Is Rio Still The Favourite In Overall Analysis?

[Athensfan]

I actually think Doha would have a chance. The only problem is the weather and there's not much they can do to fix that apart from holding the Games in the autumn and the IOC refused to go for it.

[DannyelBrazil]

I don't think Doha like Baku would ever get the games. It's not required but nowadays only internationally known cities would be getting them..

It's a issue IOC will face in a near future...

Why give games only to known cities?

[Rob2012]

As long as world famous cities bid, why should they give the games to less well known place? I'm mean the choice between putting Doha or Rio on the shortlist was a no brainer.

[DannyelBrazil]

As long as world famous cities bid, why should they give the games to less well known place? I'm mean the choice between putting Doha or Rio on the shortlist was a no brainer.

I think the shortlist would have 5 bids: Tokyo, Chicago, Madrid, Doha and Rio. But as the Doha's calendar didn't fit the IOC requirements, they cutted them.

I think Rio did not "stole" Doha spot. I think if Doha calendar was good, we should have now 5 finalists.

[Rob2012]

Perhaps you're right. But my point still stands. Why give the games to less well known cities when we've got places like London, Paris, Tokyo, Rio, Chicago, Madrid, New York etc. etc. bidding?

[Cinderella]

Perhaps you're right. But my point still stands. Why give the games to less well known cities when we've got places like London, Paris, Tokyo, Rio, Chicago, Madrid, New York etc. etc. bidding?

Hmmm... including Madrid is a Top list... Something's changing!

Just kidding

[DannyelBrazil]

I think you're right too...

Major cities are major cities for a fair reason.

But, in the future some internationally unknown city like Belo Horizonte (an Brazilian example) can bid and maybe they got some success with the "why only the already known cities should host?"

It will happen in the future...

[Rob2012]

No, that's not a good selling point and it won't happen in the future as long as the big cities are in the running. No small city will beat any of the big ones I listed above by saying "why should only big cities host?" It's laughable to think otherwise! The Olympics are a huge event, especially nowadays, and the IOC won't pick a smaller, unknown city over a world famous one unless there's really no other choice.

[aluz]

Atlanta was a kind of unknown city which hosted.

And, by the way, Qatar has no athletes, no medals. They want to host the Olympic before actually contributing anything to sports. I don't think they have chance. The same goes for Dubai.

[Kenadian]

It always depends on the competition and the dynamics. Montreal beat out Moscow and Los Angeles. But Liepzig, Lille, Seville, and Doha were cut down early. OK, fair enough...at the time Montreal was Canada's largest city and basking in the success and international glow of Expo 67.

But if there is another period of troubled Olympics again, big cities may shy away, leaving the ambitious middle ones to use it for their own promotional purposes.

[micheal_warren]

Atlanta was a kind of unknown city which hosted.

And, by the way, Qatar has no athletes, no medals. They want to host the Olympic before actually contributing anything to sports. I don't think they have chance. The same goes for Dubai.

Good point. I would not be a fan of the games going to Qatar any time soon!

[danfla]

Danny,

Yes, Rio's bid does have strengths, but so do the other bids. It is being a "new frontier" that helps Rio.

If Rio wins the 2016 Games, they must do a far better job with them than they did with the Pan Ams. You must accept that the Pan Ams were not an unqualified success. They got mixed reviews. Here's a link to one recent article that affirms this:

http://www.timescolonist.com/sports/2010wi...2548/story.html

Here's a quote:

“I’ve never been to Rio but heard about the [2007] Pan Am Games and Rio’s level of readiness could be a question,” said 2008 Beijing Olympic bronze-medallist and 2009 world championships silver-medallist swimmer Ryan Cochrane of Victoria, who will be 27 and competing in his third Olympics in 2016.

At least some of the athletes were not pleased with the Pan Ams or these negative opinions would not be circulating.

Here's another article:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/olympics_b...o-2016-bid.html

The focus is on Rio's serious crime problem. One athlete (a rower) said that during the final week, the atmosphere of the Pan Ams was one of "danger and paranoia."

Here's another link with a questionable view of the Pan Ams:

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/th...he-2016-ga.html

The emphasis here is on the infrastructure projects that were promised, but not delivered, "massive overspending, and poor organization that was described as "somewhat chaotic."

