Next Usa Summer Bid (poll)

[FYI]

I'd say that Toronto and Melbourne were on par or ahead of Atlanta as far as international profile.

Definitely at least on par with Atlanta, but Toronto & Melbourne sure ain't no New York, London or Paris, either. In addition to maybe Canadian fatigue; I'm sure another downside was that Melbourne had already hosted before, as well. Not to mention the success of Los Angeles 1984 was on the minds of the IOC members, too, that also helped the Georgian capital. Everything just seemed to be lining up for Atlanta for 1996. They were in the right race at the right time, back then.

[CanisMinor]

CanisMinor, where can I see Chicago 2016's domestic bid book? I can't find it online anywhere.

It's not online. I have it at home. If you want to see it, drop me a message if you are ever in Chicago, and you can have a look at it over coffee.

[CanisMinor]

the USOC is going to need a good international city to compete with the like of these global big guns, & that ain't Houston.

Well, the USOC has brought the greatest city in the world to the table and been shot down. I don't think the guns get any bigger than New York. The problem is that a great city doesn't always make a great technical bid. Houston has the potential to be a great technical bid (as long as the games are held in September).

However, I think I made my point badly. I apologize. The intention was more to highlight that Chicago is very unlikely to bid again, and I don't think there is much appetite in New York for another bid, either. This leaves the usual domestic suspects that try every time: San Francisco, LA, Houston, Dallas, Philadelphia. We can also add Boston to a suspect. This is the only real reason I am mentioning Houston - of those that are likely to try make a run at it, Houston and LA are probably technically the strongest.

Of course, I'm even considering Birmingham, Pittsburgh, Tulsa or others like them. They have no chance. Over the past four years I have seen preliminary bid attempts from many US cities that did not even make the press. For example, did you know that Gary, IN partially prepared a domestic bid?

[baron-pierreIV]

For example, did you know that Gary, IN partially prepared a domestic bid?

Why, even Sta. Paquita, KS. Doesn't mean it's going to happen anytime soon.

[FYI]

Well, the USOC has brought the greatest city in the world to the table and been shot down. I don't think the guns get any bigger than New York. The problem is that a great city doesn't always make a great technical bid. Houston has the potential to be a great technical bid (as long as the games are held in September).

However, I think I made my point badly. I apologize. The intention was more to highlight that Chicago is very unlikely to bid again, and I don't think there is much appetite in New York for another bid, either. This leaves the usual domestic suspects that try every time: San Francisco, LA, Houston, Dallas, Philadelphia. We can also add Boston to a suspect. This is the only real reason I am mentioning Houston - of those that are likely to try make a run at it, Houston and LA are probably technically the strongest.

Of course, I'm even considering Birmingham, Pittsburgh, Tulsa or others like them. They have no chance. Over the past four years I have seen preliminary bid attempts from many US cities that did not even make the press. For example, did you know that Gary, IN partially prepared a domestic bid?

Well, don't know if you followed the 2012 race, but it was pretty obvious that the New York bid was doomed to fail after their new Manhattan west side stadium proposal just fell apart only weeks before the final IOC 2012 vote. Plus, the 2012 race was also littered with other top-notch global cities, some argue the most exciting race in Olympic bidding history, since it involved the top 3 global cities of New York, London & Paris. Not to mention the other 2 big finalists, Madrid & Moscow, too. Houston or Dallas, for example, would not have faired too well at all in that particular race & the USOC knew that. So they had to put something up to match London & Paris. One is not going to go in & fight with just plain gloves when others are going to be fighting with iron gloves.

And while agreed that Houston would make a great technical bid on paper (but they also have a stadium issue. They need to get rid of the idea of their 2 stadium proposal), but as IOC voting history has shown us time & time again, the greatest technical bid most of the time doesn't really win. Certainly Chicago & Tokyo were technically better than Rio, & Madrid was certainly by FAR better than Rio. Salzburg was clearly technically better than Sochi (they need to build everything from *scratch*) for 2014. And Toronto & Paris' bids were certainly technically better than Beijing's for 2008, but obviously the IOC wasn't interested in the "greatest" technical bid in these cases.

