Jump to content

Did Vancouver-london Doom Chicago Bid?


Recommended Posts

OK...new angle. Did vancouver 2010 and London 2012 (and the global economic shake-up of 2008-09) doom the Chicago 2016 bid? I think so.

No matter how technically sound the Chicago 2016 bid was, I think 3 "Anglo-Saxon/ENglish..." Olympics in a row (OK, a Russian WOG is in there to break the continuity) was a nail in Chicago's coffin. Going back to another "English-speaking" city so soon after 2012, definitely was an impediment for Chicago...just as Rio's Latin flavor was obviously a feather in Rio's cap.

Also, how much of the 2008-09 economic turmoil was laid at the US'/Chicago's feet in the Copenhagen vote?

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I did think all along that ondon, and the prospect of two anglo-speaking SOGs in a row, was a weakness for Chicago. Not a deal breaker - after all we've had the Atlanta-Sydney sequence, but certainly it didn't help Chicago's case.

The financial crisis - I don't think it would have had much effect at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK...new angle. Did vancouver 2010 and London 2012 (and the global economic shake-up of 2008-09) doom the Chicago 2016 bid? I think so.

No matter how technically sound the Chicago 2016 bid was, I think 3 "Anglo-Saxon/ENglish..." Olympics in a row (OK, a Russian WOG is in there to break the continuity) was a nail in Chicago's coffin. Going back to another "English-speaking" city so soon after 2012, definitely was an impediment for Chicago...just as Rio's Latin flavor was obviously a feather in Rio's cap.

Also, how much of the 2008-09 economic turmoil was laid at the US'/Chicago's feet in the Copenhagen vote?

Thoughts?

The "Anglo-Saxon" angle was, honestly, really offensive - and I'd said so a number of times when it was raised. The people who use terms like "Anglo-Saxon" and "English-heritage" in the U.S. are people who have done and advocated some of the most offensive behaviors I could imagine. Not to say it wasn't a factor - but Chicago 2016 was treated as a necessary sacrifice to the regional loyalties, the JAS debts, the billions in defense contracts, the billions of barrels of oil, the pre-determined course to award the games to Rio - and even if more than half of Chicago spoke Spanish and was in its own separate territory, it wouldn't have made any difference.

CHItown '16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I did think all along that ondon, and the prospect of two anglo-speaking SOGs in a row, was a weakness for Chicago. Not a deal breaker - after all we've had the Atlanta-Sydney sequence, but certainly it didn't help Chicago's case.

We had the Atlanta - Sydney - Salt Lake sequence.

Vancouver - London - Chicago, you would think, given that it's three different countries, wouldn't be so 'bad' in that respect.

Ask yourself, if Brazil was an English speaking country, on a continent that hadn't hosted before, with a lot of goodwill from the IOC, with its natural beauty, having just hosted a regional multi-sport event, would it have lost just because it was English speaking? I don't think so. I don't think in that hypothetical situation the language similarity would put the IOC off Rio 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had the Atlanta - Sydney - Salt Lake sequence.

Vancouver - London - Chicago, you would think, given that it's three different countries, wouldn't be so 'bad' in that respect.

Ask yourself, if Brazil was an English speaking country, on a continent that hadn't hosted before, with a lot of goodwill from the IOC, with its natural beauty, having just hosted a regional multi-sport event, would it have lost just because it was English speaking? I don't think so. I don't think in that hypothetical situation the language similarity would put the IOC off Rio 2016.

As I said, it wasn't a deal breaker - I indeed mentioned Atlanta-Sydney (I didn't mention the Winters because while I do think the WOG selections have SOME determination on SOG decisions, it's more peripheral (horse-tradng) rather than direct (rotation)). And I still thought Chicago was in the box seat, at least until mid-2009 when it was becoming obvious the USOC was shooting itself in the foot and the momentum was definitely steering strongly towards Rio.

But nevertheless, I could see it as a factor that could have played a part in some members decisions. Like any of dozens of other factors. It's not a stretch to think that at least one IOC member (like many on this board - it was indeed an opinion expressed here a few times) could have thought: "Damn Anglos and Yankees, they get too many games. I'm not even going to consider Chicago".

It's like the Iraq question - of course it shouldn't have been part of any considerations - indeed, it would be offensive to think any IOC member would base their preferences on it - but it's still not a stretch to say that at least one IOC member from the Middle East, say, would never have even given Chicago a moment's consideration because of it. There's probably 100 plus different reasons for the 100 plus IOC members to decide as they did.

All bid carry in certain advantages - and baggage. I think back-to-back anglo games was a baggage factor, though a slight one at best. It's how they play and counter those advantages and baggages that make the difference. In the end rotation and IOC politics, as mentioned, made the difference for 2016, and the USOC struggled and fumbled to counter that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All bid carry in certain advantages - and baggage. I think back-to-back anglo games was a baggage factor, though a slight one at best. It's how they play and counter those advantages and baggages that make the difference. In the end rotation and IOC politics, as mentioned, made the difference for 2016, and the USOC struggled and fumbled to counter that.

It was pretty clear with the vote that even if the USOC had addressed the IOC's concerns as the IOC asked that it wouldn't have mattered. A few months later, I'm glad that the USOC hadn't given up its bargaining ability for an empty promise of fair treatment.

If a bid weighed down by an extremely unpopular president who started an unnecessary war, a canceled stadium plan, and the logistical and transportation challenges of New York City still attracted more support than a well considered and sensitive and adaptive Chicago 2016 plan in the home town of an internationally acclaimed president, there wasn't any real chance of success.

CHItown '16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baron is right, although it probably wasn't the only reason. Regardless of who is "white/anglo-saxon" in any of those countries, both Canada and Britain, and the US are traditionally dominated by European heritage (some more distantly) and the English language. A games in Rio would break out of that Commonwealth-games-esque type of shell (I said -ESQUE, not literally like the CG so don't give me grief) and try to break more language barriers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you can make too much of it though. Baron asked:

Did vancouver 2010 and London 2012 ... doom the Chicago 2016 bid?

The answer to that I would say is No. Until a year or so before the vote Chicago were favourites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmmm, I never thought about this, but it is a very interesting perspective, one that I think is actually of concern with the 3 Anglophone countries bidding for the 2018/22 World Cups. However, I think I have to agree with most of the people here who've said probably not.

Although maybe having back-to-back G8 hosts put off some IOC members? This has never happened for the summer games since the group was formed in 1975, although it most certainly has for the winter games with back-to-back G8 hosts from 1998-??? (66% chance it'll continue until at least 2018.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will further agree with the consensus that it did not "doom" their bid, but it certainly didn't help. In the end, IOC/USOC politics killed the bid along with a compelling bid from Rio that built momentum starting with their presentation at Sport Accord in Denver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...