What Next, Usa?

[baron-pierreIV]

I believe all the defeated competitors in the 2016 race should bid for 2020.

Easy for u to say, lucas. U're not using your money.

[Kenadian]

Why do so many see 2024 as a big year for Europe? Because European Olympics happen on cycles of 8-12 years. And the 8 year part is already in progress. That doesn't mean it is the way it will be, but things are early now.

I think India is decades away from hosting the Summer Games. They need to prove themselves with the Commonwealth Games, first...and they are not doing that convincingly. And then they need to build relationships with the IOC and sport federations. And I don't see them doing that either.

2008 and 2016 were different years. The inner politics of the IOC set it up for Beijing and Rio to win. But 2020 could be a year similar to 2012 where there was not much of a set up. Well, things were more set up for a European bid, but whether it be Paris or London, it didn't seem to matter.

[Athensfan]

I like the idea of Tokyo 2020 a lot. Wonderful contrast to Rio. Only two things could mess it up: a South African bid, or Pyeongchang (or Harbin) 2018.

[baron-pierreIV]

Only two things could mess it up: a South African bid, or Pyeongchang (or Harbin) 2018.

well, that's a lot right there!!

[Athensfan]

well, that's a lot right there!!

Yeah, it is. But neither of those things are a slam dunk. If the African bid is a little shaky, I could see Tokyo beating them. I'd be surprised if they went back to Harbin, but Pyeongchang does have a shot. Mind you, their biggest strength is their amazing persistence, not necessarily what the city has to offer...

[baron-pierreIV]

Yeah, it is. But neither of those things are a slam dunk. If the African bid is a little shaky, I could see Tokyo beating them. I'd be surprised if they went back to Harbin, but Pyeongchang does have a shot. Mind you, their biggest strength is their amazing persistence, not necessarily what the city has to offer...

ANd I am sure Samsung will probably weigh in more heavily this time.

[micheal_warren]

Why do so many see 2024 as a big year for Europe? Because European Olympics happen on cycles of 8-12 years. And the 8 year part is already in progress. That doesn't mean it is the way it will be, but things are early now.

I think India is decades away from hosting the Summer Games. They need to prove themselves with the Commonwealth Games, first...and they are not doing that convincingly. And then they need to build relationships with the IOC and sport federations. And I don't see them doing that either.

2008 and 2016 were different years. The inner politics of the IOC set it up for Beijing and Rio to win. But 2020 could be a year similar to 2012 where there was not much of a set up. Well, things were more set up for a European bid, but whether it be Paris or London, it didn't seem to matter.

I agree India is a long way off hosting the games. They are struggling in the preparations for the Commonwealth Games and many are worried about security etc.

India are not established in the IOC either and there performance at an olympic games (despite their large population) is poor.

[Rafa]

Cape Town is the mystery. Will the IOC see it as a risky new frontier, or as a safe Olympic partner that just happens to be on a continent that has never hosted before?

A bit of both, and rightly so. That said, if Cape Town bids you're unlikely to see anything else besides a highly technical bid, compact, realistic, achievable.

Get the basics right. Sentiment comes later.

[rmutt]

I don't want to derail this thread away from its current discussion, but seeing as this is technically "on-topic..."

London is probably the best comparison to NYC, but the U.K. hasn't hosted a Games for many, many years. The London Olympics are a re-emergence. Yes there will be significant urban revitalization in the east, but the legacy of London is also that of a formerly imperialistic superpower that has risen from the ashes of war, recreated itself and is now welcoming the world.

This is actually the first time I've come upon this interpretation of London 2012. London 2012's focus is revitalizing a neglected area of the city, leaving a social legacy of greater youth participation in sport behind, and leaving the legacy of a Games centered around sustainability onto the entire Olympic Movement. Nothing more, and yet this is all a lot!

But it has never been about a new Britain on the global stage. Nor do I think it will be. Unlike Barcelona, Sydney, or Rio, people around the world know London to be a dynamic, edgy, modern city. They know Britain as a major global player. I doubt London 2012 will leave any legacy left behind in terms of how Britain is viewed across the world. These Games have certainly never come off as “Britain’s Games” to me in the same sense as 2008 really came off as “China’s Games”, 2004 as “Greece’s Games”, and so on.