Again, each bidding race has it's own dynamics & that means that every time there are different reasons as to why certain cities win or lose. While I agree with you on the technical aspects a Houston bid would be able to create, they can't make it their main selling point, because it won't fly. There are so many variables involved in an Olympic bid that it's more than enough to make one's head spin. Los Angeles would be better than Houston, they have the international stature & the technical aspect on their side, but more time has to past from 1984. Philadelphia seems mediocre, but they would have the East Coast thing going for them. Boston would be great, but they have to make their bid compact. And of course San Francisco would be the best, but they would have to fix their stadium issues & red tape first, & that ain't happening anytime soon. Then there are the newbies that like dreaming about Minneapolis. While Minny is nice & all, it ain't Olympic caliber, at least for Summer. Minneapolis would make a great Winter Olympic candidate, but their downside for that is no mountains for the Alpine events. Pittsburgh is just not sexy. And then there's Birmingham & Tulsa. okay

So there seems to be many obsticles that the USOC has to take into acount before they launch another bid (not to mention their reorganization) that it wouldn't surprise me at all if they sat out 2020 because of all their turmoils at the moment. Especially after the 2016 vote 10 days ago. I'm sure they're still scratching their heads as we speak.

[Kenadian]

There is always a political factor. China, Russia, and Brazil made a big push for "we've never had the Games before"...winter, for Russia..."and you can't ignore our millions and millions of people to go back to a place that already had their Olympics."

The US will have its turn again. But it can't win with another Atlanta-style city. The Eurocrats won't allow it. Each of the premier US cities have their land/legacy issues, but as long as the rest of the world keeps offering top-tier and sexy cities, the US can't offer up a lower tier city.

[Athensfan]

There is always a political factor. China, Russia, and Brazil made a big push for "we've never had the Games before"...winter, for Russia..."and you can't ignore our millions and millions of people to go back to a place that already had their Olympics."

The US will have its turn again. But it can't win with another Atlanta-style city. The Eurocrats won't allow it. Each of the premier US cities have their land/legacy issues, but as long as the rest of the world keeps offering top-tier and sexy cities, the US can't offer up a lower tier city.

I agree completely with the above post. Furthermore, I think the U.S. is realizing that having LA 84, Atlanta 96, and Salt Lake 02 so close together was an anomaly. We aren't going to be able to cycle through the whole roster of big American cities. The USOC is going to have to be choosy and make sure that the next American bid really counts.

Houston, Austin, Boston, Pittsburgh, San Francisco -- they all have big issues. With some the problem is international appeal, with some the issue is physical space, with some the issue is politics and bureaucratic red tape.

Chicago is definitely the best bet -- diverse, cultured, beautiful, very clean, good transportation, the lake, the parks, corporate presence -- still undiscovered by much of the world. .

New York would need to find a stadium and, personally, I've always felt that the Olympics would get lost in NYC -- as would a legacy.

LA is a possibility, but a lot of things need to change both in the city and in the state of California. It would be unreasonable to even consider LA until the 2030s.

I also feel it is vital to reiterate that THE LEADERSHIP of a bid is at least as important as the merits of the bid city itself. Rogge underlined this during the 2016 race. The bid leader needs to be charismatic, imaginative, innovative, energetic and -- above all -- someone the IOC trusts. That leader has to be surrounded by a highly competent staff and a lot of powerful friends.

It is pointless debating the merits of these cities if there isn't high quality leadership to drive the bid.

[baron-pierreIV]

OK, what's in the political cards for Chicago come 2019-21...when it would have to gear up for a 2028 run??

[FYI]

I agree completely with the above post. Furthermore, I think the U.S. is realizing that having LA 84, Atlanta 96, and Salt Lake 02 so close together was an anomaly. We aren't going to be able to cycle through the whole roster of big American cities. The USOC is going to have to be choosy and make sure that the next American bid really counts.

Houston, Austin, Boston, Pittsburgh, San Francisco -- they all have big issues. With some the problem is international appeal, with some the issue is physical space, with some the issue is politics and bureaucratic red tape.

