Jump to content

Why Chicago Failed.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply
After spending the last year arguing in favor of Chicago, I want to take stock of the deficiencies.

1. U.S. has hosted eight times, most recently Atlanta in 1996 and Salt Lake City in 2002.

2. Chicago is not recognized as an international tourist destination. Most people don't know what the city can offer. The bid failed to sufficiently highlight Chicago's many assets.

3. The USOC is not on good terms with the IOC due to the Salt Lake City bribery scandal, revenue disputes, and the Olympic network debacle.

4. The USOC leadership is in a state of prolonged turmoil and doesn't seem reliable.

5. The bid failed to clearly articulate a strong legacy. When asked why Chicago wants the Games and what Chicago can offer, there was no clear, concise message. It was a chaotic, unfocused hodge-podge of reasons.

6. Apart from the Obamas, the final presentation was an amateurish failure. It was disorganized, wooden and unconvincing.

7. The bid team focused on flash rather than relationships. It tried to lobby IOC members by bowling them over rather than taking the time to build relationships. Relationships are not built in weeks, months , but over an extended period of time. The USOC has failed to do this with the IOC. Havelange and Nuzman have been working at those relationships for decades.

8. The bid was not sufficiently "other" focused. It wasn't about serving, celebrating, blessing others -- at least not as much as it needed to be.

1. Big factor, especially considering, that the main competition has never hosted.

2. I don't think it was a big factor.

3. I think SLC is more of an American than USOC problem. Atlanta election was also surrounded by corruption allegations, but without scandals. The Olympic Channel affair was just postponed, but the idea was not dismissed that might have hurt it. They might be waiting to win the Games to resume the project.

4. I wouldn't say that. I think they do not connect with the IOC members.

5. The bid had no legacy. They tried to hide it by creating a program that does not have a clear connection to the Games. The all-temporary venue plan was already considered a mistake in Atlanta.

6. That was not the reason for being dropped so early

7. I think the lobbying was badly done and the Obama couple was behind as residents not as the head of state and his wife. Obama, Michelle and Oprah went there as celebrities, not as real part of the bid team. On the contrary, Lula was 100% behind the Rio project and stayed there and had private talks with the IOC members.

8. Despite the denial from the Chicago supporters here, the speeches about that the bid was "the USA" and about economical power create a sense of entitlement which creates resentment from foreigners. I bet that the IOC felt more sense of entitlement in the American bid than in the "first games in South America" from Rio.

By looking at the voting results, I would say that this may have been a disguised Chicago vs Rio decision. And Rio took it by a landslide. Madrid and Tokyo relied practically on pledged votes and that exposes the main American flaw: lobbying. If Chicago could onle have secured enough votes to get past the first round it could have been a closed decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Anti-American feelings in the world, or among a hundred IOC members, are higher than what Americans realize or imagine.

2. Americans don't really care about the Olympics as much as other nations. Most Chicagoans would rather see the Bears go to the Super Bowl than get the Olympics.

3. Only a Rio Olympics can be extra special, just like Beijing getting it for 2008. There's really nothing very special about Chicago, London, Tokyo, or Madrid getting it.

In the end, it was absolutely the right decision by the IOC members, best for the Olympics movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Anti-American feelings in the world, or among a hundred IOC members, are higher than what Americans realize or imagine.

2. Americans don't really care about the Olympics as much as other nations. Most Chicagoans would rather see the Bears go to the Super Bowl than get the Olympics.

3. Only a Rio Olympics can be extra special, just like Beijing getting it for 2008. There's really nothing very special about Chicago, London, Tokyo, or Madrid getting it.

In the end, it was absolutely the right decision by the IOC members, best for the Olympics movement.

Fully agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this "Obama-this..Obama-that" is pure hogwash.

1. After 3 rounds, maybe the IOC has gotten blase to it.

2. All the WORKING heads of state showed up, it would've been folly if he didn't go. You take chances; he's experienced greater (personal) losses in life. He did his job as head of state to show the flag.

3. "Oh, 5 hours was not enough" or "...5 hours was an insult!" Bullsh*t. Staying more or less would NOT have altered the outcome. Nearly everyone voted the first round based on continental affiliations. There just aren't that many delegates from Africa and the Caribbean to have gotten past the 1st round.

4. Chicago's loss was NOT a reflection of Obama's popularity to oratory or whatever. THe IOC just decided to give the untried continent its shot lest they be accused of being 'elitist' again.

That's just how the chips fell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Anti-American feelings in the world, or among a hundred IOC members, are higher than what Americans realize or imagine.

2. Americans don't really care about the Olympics as much as other nations. Most Chicagoans would rather see the Bears go to the Super Bowl than get the Olympics.

3. Only a Rio Olympics can be extra special, just like Beijing getting it for 2008. There's really nothing very special about Chicago, London, Tokyo, or Madrid getting it.

