Jump to content

2020 Applicant Cities - Who will bid?


monorail

Recommended Posts

The thing with a Madrid bid is that Spain is part of a continent with a high number of potential Olympic hosts and for Spain to once again get an Olympics so close to the 1992 Games seems a bit much: Spain - 12 years - Greece - 8 years - Britain - 8 years - Spain. There are 50 countries in Europe, and many of them are very active and powerful Olympic nations. Some (like the Netherlands, France or Sweden) haven't hosted the Summer Games in a century or so, and some (like Hungary and Poland) have never hosted. I just don't see Madrid getting enough support to win that majority.

I get your point, but if those nations you say aren't interested in hosting the Games, it's not Spain's fault. It would be absurd if the IOC didn't choose Madrid just because they prefer, for example, Ukraine, to host before Spain does again.

If in the end the only 2020 bids from major European capitals are Madrid and Rome, it's going to be a head to head and anything can happen there. If there were more European cities interested (Paris, Berlin...), it would probably be Madrid's to lose. But again, if countries like Poland or Hungary simply don't bid, Spain will sooner or later host again before them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 374
  • Created
  • Last Reply

When Madrid was in the race with other major European capitals (2012), the IOC chose somebody else. When Madrid was the only European capital in the race (2016), the IOC still went with somebody else. Obviously, no matter how the bidding cards are stacked, the IOC evidently thinks that it's still too soon to return to Spain again, regardless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people here are underestimating Madrid. To me the 2016 race with Madrid beating Tokyo and Chicago showed that Madrid is a force to be reckon with. However unfortunately for them and similarly with Toronto in 2008, there was one other city that was the "chosen one". The next "chosen one" will be a city from South Africa, but with them being a no show in 2020 I see Madrid as a real strong contender.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The primary reason why Madrid jumped over Tokyo & Chicago was mainly due to the big guy Juan Antonio Samaranch. His "final wish" of the IOC members to grant Madrid the 2016 Games seemed to have payed-off enough as to swing a few votes to topple the other 2 cities.

However, as you can clearly see in the final vote between Madrid & Rio, it's obvious that the far majority of the IOC members did NOT want to go to Madrid. 66 to 32 is a very clear indication of such. And that number was no better than their 2012 showing, where they finished 3rd, with roughly the same number of votes. So it's very apparent that Madrid can't get the majority when they're constantly ONLY getting 1/3 of the membership's support. And now with JAS gone, that 1/3 support is more than likely going to start to wane.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to the thread:

Three cities are all but confirmed to enter (except Rome which is already in).

So:

Locks to bid:

1) Rome, Italy

2) Tokyo, Japan

3) Madrid, Spain

Next layer (made some rumblings/no official confirmation).

1) Toronto, Canada

2) Berlin, Spain

3) Budapest, Hungary

4) Rabat, Morocco

Link to post
Share on other sites

2) Berlin, Spain

I know it was just a typo, but ...

Actually, i don't think there's been any rumblings from Berlin. They've more been vocal and adamant about re-bidding for 2022 with Munich if the 2018 bid loses.

And i thought the Hungarian parliament had long vetoed a bid for 2020.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it was just a typo, but ...

Actually, i don't think there's been any rumblings from Berlin. They've more been vocal and adamant about re-bidding for 2022 with Munich if the 2018 bid loses.

And i thought the Hungarian parliament had long vetoed a bid for 2020.

OMG I feel like an idiot I am majoring in Geography how do I get that wrong. :rolleyes: I wasn't aware of Hungary vetoing a bid and I assumed the German Olympic committee would throw Berlin's name in the hat as consolation if Muncih lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG I feel like an idiot I am majoring in Geography how do I get that wrong. :rolleyes:

We all do it at times.

Actually, just checked and it was Prague that vetoed a 2020 bid. Hungary last year still expressed some ambitions, but a PWC report they commissioned for themselves basically told them they weren't in a position to do so.

The other thing with Germany is, when it comes to the summer games, they're one of those countries that would probably be obliged to go through a domestic bid phase before settling on a candidate. Like the US, it's a bit late for them to start the process now, much less in a month when the 2018 question's been settled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The primary reason why Madrid jumped over Tokyo & Chicago was mainly due to the big guy Juan Antonio Samaranch. His "final wish" of the IOC members to grant Madrid the 2016 Games seemed to have payed-off enough as to swing a few votes to topple the other 2 cities.

However, as you can clearly see in the final vote between Madrid & Rio, it's obvious that the far majority of the IOC members did NOT want to go to Madrid. 66 to 32 is a very clear indication of such. And that number was no better than their 2012 showing, where they finished 3rd, with roughly the same number of votes. So it's very apparent that Madrid can't get the majority when they're constantly ONLY getting 1/3 of the membership's support. And now with JAS gone, that 1/3 support is more than likely going to start to wane.