Chicago is definitely the best bet -- diverse, cultured, beautiful, very clean, good transportation, the lake, the parks, corporate presence -- still undiscovered by much of the world. .

New York would need to find a stadium and, personally, I've always felt that the Olympics would get lost in NYC -- as would a legacy.

LA is a possibility, but a lot of things need to change both in the city and in the state of California. It would be unreasonable to even consider LA until the 2030s.

I also feel it is vital to reiterate that THE LEADERSHIP of a bid is at least as important as the merits of the bid city itself. Rogge underlined this during the 2016 race. The bid leader needs to be charismatic, imaginative, innovative, energetic and -- above all -- someone the IOC trusts. That leader has to be surrounded by a highly competent staff and a lot of powerful friends.

It is pointless debating the merits of these cities if there isn't high quality leadership to drive the bid.

Funny you should mention those points. I thought this article from 3-1/2 years ago was a very interesting read. This was when the USOC was in the thinking process of whether or not to bid for the 2016 Olympics. Puts right in to evidence the points you're making. And that was back then. Next time the USOC decides to bid, the cities are going to be extremely scrutinized like the Spanish inquisition. The most interesting part of the article is when it talks about the USOC mentioning that a lot of the cities out there that express interest, have absolutely no clue on what kind of an extreme endeavor trying to get an Olympic Games actually entails. Then when the cities get hit with the hard reality, by the USOC, of what it's gonna really take, they back off. Certainly the grumblings of Birmingham & Tulsa came to my mind right away, & to a lesser extent Minneapolis & Pittsburgh. As a matter of fact, I've been reading lately that in Pittsburgh, the notion of an Olympics there for 2020 is being touted ridiculously by some high school teenager. The same old black-&-white mentality, "if Atlanta can do it, we can, too". Such silliness to say the least. What is it with these silly teenagers from these 3rd-tier towns. Must be something in their drinking water.

[FYI]

Forgot to link the article:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?sectio...&id=2431852

[Athensfan]

OK, what's in the political cards for Chicago come 2019-21...when it would have to gear up for a 2028 run??

Daley wouldn't be in the game. Who knows who would lead the charge?

I do have some thoughts regarding the IOC session and the vote however...

Obviously by 2021 Obama will be out of office. Although I do sincerely believe that no sitting U.S. President will ever attend an IOC vote again, perhaps Obama would be willing to return -- as a subtle but stinging reminder of the high quality of Chicago's 2016 bid and their unceremonious dismissal. Of course, he wouldn't actually have to say a word about 2016 -- his mere presence would make the point abundantly clear. Another oratorical masterpiece... could be quite effective.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that if Chicago bids again in the not-too-distant future, Obama should definitely attend the IOC vote. What fantastic personal redemption for him, for Chicago and the U.S....

[baron-pierreIV]

Yeah, but "once burned...twice shy."

Well, can Chicago stomach spending another what??? $70-80 mil for something so uncertain? I mean, the naysayers will be even stronger the 2nd time around. And they can rightfully say: If only you had listened to us, that $48 million (to the other amount bruited about, $100 million) could've gone to the homeless, the hungry, the schools..rather than to brochures and trips for something so ephemeral.

Nope, a SOG ain't happening in the US for another 20 years at least...and it's got to be a city that is willing to throw away $100 million if it doesn't happen.

[Doc Steel]

As a matter of fact, I've been reading lately that in Pittsburgh, the notion of an Olympics there for 2020 is being touted ridiculously by some high school teenager. The same old black-&-white mentality, "if Atlanta can do it, we can, too". Such silliness to say the least. What is it with these silly teenagers from these 3rd-tier towns. Must be something in their drinking water.

Yes, those crazy teenagers.

[Athensfan]

Yeah, but "once burned...twice shy."

Well, can Chicago stomach spending another what??? $70-80 mil for something so uncertain? I mean, the naysayers will be even stronger the 2nd time around. And they can rightfully say: If only you had listened to us, that $48 million (to the other amount bruited about, $100 million) could've gone to the homeless, the hungry, the schools..rather than to brochures and trips for something so ephemeral.

Nope, a SOG ain't happening in the US for another 20 years at least...and it's got to be a city that is willing to throw away $100 million if it doesn't happen.