So for some cities (like London, New York and perhaps certain others as well), part of it can't really be about reinventing yourself, nor is reinventing cities or countries the goal of the Movement. There are other, more tangible, things to be gained and to contribute.

[Athensfan]

I don't want to derail this thread away from its current discussion, but seeing as this is technically "on-topic..."

This is actually the first time I've come upon this interpretation of London 2012. London 2012's focus is revitalizing a neglected area of the city, leaving a social legacy of greater youth participation in sport behind, and leaving the legacy of a Games centered around sustainability onto the entire Olympic Movement. Nothing more, and yet this is all a lot!

But it has never been about a new Britain on the global stage. Nor do I think it will be. Unlike Barcelona, Sydney, or Rio, people around the world know London to be a dynamic, edgy, modern city. They know Britain as a major global player. I doubt London 2012 will leave any legacy left behind in terms of how Britain is viewed across the world. These Games have certainly never come off as “Britain’s Games” to me in the same sense as 2008 really came off as “China’s Games”, 2004 as “Greece’s Games”, and so on.

So for some cities (like London, New York and perhaps certain others as well), part of it can't really be about reinventing yourself, nor is reinventing cities or countries the goal of the Movement. There are other, more tangible, things to be gained and to contribute.

You are absolutely right in the sense that London never pitched themselves as "a new Britain on the global stage," but I do think that the IOC took history into account. That history definitely made London's bid more sympathetic. London didn't have to pitch it because everybody was already aware of it. I lived in the UK for 2 years and was amazed by how much the general population still seemed to bear a sub-surface shame over British colonialism. It isn't often talked about, but it does seem to hold a place in the collective consciousness -- as does WWII. The Olympics do offer an opportunity to invite the world to discover a new Britain, but the Brits are too classy to sell it that way.

You are also right that the p.r. emphasis is clearly on urban regeneration and encouraging youth sport participation. That is their message and they are sticking to it.

[Kenadian]

Hmmm, I kinda felt that London promoted itself as a multi-cultural city. That is somewhat of a "New Britain"...or maybe more of the "Cool Britannia" that was talked up in the 1990s. London is no longer a city of tea and roses and white haired old white people talking about the trouble in the colonies. But London 2012 certainly made legacy a central theme of their games. And that's what Vancouver and Rio did as well. Chicago seemed weak on that part.

[Olympic USA]

Atlanta -- tough to say. They got a baseball stadium out of it. Coca-Cola was happy. Unfortunately it seems to be the prevailing popular opinion that Atlanta's Games were the worst SOG's in recent memory.

I don't get why people insist that the 1996 Olympics left no legacy for Atlanta - has anyone on here actually been to Atlanta post games? The Olympics really helped improved Atlanta and North Georgie's infastructure, it made the city expand the airport and MARTA, it put them as a respected major metropolis on the U.S. map, it has become one of the fastest growing cities in the U.S. and a major business center, it left a sports and cultural legacy for the city of Atlanta, helped improve facilties at GA Tech and GA State, revilitalized impoversiehd areas, and finally it proved that the Southern USA does have multicultural and booming cities and that it is not some backward civilization that Hollywood sometimes depicts it as.

My mate from New Zealand had this to say about Atlanta : "I had no idea that Atlanta would be so metropolitan and big"

Atlanta may not be a NYC or Chicago but it's certainly no Oklahoma City or Wichita

[lucas_leobas]

In response to the topic, the U.S. desperately needs to improve its relationships with the IOC. We could all understand what happened in 2012 with NYC, since their stadium plans collapsed and the competition was the biggest ever. But what happened yesterday was cruel and disproportional, evidencing that there's a further problem.

So, work on these relationships and, meanwhile, put forward the best bid possible for the 2022 World Cup, which is an even bigger event. That way, 2028 or maybe even 2024 can be in America.

[Augie4040]

In response to the topic, the U.S. desperately needs to improve its relationships with the IOC. We could all understand what happened in 2012 with NYC, since their stadium plans collapsed and the competition was the biggest ever. But what happened yesterday was cruel and disproportional, evidencing that there's a further problem.

So, work on these relationships and, meanwhile, put forward the best bid possible for the 2022 World Cup, which is an even bigger event. That way, 2028 or maybe even 2024 can be in America.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for the US to bid on any games until the 2019 Session to decide the 2026 Winter Games. The US has NO MONEY and our foreign affairs need work. Why would the IOC award a games to a nation actively engaged in 2 goddamn wars? Get out of IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN and solve the problems with out economy, then wait a few years to make sure everything is working well, THEN and ONLY THEN should we bid.