In the end, it was absolutely the right decision by the IOC members, best for the Olympics movement.

I expected Rio to win. I can accept the fact that Chicago lost. What I find difficult to accept is the fact that Chicago lost by a wide margin in the first round. It is a slap in the face and it sends a crystal clear message: we have no interest in American Olympics -- go away. And yet the IOC wants more American dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Anti-American feelings in the world, or among a hundred IOC members, are higher than what Americans realize or imagine.

2. Americans don't really care about the Olympics as much as other nations. Most Chicagoans would rather see the Bears go to the Super Bowl than get the Olympics.

3. Only a Rio Olympics can be extra special, just like Beijing getting it for 2008. There's really nothing very special about Chicago, London, Tokyo, or Madrid getting it.

In the end, it was absolutely the right decision by the IOC members, best for the Olympics movement.

See this:

Chicago Tribune article:

IOC members: Don't blame it on Chicago

October 2, 2009 3:32 PM | No Comments

Don't blame it on Chicago.

That's the take from several members of the International Olympic Committee interviewed after the IOC booted Chicago after the first round of voting.

Several said the quality of Rio de Janeiro's winning bid was better. And at least one IOC member blamed the Olympic movement in the United States.

"I think Chicago had a good bid and good people," said Switzerland's Denis Oswald, a frequent critic of the United States Olympic Committee and a key figure in revenue-sharing battles with the group.

"The kind of instability shown by USOC in recent months has not helped. We had been dealing with some people, and suddenly we heard one has disappeared and one was nearly fired, and you had to start with totally new people. It's also a human relationship. It's always easier to deal with people you know and have full confidence (in)."

He said 10 to 15 IOC members had discussed the revenue-sharing friction with him, as well as plans for an Olympic TV network in the United States that angered the IOC.

"The colleagues who asked me, I said I would like you to forget about this," Oswald said. "We will try to find a solution, and we should judge Chicago based on the quality of its bid. But everyone has a different approach, and I cannot say this has not played a role for a number of people."

So it was a defeat for the USOC?

"That's my impression, yes," Oswald said.

Another IOC member, Canada's Richard Pound, disagreed.

"I don't know that it says anything to them (the United States and the USOC)," Pound said. "When you look at the margin, it was clear there was an effort to make sure Rio got this, and the only meaningful threat to Rio would have been Chicago. So all the friends of Rio were urged to try and make sure Chicago didn't get into that position.

"I think there were a lot of people saying, 'If we don't get it, we'll support you but we've got to stop Chicago.' And that's sport politics, not anything else. It's election management. The Europeans and the Asians are much better at this (in the IOC) than we are. They are better at managing elections and thinking strategically. We kind of think if you've got the best bid, the world will recognize that, and these decisions are made solely on the merits of the bid. Well, not solely."

Still, several IOC members expressed surprise at Chicago's first-round exit.

Said Norway's Gerhard Heiberg: "This was, I can't say a wrong decision, but it was not a right decision."

"Going out in first round, that was just an accident," said Switzerland's Rene Fasel. "I expected to have a different vote in the end. If Chicago is against Rio, it will be much closer."

None were more shocked than IOC member Anita DeFrantz from the United States. "Shock would be a pleasant word," she said.

But just as many people had praise for Rio de Janeiro's bid and the fact that it came from South America, which had never hosted an Olympics.

Here's how Oswald described it: "There was such a strong aspiration to go to new horizons."

"It's an important message to the rest of the world that it's possible to host the Olympic games," added Namibia's Frankie Fredericks.

"They (Rio) had a message," Pound said. "They stayed on it. They managed to divert attention from all the risk areas they had, as did everybody else. You have got to admire the delivery of that result. I'm sure that a lot of the political maneuvering was based on the fact that (President Barack) Obama was probably going to come and was coming, so they said we've got to keep Chicago out of play, or we're all dead.

"Can you imagine if he hadn't come and this result had occurred? I think he did the right thing, and I think he made a lot of friends here, got a lot of respect. It was the time for Rio. It's like when political change comes along. People want change. It was South America's time."

"This was not a vote against any city, this was a vote in favor of Rio de Janeiro," said Thomas Bach of Germany.

But Chicago losing in the first round?

"I also was surprised," he said. "This vote was not against anybody, it was in favor of Rio and universality."

"Good for Rio, very disappointing for Chicago," said Kevin Gosper of Australia. "They deserved better."

-- Philip Hersh

I think this is a more credible analyst than you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expected Rio to win. I can accept the fact that Chicago lost. What I find difficult to accept is the fact that Chicago lost by a wide margin in the first round. It is a slap in the face and it sends a crystal clear message: we have no interest in American Olympics -- go away. And yet the IOC wants more American dollars.

It's sad. New York won't bid again (and I don't think New York is a good choice anyway). Chicago won't bid again. San Francisco will never get it's act together politically. Los Angeles would gladly host again, but they've hosted twice.

