectators. So i think that those people who argue that Rio should get the games because South America has not hosted, are being unrealistic The games will be awarded to the city that can best support the athletes safety, provide a lasting legacy, use of venues, generate income and profit. Delhi and central Asia has not hosted teh COmmonwealth games before, and it is evident that there are problems there. This vote is a hard choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRes Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 About Atlanta, I completely agree, but somehow this happens to Chicago also. I'm from Brazil and I'm living in Chicago for 1 year now, and believe me, Chicago is not a destination for internationals, people go to NYC, Miami, California, Vegas and Grand Canyon, and then they think about the Midwest. I have been to Germany several times, and I have never gone to Frankfurt, I definitely agree with your Atlanta/Frankfurt. I would say that Frankfurt is like Sao Paulo, but without the food and night life....Another issue that I would like to talk is what I call the "proud factor" gain. I happened to be in Germany during the last world cup, and I could see with my own eyes German people once again proud of their national flags and anthem. I believe that all 4 candidates would gain from this, perhaps Brazil a little bit more than the others. I wouldn't disagree about the overall perception of Chicago among internationals. I have a few friends who formerly worked in decision making capacities at McPier, which is the biggest quasi-governmental authority in the state (running the convention center and Navy Pier). One thing Chicago lacks is the brand awareness among the international set. More accurately, the city is actually quite mis-branded. People touring the US tend to ignore Chicago (thinking it is a grey industrial town littered with remnants of Capone gangs), opting instead for the Northeast, Pacific Coast, the National Park system, and places like Miami and New Orleans. This has had a direct impact on McPier's ability to draw international conventions. My international friends here (Indian, Dutch, German, English, Irish, Hungarian, Russian, and Brazilian) all rave about the city now, but weren't as excited when they got here. There is a serious disconnect between perception and reality here. Among the 4 options on the table for the Games, Chicago is probably the most mis-branded of the bunch, so it stands to reason that the city itself has the most to gain from future tourism. A company called Anholt has put together some city branding indexes quantifying international awareness of cities based upon certain categories. Chicago actually rated higher than Rio on the survey (20s vs. 40s), but the components were very telling. Components of their survey that correlate well with tourism were: pulse, hospitality, weather, beauty, and safety. If I recall, Rio did much better in 4 of the 5 (with safety being the big issue). I figure that Chicago has the most room to improve on four of the five areas, because I think they are severely underrated in those 4 areas, with safety being a difficult issue for any city. Safety is the one area where Rio can improve its image, but I think its an extremely tricky issue to tackle. When it comes to things like personal safety, people are generally much less likely to change their opinion. People can see a picture of Chicago and think that the city isn't grey or industrial, but actually very attractive. With safety, paranoia tends to take root and people revert back to their prior perceptions. Rio could run a perfectly excellent Games. In fact, I think they will (I say will because I think they will win tomorrow). The problem is that one incident can get blown out of proportion and all of that hard work improving the safety image is lost. Take a couple of recent events from the Games: the Olympic Park bomb in Atlanta, and the American tourist stabbed to death in Beijing. Both incidents were generally shrugged off as anomalies. My concern for Rio is that a single incident like this would be overblown in the international media and people would say, "See, I told you so. Rio is a dangerous city." When you actually have a handful of stories circulating (like what happened during the Pan Am games), it could actually reinforce the nagative image more than the pre-games perception. The reality is that Rio isn't the safest city in the world, and when you invite hundreds of thousands (or even over a million) people to a party, some people are going to do stupid things, or a handful of idiots not representative of the majority of Rio can ruin the effort. It's simple math really. Chicago, if they were to win, would undoubtedly have their own incidents, but those would tend to get glossed over a little more. Tokyo and Madrid, probably even more so. I've spent a bit of time in Rio and a couple months of my life in Madrid, in addition to living in London, NY, and Chicago. The only cities someone has ever tried to mug me in (out of maybe 40 global cities visted from the world top 50) were Madrid and London (entirely my own fault in London by the way), which if you were to rank the cities based upon safety would probably be the top 2 for most people. I brushed it off to chance, but I'll admit that if this happened to me in a place like Rio, Mexico City, or Moscow for example, I'd be much less likely to chalk it up to coincidence. The one area where we can also agree on is the pride issue. Although you guys are a good bunch of people and tend to show pride and happiness a decent amount. I was in Germany for the World Cup as well, and it was incredible the amount of patriotism shown by the Germans. My favorite memory is spending time with Germans in a Biergarten during their match vs. your hated rivals (Argentina). An awesome experience. Good luck to you guys tomorrow. If Chicago must lose, I hope it is to Rio. Personally, I think that with all of the strides the Brazilian economy has made in the last 10 years, I'd really like to see you guys get your shot in 2024 or so, because I think that what you could do in 2016 will pale in comparison to what you could pull off in another 8 years. That's not meant to be a backhanded compliment. I think Barcelona and Sydney are the Games gold standards (1A and 1B). Today or 20 years from now, I personally believe that Chicago could be in that category of excellence (1C). Rio could put together a very good games in 2016, probably putting something that beats everything outside of Sydney and Barcelona. But by 2024? I firmly believe you guys could blow Barcelona, Sydney, and Chicago 2016 (if we get it) out of the water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.