Hubris plagues the USOC like AIDS in Sierra Leone.

America needs to get its sh*t together first. Any bid before 2019 is a fools errand.

[Athensfan]

There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for the US to bid on any games until the 2019 Session to decide the 2026 Winter Games. The US has NO MONEY and our foreign affairs need work. Why would the IOC award a games to a nation actively engaged in 2 goddamn wars? Get out of IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN and solve the problems with out economy, then wait a few years to make sure everything is working well, THEN and ONLY THEN should we bid.

Hubris plagues the USOC like AIDS in Sierra Leone.

America needs to get its sh*t together first. Any bid before 2019 is a fools errand.

I totally agree that the USOC needs to get its act together. This is not going to happen in the next four years. It's going to take a total overhaul of policy and a lot of time to repair broken relationships and build new ones.

With Obama at the helm, I do think the U.S. will be out of Iraq and Afghanistan no later than 2012.

There is plenty of money in the U.S. to host an Olympic Games. Even in a down economy there is still plenty of money -- remember LA '32 happened during the depression. There was a big recession in the early eighties leading up to LA '84. There was also a big recession in the early nineties leading up to Atlanta '96.

As for hubris -- no argument there. Although I would suggest the consequences for those suffering from AIDS in Sierra Leone are a bit more severe.... The fact is, the IOC gave us 3 Olympics in close proximity to each other. We kind of got used to it and now we're shocked at the radical reversal in policy. There is a major hubris problem, but I also think that to a limited degree our misguided expectations are understandable.

The main point where we disagree is the timing. I think the U.S. could be ready by 2017 to bid for 2024. I'm not saying they WILL be ready, I'm just saying they could. And if Africa jumps into that race, they would do best to forget it anyway.

Most importantly, the U.S.' next bid -- whenever it comes -- must be for a SOG -- not a WOG. The SOG are the main attraction, the big money-maker and far more appealing to American audiences. If we get a WOG next who knows how long it will be before we get another SOG. In the mean time, sponsorships will dry up and interest in the Olympics will wane. SAY NO TO WOGS. The next U.S. Games must be summer Games.

[nykfan845]

There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for the US to bid on any games until the 2019 Session to decide the 2026 Winter Games. The US has NO MONEY and our foreign affairs need work. Why would the IOC award a games to a nation actively engaged in 2 goddamn wars? Get out of IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN and solve the problems with out economy, then wait a few years to make sure everything is working well, THEN and ONLY THEN should we bid.

Hubris plagues the USOC like AIDS in Sierra Leone.

America needs to get its sh*t together first. Any bid before 2019 is a fools errand.

What the hell do the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have to do with hosting an Olympics?

Let's not forgot that the next session is in 4 years time, which will choose a host city in 11 years. Who knows what will happen between then?

[baron-pierreIV]

Who knows what will happen between then?

well, this is cyclical, and plans are set in motion years ahead. It's not something that's kept under wraps at all. So there is some certainty in knowing who the players will be by 2011.

[nykfan845]

No, I meant in terms of the US economy and the like.

[baron-pierreIV]

No, I meant in terms of the US economy and the like.

Hpoefully it's on the mend.

But we should make the IOC want us back. Otherwise, just sit cool and grab some medals.

[Rob2012]

There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for the US to bid on any games until the 2019 Session to decide the 2026 Winter Games. The US has NO MONEY and our foreign affairs need work. Why would the IOC award a games to a nation actively engaged in 2 goddamn wars?

It didn't seem to harm London 2012, and that was awarded at the height of the problems in Iraq four years ago. I know the UK sort of followed you guys into those wars but we were the US' most important partner and we got a huge amount of flack from our European allies for doing this. Don't forget 40% of the IOC are from Europe. If the wars were really on the IOC's mind then Paris would have beaten London, I'm sure.

I think the USOC problem is a bigger factor than international politics.

[baron-pierreIV]

I think the USOC problem is a bigger factor than international politics.

It appears that way. Also, that the IOC does not like NOCs that stand up to them. They are such f*cking hypocrites!!