Now I understand why you're pushing 2022. You're amazingly pessimistic about the possibility of a Sumer Games in the U.S. I agree that 2020 should definitely be off the table, but after that we need to wait and see what develops, who steps forward, etc.

For one thing, it's not necessarily the city that would foot the bill -- certainly not the entire bill. I think your argument about "20 years at least" is a bit extreme. The USOC will eventually get its act together. There will be a high profile city willing to put forward a very competitive bid. Even 2028 falls outside your 20 year window, so I guess you're assuming it's going to wait until 2032. Really? Do you really think that the IOC is going to leave 36 years between American SOGs? I will acknowledge that it is possible, but it is not a foregone conclusion.

Regarding "once burned" ... of course you are right and Obama might very well react w/ extreme caution, but by that time, he would be the elder statesman and wouldn't really have anything to lose -- no political capital at stake. It would be totally different from 2016. If the USOC does get its act together, Chicago mounts an impressive bid and there's a feeling of "it's time for the U.S." in the IOC, the return of Obama would pack quite a punch. Admittedly, that's a lot of "ifs".

[baron-pierreIV]

Now I understand why you're pushing 2022. You're amazingly pessimistic about the possibility of a Sumer Games in the U.S. I agree that 2020 should definitely be off the table, but after that we need to wait and see what develops, who steps forward, etc.

For one thing, it's not necessarily the city that would foot the bill -- certainly not the entire bill. I think your argument about "20 years at least" is a bit extreme. The USOC will eventually get its act together. There will be a high profile city willing to put forward a very competitive bid. Even 2028 falls outside your 20 year window, so I guess you're assuming it's going to wait until 2032. Really? Do you really think that the IOC is going to leave 36 years between American SOGs? I will acknowledge that it is possible, but it is not a foregone conclusion.

Regarding "once burned" ... of course you are right and Obama might very well react w/ extreme caution, but by that time, he would be the elder statesman and wouldn't really have anything to lose -- no political capital at stake. It would be totally different from 2016. If the USOC does get its act together, Chicago mounts an impressive bid and there's a feeling of "it's time for the U.S." in the IOC, the return of Obama would pack quite a punch. Admittedly, that's a lot of "ifs".

Nope. It's the City that foots the entire bill. The USOC is merely the presenter and partakes of the sponsorship monies...but the pre-bid costs ARE ALL the cities...which is why the USOC spells that OUT CLEARLY at the start of the domestic round. I mean if they are already on a tight budget, scrimping here, laying off there...do you really think they have like $10 million to spare? Nope. The cost of the bid is shouldered entirely by the city. Why do you think Billy Payne, Bloomberg, Doctoroff and Patrick Ryan spent their own funds...becaue in the US set-up, it is purely the bidding city's expenditure.

If a US city builds a brand new, spanking T&F stadium...yeah, there might be a chance...but so far, all these teomproary, failed-at-the-last-minute proposals ain't gonna cut it.

[Athensfan]

Nope. It's the City that foots the entire bill. The USOC is merely the presenter and partakes of the sponsorship monies...but the pre-bid costs ARE ALL the cities...which is why the USOC spells that OUT CLEARLY at the start of the domestic round. I mean if they are already on a tight budget, scrimping here, laying off there...do you really think they have like $10 million to spare? Nope. The cost of the bid is shouldered entirely by the city. Why do you think Billy Payne, Bloomberg, Doctoroff and Patrick Ryan spent their own funds...becaue in the US set-up, it is purely the bidding city's expenditure.

If a US city builds a brand new, spanking T&F stadium...yeah, there might be a chance...but so far, all these teomproary, failed-at-the-last-minute proposals ain't gonna cut it.

I never thought the USOC would help defray costs. However, there's nothing to prevent corporate sponsorship, private donations, etc. Nowhere is it written that a city must spend 100 million in public funds. Your earlier post seemed to imply that every penny would come from taxpayers. THAT's the notion that I'm disputing. I absolutely believe that there will be sufficient private funds to field an Olympic bid before 2032. Whether a bid is put forward or wins ... well, that's another story.