That's it for America's major "marquee" cities.

The Games of the Olympiad won't be returning to the United States for a very long time.

I missed L.A. in 1984 when I was 16 (I don't know why my parents didn't even think of going), I missed Atlanta in 1996 (I couldn't afford it). I put my name on the CoSport list for tickets and package information for London 2012, but with the economy and the recession, I've already given up on that - I'm not going to have the funds - Attending the games is freaking EXPENSIVE. I figured Chicago 2016 was going to be my best bet. I kinda wanted to attend the games while I was still relatively young. Here's hoping I win the lottery to go overseas someday. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Canadian IOC representative Richard Pound makes an excellent point:

"I don't know that it says anything to them (the United States and the USOC)," Pound said. "When you look at the margin, it was clear there was an effort to make sure Rio got this, and the only meaningful threat to Rio would have been Chicago. So all the friends of Rio were urged to try and make sure Chicago didn't get into that position..."

The fact that Rio got 26 votes in the first round and Chicago got 18 shows the huge gulf between them. I think most IOC members knew Chicago was Rio's main threat and so voted in favour of Rio and against Chicago.

It wasn't a case that Chicago had a bad bid, on the contrary infact. Chicago had an excellent bid and that is why IOC members voted the way they did.

The real vote today was between Chicago and Rio. Although Madrid and Tokyo did better than Chicago, that was just because IOC members took more extreme action against Chicago to favour Rio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't posted in a loooong while....hope everyone is well!

Anyway, can't say I'm shocked by the results. Chicago's loss more than anything else, CLEARLY show that there is a major problem in the USOC's relationship with the IOC, and I think future bids will only keep getting shot down one by one...it's time to step back...

that said I do want to highlight that NYC did BETTER than Chicago in 2005 and was under even harsher comeptition and anti-American sentiment. I only say that in repsonse to people who were quick to blame NYC itself for the loss and said Chicago would fare better...yea ooook....

NYC should be the next host city...when that will be, who knows

I AM ECSTATIC RIO won....congratulations, can't wait! :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Canadian IOC representative Richard Pound makes an excellent point:

"I don't know that it says anything to them (the United States and the USOC)," Pound said. "When you look at the margin, it was clear there was an effort to make sure Rio got this, and the only meaningful threat to Rio would have been Chicago. So all the friends of Rio were urged to try and make sure Chicago didn't get into that position..."

The fact that Rio got 26 votes in the first round and Chicago got 18 shows the huge gulf between them. I think most IOC members knew Chicago was Rio's main threat and so voted in favour of Rio and against Chicago.

It wasn't a case that Chicago had a bad bid, on the contrary infact. Chicago had an excellent bid and that is why IOC members voted the way they did.

The real vote today was between Chicago and Rio. Although Madrid and Tokyo did better than Chicago, that was just because IOC members took more extreme action against Chicago to favour Rio.

I think you're right. But surely even the IOC must have been surprised by how quickly the Chicago threat was snuffed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I posted in another thread -

It's not so much that Chicago lost that is really irritating, we all knew Rio was a strong contender, but to go out in the first round was a bit extreme.

I really do not like how this whole IOC selection process works. First off, half the IOC members are European. That puts a huge handicap on all the non-European cities and is probably the main reason Madrid got so far. Secondly, having the voting elimination rounds lets the IOC members play politics and vote for cities not because they want them to win, but because they want to hurt another cities chance at winning. I believe this is what happened to Chicago today. I am all but certain Chicago would have done better up against Rio in the final than Madrid or Tokyo. Perhaps a better way to do the voting would be to simply have one round and whatever city gets the most votes wins. That way the IOC will all pick the city they want to actually win and not give sympathy votes or try to eliminate certain cities.

I know I probably sound a bit like a sore loser here and admittedly if Chicago had actually won I probably wouldn't be complaining about this, although I would still understand why someone would be upset over it. But like I said, I am happy for Rio and have no issue with them winning. My issue is with how Chicago got eliminated first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Canadian IOC representative Richard Pound makes an excellent point:

"I don't know that it says anything to them (the United States and the USOC)," Pound said. "When you look at the margin, it was clear there was an effort to make sure Rio got this, and the only meaningful threat to Rio would have been Chicago. So all the friends of Rio were urged to try and make sure Chicago didn't get into that position..."

The fact that Rio got 26 votes in the first round and Chicago got 18 shows the huge gulf between them. I think most IOC members knew Chicago was Rio's main threat and so voted in favour of Rio and against Chicago.

It wasn't a case that Chicago had a bad bid, on the contrary infact. Chicago had an excellent bid and that is why IOC members voted the way they did.

The real vote today was between Chicago and Rio. Although Madrid and Tokyo did better than Chicago, that was just because IOC members took more extreme action against Chicago to favour Rio.

Thats a good point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...