[Stu]

Chicago was just unlucky to be eliminated first. Looking at the voting it's obvious that no city was going to beat Rio - particularly when Tokyo had already hosted a Games, Spain had hosted as recently as 1992 and the United States had hosted Olympic Games eight times (which was all clearly pointed out in the Rio presentation for any IOC members who may have forgotten!).

Rio not only convincingly defeated Chicago, but also convincingly defeated the other two cities - even if USOC relations were very positive and/or US foreign policy had been less aggressive lately, Chicago may have lasted longer, but it would not have influenced the final result.

Just as 2012 was destined for Europe, as soon as Rio made the shortlist, 2016 was destined for South America.

[baron-pierreIV]

Chicago was just unlucky to be eliminated first. Looking at the voting it's obvious that no city was going to beat Rio - particularly when Tokyo had already hosted a Games, Spain had hosted as recently as 1992 and the United States had hosted Olympic Games eight times (which was all clearly pointed out in the Rio presentation for any IOC members who may have forgotten!).

Rio not only convincingly defeated Chicago, but also convincingly defeated the other two cities - even if USOC relations were very positive and/or US foreign policy had been less aggressive lately, Chicago may have lasted longer, but it would not have influenced the final result.

Just as 2012 was destined for Europe, as soon as Rio made the shortlist, 2016 was destined for South America.

Exactly. Regardless of all the glaring deficiencies in Rio's plan vs. the tighter, more compact rivals', the IOC'ers are/were just in mood to samba 7 years' hence. As well as it should be.

[Ruling Czar]

Well, well, what do we have here.

The IOC's vote to award Rio the right to stage the 2016 Olympic games should send a huge message to those bidding cities who rely on arrogance and greed to push themselves into the spotlight. Madrid was a pleasant surprise, Tokyo was an awful surprise, Rio (YAY!) conformed to expectations, and most certainly did Chicago.

Over and over and over again, since the bidding for these games began, the variables were clearly presented on the forums of Gamesbids as to why Chicago was not going to host the 2016 Olympic Games. For those who were not familiar with the stated factors, here they are:

The Fatigue Variable :- The IOC's International Representatives and the entire WORLD I might add, were exhausted to see the games return to the US over and over and over and over again. In the end, like it or not, monotony grows distasteful!

The Global Financial Crisis Variable:- The fact remains that The US is responsible, to a staggeringly significant degree, for the current global economic crisis. Additionally, the "greed" behind Chicago's bid to have the US host the games again most certainly did not set the correct tone to those who were intimately involved in the selection/voting process.

The US Doping Variable:- The undeniable fact remains that everyone is aware of the complete disregard for the ideals of clean participation in sport over the last decade by U.S athletes. Most notably, those in Track and Field. The IOC had to insist that a strong message be sent.

The Salt Lake City Scandal Variable:- which tarnished the Chicago bid and again, was a grotesque compromise of the ideals of the IOC formal bidding process.

The Arrogance Variable:- which was heightened by the over-reliance on the US President Barak Obama. Chicago made the fatal error of using Presedent Obama to gloss over the obvious fissures in their Bid proposal to the IOC, hoping that his universally respected charm and elegance would persuade the voting delegates to hand the games to the US. It was, in every regard, an insulting move against every IOC delegate, and the intelligence each possesses.

The GamesBids Variable:- Believe it or not, every member on Gamesbids in not JUST a fan. Who knows? Maybe, just maybe, when it all comes down to the pith of the whole situation, some members of Gamesbids hold the power in their hands and minds.

I would like, most graciously at this time to thank Rio for an exceptionally stunning bid and to formally congratulate them on bringing the games to South America for the first time. I would also at this time want to suggest that this victory is perhaps the loudest, most unmistakable indirect message to the Canadian City of Toronto to commence working towards an Olympic future. Be assertive not arrogant, be meticulous not dismissive, be determined and your efforts shall not fail. This should most ceratinly apply to Toronto in its bid to stage the 2015 Pan American Games. Scutinize carefully who you choose, if you so choose, to lead your bid. See you in

Vancouver 2010

London 2012

and

Rio 2016!!!!!!!!!!

[stryker]

LA's facilities are going to be very old by the time 2028 rolls around. The Coliseum would be about 100 years old at that time.

And I sure hope the USOC does not give an inch to the IOC re the TV revenues after this episode. I mean the IOC's been unreasonable...so 2 can play the game.

The case for Los Angeles would be stronger if L.A. could get a new stadium built.