[baron-pierreIV]

Oh no. US bids are financed entirely from private sources. Sorry if I gave a different impression. But do u really think that a city other than the usual 4 would again raise $70-80 million FROM private sources knowing the track record of the US bids?

Even if I were like the head of a Microsoft, I would have obligations to my stockholders to use the corporation's surplus funds wisely...not on some quixotic dream which depends on the fickle dream of some shifty, self-important nabobs. They would probably rather donate their money to the USOC directly for the development of athletes rather than pursue this terribly elusive dream of some 85 egotistical, self-serving drips.

[dafoofish]

I voted Chicago 2028.

We need to have a big gap after 1996, that way it will look like the games are "destined" for the USA!

[aluz]

I really think that the best chance the US has is to bid with either NYC or Chicago, maybe San Francisco. On the emotional side, I think NYC even has an edge, but it is more difficult to work on the technical side.

I also think the USOC should interfere more in the process, choosing a preferred city to a future bid and stick with it. By doing that, they can use past experience to improve the bid, if a first attempt is lost and improve it for the next one, like anticipating constructions that would be needed for the Games (hotels, transport and possible venues). Currently, since several cities can compete to be the US bid city for each SOG, there is little incentive in keeping the work in the long run to improve the chances.

Last, during that period, the USOC should work closely with the IOC to display their commitment in hosting the SOG and do a massive lobbying effort over a long period before the host city is elected. The USOC should understand the will of the IFs and NOCs involved to share the benefits of the legacy, like staging World Championships, for instance. It should also gather support from key and old IOC members who understand the hearts and minds of most of the IOC members to be able to influence them properly.

[jim jones]

Nope. It's the City that foots the entire bill. The USOC is merely the presenter and partakes of the sponsorship monies...but the pre-bid costs ARE ALL the cities...which is why the USOC spells that OUT CLEARLY at the start of the domestic round. I mean if they are already on a tight budget, scrimping here, laying off there...do you really think they have like $10 million to spare? Nope. The cost of the bid is shouldered entirely by the city. Why do you think Billy Payne, Bloomberg, Doctoroff and Patrick Ryan spent their own funds...becaue in the US set-up, it is purely the bidding city's expenditure.

If a US city builds a brand new, spanking T&F stadium...yeah, there might be a chance...but so far, all these teomproary, failed-at-the-last-minute proposals ain't gonna cut it.

As simple as you put it with T and F stadiums for the US you are right. The IAAF is looking to legacy facilities it seems. The problem with US taxpayers is they have low tolerance for White Elephants which Stadiums like Seoul's Main Olympic Stadium has become.

The US the demands are for the four major Pro sports leagues and taxpayers are generally not tolerating that very much.

Temporary or a Conversion to Baseball or Grid Iron football is the only way I can see the Us going for a Bid.

Jim Jones

[dc/baltimoreolympics]

Hello all, new to the forum and this is my first post.

I think the US should bid for the Summer Games in 2020, just not exactly sure of the city yet. Here are my thoughts on a few potential hosts.

NYC- Too big of a city, no plans for a stadium and bad traffic, so travel time between venues would be awful

San Fran- If they can get the stadium the best shot for USA.

Houston/Dallas-Not enough US support

Boston- Might have the best story of any city, the founding of America. If they could somehow get Mitt Romney to run the bid, i think they would have a shot

Dc/Baltimore-totally underrated Bid, Great infrastructure, and plenty of already built stadiums in the area. Can handle security and hosting the big events. Dan Snyder (Redskins owner) has been itching for a new stadium, maybe it could function as a new olympic stadium. The story for this bid is easy, DC the city of Freedom.I would like to see more discussion on this possibility.

Minneapolis/others- Ultimately too small and not well known enough, but Atlanta got the bid against a week field. If Paris holds off a bid, the only competition might be ROme (especially if Asia gets 2018 Winter games)

Just my thoughts.

[Athensfan]

I really think that the best chance the US has is to bid with either NYC or Chicago, maybe San Francisco. On the emotional side, I think NYC even has an edge, but it is more difficult to work on the technical side.