Here's yet another link that raises questions about the Pan Ams: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1926094,00.html

On the whole, this article is pro-Rio and says that although the Pan Ams were a success, there were a great many problems and deficiencies.

Here's a quote:

The Pan Ams might have provided a three-week jamboree for millions of athletes, locals and visitors, but when the closing ceremony ended, the city returned to its usual mess, said Chico Alencar, a Rio Congressman who campaigned for investigations into the massive overspending at the Pan Am Games. "The chronic problems that we have here are the same as they always were," Alencar said. "I want Rio to win the right to host the games, but we need to learn from our past mistakes and the myth of the Pan American Games and all that they didn't leave behind. If we get the Olympics, then all sectors of society need to unite to ensure that there is a social legacy and no overspending."

There has been so much talk about how Brazil "needs" the Games and "deserves" the Games, but will the Olympics actually make a difference to the people? If they go the same way the Pan Ams did, the answer is "no."

I'm not saying Rio can't do it in 2016, I'm just saying that you should not point to the Pan Ams as proof.

Ok all these small mistakes together weren't so bad as a Irish priest interfering on the marathon results.

[Bezzi]

Chicago is the favourite. they have Obama and Opra. I don't know ho she is. Maybe she may have won some gold medals?

[oakydoky]

Chicago is the favourite. they have Obama and Opra. I don't know ho she is. Maybe she may have won some gold medals?

Oprah win Olympic medals? ROFL.....

The only way Oprah would win an Olympic medal is if pie eating was made an Olympic sport!

[DannyelBrazil]

Chicago is the favourite. they have Obama and Opra. I don't know ho she is. Maybe she may have won some gold medals?

Oprah did less buzz than Pele in Copenhagen... I told you guys...

Rio and Chicago are equally favourites... Now, it's everything about heart and tension!!!

I'm very nervous!

[rshah012]

I think Chicago wins for one reason. It's not Obama, It's not Oprah.

It's the TV contract

The IOC doesn't have a US TV contract in place yet and a Chicago games gets them a LOT more money than a Rio games.

Both are good options and I think Rio and Chicago are the two co-favorites.

I think Chicago gets it because quite simply the IOC is all about the Benjamins and like it or not, Benjamins are still more important than the Reals

[ChicagoRes]

I think Chicago wins for one reason. It's not Obama, It's not Oprah.

It's the TV contract

The IOC doesn't have a US TV contract in place yet and a Chicago games gets them a LOT more money than a Rio games.

Both are good options and I think Rio and Chicago are the two co-favorites.

I think Chicago gets it because quite simply the IOC is all about the Benjamins and like it or not, Benjamins are still more important than the Reals

And I'll say that Rio wins because the major network TV contract will not be as important to the bottom line in the age of new media. The internet makes it too easy to watch the events you want, when you want, at the click of a button, so long as you watch a 30 second ad.

It will still be important, don't get me wrong. People in the largest ad market in the world don't want to watch/hear of something and then click on it 6 hours (or in the case of Tokyo, roughly 12 hours) later. Rio fits a nice time zone for events (ET+1). When the action heats up after noon local time, US residents can click from their cubes at 1pm ET on a lazy summer afternoon.

[Frenchy]

I think Chicago gets it because quite simply the IOC is all about the Benjamins and like it or not, Benjamins are still more important than the Reals

Agreed.....

[Frenchy]

And I'll say that Rio wins because the major network TV contract will not be as important to the bottom line in the age of new media. The internet makes it too easy to watch the events you want, when you want, at the click of a button, so long as you watch a 30 second ad.

It will still be important, don't get me wrong. People in the largest ad market in the world don't want to watch/hear of something and then click on it 6 hours (or in the case of Tokyo, roughly 12 hours) later. Rio fits a nice time zone for events (ET+1). When the action heats up after noon local time, US residents can click from their cubes at 1pm ET on a lazy summer afternoon.

Although my heart does go out to Rio, I think Chicago will win for the reasons given above.

Also, the ioc is not the adventurous type.....

[Frenchy]

...and they couldn't care less about "sentiment"!