I also think the USOC should interfere more in the process, choosing a preferred city to a future bid and stick with it. By doing that, they can use past experience to improve the bid, if a first attempt is lost and improve it for the next one, like anticipating constructions that would be needed for the Games (hotels, transport and possible venues). Currently, since several cities can compete to be the US bid city for each SOG, there is little incentive in keeping the work in the long run to improve the chances.

Last, during that period, the USOC should work closely with the IOC to display their commitment in hosting the SOG and do a massive lobbying effort over a long period before the host city is elected. The USOC should understand the will of the IFs and NOCs involved to share the benefits of the legacy, like staging World Championships, for instance. It should also gather support from key and old IOC members who understand the hearts and minds of most of the IOC members to be able to influence them properly.

I agree with parts of your post. The most important issue is the relationship between the USOC and the IOC. This must be repaired and I agree with you there. In order for the USOC to be more engaged in the process, however, the organization must have steady, strong leadership and clear vision. That has been totally lacking.

I also think it would be wise to stick with one of the cities with which the IOC is already familiar. In my opinion, Chicago is definitely the best bet. The reason for sticking with these cities, however, is not to improve the technical aspects of the bid. It would be to capitalize on the IOC's familiarity.

The place where I disagree with your post is with regard to the technical qualities of U.S. bids. Chicago's bid was technically outstanding. More time is not going to improve the bid. If anything, the bid will become weaker as real estate is developed for other purposes. The city of Chicago will not leave valuable land empty for 15 or 20 years while waiting for the IOC to warm up to the idea. Also, the U.S. has a strong history of hosting international sporting events such as world championships. I do not see any weakness there either.

The problems are all related to poor leadership and decaying relationships with the IOC. These are the issues that must be addressed. A superior technical bid is not going to be the problem. The IOC has never made their decisions on a purely technical basis and I see no reason why they will start to do so anytime soon.

[Cauê]

No 2020!

2020 will be in Europe, in one of these cities: Rome, Paris, Madrid or Istanbul. And, for me, Madrid is the great favourite.

I voted for 2024 with San Francisco. For me, San Francisco is the most beautiful city in U.S.A and one of the most beautiful cities in the world. But Chicago is my second choice, a mature and very good choice.

Well, USA for 2024 - San Francisco or Chicago.

[FYI]

If 2020 does go to Europe, it'll go to Rome. For starters, it doesn't look like Paris is gonna bid (& if Annecy wins 2018 & to a lesser degree if Munich wins, you can forget about Paris), & who knows if Madrid has gotten fatigued by now & make skip it this time, & Istanbul unless they've massively improved their bid (since their previous bids had big issues, one of them being the "core" of the Games was wayyy out there away from the city, among other main issues) then they ain't gettin' it, either. Plus, if Tokyo & Cape Town bid (which is very likely), then Europe will certainly by no means be a shoe-in for 2020 like 2012 was.

And really, the earliest I can see it coming to the U.S. at this point is 2028. And personally, I think the next bidder should be Los Angeles. I know it's hosted twice & all, but by 2028 or 2032, it would be 44-48 years since the last Los Angeles Games in 1984 (plus we do have London that's going to be hosting for the 3rd time in 3 years time). And the USOC seems to be partial to L.A., anyway. For 2016, the USOC vote between Chicago & Los Angeles was supposedly very close. Los Angeles would have to come up with a fantastic venue plan though, if they really want to get the Olympics again.

[baron-pierreIV]

And really, the earliest I can see it coming to the U.S. at this point is 2028. And personally, I think the next bidder should be Los Angeles. I know it's hosted twice & all, but by 2028 or 2032, it would be 44-48 years since the last Los Angeles Games in 1984 (plus we do have London that's going to be hosting for the 3rd time in 3 years time). And the USOC seems to be partial to L.A., anyway. For 2016, the USOC vote between Chicago & Los Angeles was supposedly very close. Los Angeles would have to come up with a fantastic venue plan though, if they really want to get the Olympics again.

Well, 2032 would of course be the Centennial for LA 1932. The only problem with the last LA bid was that--for me-- they had too many sports down in Long Beach. They should move some of that up to like Santa Monica. But who knows? They have another 14 years to get ready.