Madrid's major loss to Rio wasn't IOC being against Madrid but IOC being overwhelmingly for Rio. Had Rio not being part of the race, Madrid would have a good chance landing the Games. Of course, as you said they had JAS's bucket list going for them and should they bid for 2020 they may recline back to the lower part of the totem pole without the sympathy votes. 2016 is just more of a "We Want RIO" instead of "We Don't Want Madrid".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Madrid's major loss to Rio wasn't IOC being against Madrid but IOC being overwhelmingly for Rio. Had Rio not being part of the race, Madrid would have a good chance landing the Games. Of course, as you said they had JAS's bucket list going for them and should they bid for 2020 they may recline back to the lower part of the totem pole without the sympathy votes. 2016 is just more of a "We Want RIO" instead of "We Don't Want Madrid".

I agree with you that the IOC was overwhelmingly more for Rio than against Madrid. But even if Rio were not in the race, I don't believe that still would've changed much for Madrid's chances. Continental rotation would've still been against them, for starters.

And then it seems that you're assuming that most of Rio's votes would've automatically gone to Madrid, & as I said earlier in the thread, Madrid can't seem to garner more than 1/3 of the IOC support. Their 2016 finish was no better than their 2012 one.

Maybe Doha would've made the list instead if Rio were not there. Rio being out would've changed the entire dynamics of the 2016 race to begin with, & we could've seen Chicago's & Tokyo's chances that much better as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, as you can clearly see in the final vote between Madrid & Rio, it's obvious that the far majority of the IOC members did NOT want to go to Madrid.

I also think (and want to think) that what the IOC wanted was going to Rio instead of not going to Madrid, and I think continental rotation played its role too.

However unfortunately for them and similarly with Toronto in 2008, there was one other city that was the "chosen one". The next "chosen one" will be a city from South Africa, but with them being a no show in 2020 I see Madrid as a real strong contender.

This is what Madrid fears. They were disappointed with the result for 2016 (don't ask me why, even JAS had told them about rotation and new frontiers) and now they've realized their chances decrease when they face a new frontier - that's why they were waiting for South Africa to decide what they were doing before saying a thing about another Madrid bid. So they know that if they want to host the Games (and they really want, believe me), they'll have to fight against the world's major cities, and 2012 and 2016 helped them feel confident here. In both ballots Madrid won one round, and it's true they never managed to get more than 1/3 of the votes, but they beat world class cities like Moscow, New York, Chicago and Tokyo; and for 2012, when the Games were likely to come back to Europe, Madrid lost by ONE vote, only one vote could have made Madrid beat Paris too, because there would have been a tie in the third round.

In other words, with a 2020 with no strong African contender, with the Games likely to land in Europe again, and with no more than two major European rivals on the race, Madrid may have it "easier" to get the Games now than in the following years, when new frontiers (South Africa, India, Middle East) and the USA, with more chances than ever, are likely to bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I just explained in the previous post, Madrid can't seem to muster more than 1/3 of the IOC supoort, so how would that change it to much "easier" chances for 2020, when for 2016 & 2012 they never were able to get more than 32 votes?

Yes, the IOC was more for Rio than against Madrid, but again if Rio were not there, I seriously doubt they would've been able to beat Chicago & Tokyo because it seems that you're also assuming that most of, if not all, of Rio's votes would've gone to Madrid, & I seriously doubt that would've been the case. Again, Rio not being there would've changed the entire dynamics of the 2016 race.

And Madrid beating Moscow & New York for 2012 was to be expected. New York's bid was mostly in shambles & Moscow was just no match for Paris nor London. Plus, they had already played host in 1980 which also was a factor against Moscow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying Madrid will get the 2020 Games if they bid, but it seems to me (and it seems Madrid officials believe it too) that Madrid is more likely to beat Rome for 2020 than South Africa for 2024, for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, of course Madrid officials want to believe that. One has to have confidence when entering a race where the coveted prize is so great like the Olympics. But sometimes one has to also see the realities, cause it can make the difference between having confidence or just being wreckless.

I personally would prefer to see a Madrid Games over a Rome Games, but I don't see the cards for that at this time. I still see Barcelona as Madrid's main handicap. And that is most likely going to stick around for at least another couple of bidding cycles. Just like Annecy for 2018, Alberville 1992 is it's Achilles heel that will more than likely see it fail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like Annecy for 2018, Alberville 1992 is it's Achilles heel that will more than likely see it fail.

Oh, I hadn't related Albertville 1992 to Annecy 2018 :P And Vancouver 2010 meant Canada hosted the Winter Games 22 years after Calgary 1988.

I also wouldn't mind a US Winter bid for 2022 or 2026 (20 or 24 years after last hosting) as long as it wasn't with Salt Lake City, or a Chinese bid for, say, 2040 if it wasn't with Beijing. I guess that even though it's the same country hosting, if it's a different city, the country rotation impact is not that strong, although of course it's something to be taken into account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just about every one of the likely entrants discussed here for 2020 - Rome, Tokyo, Toronto, Madrid - share the achilles heel of at least a fairly recent hosting - Torino, Nagano, Vancouver, Barcelona. It could well be a case of cancelling each other out. And as Athan said, at least Madrid or Toronto could point out they would first timers as cities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As we all know by now, there are fewer options for the Winter Games than the Summer Olympics because the winter ones require topography. So therefore, there are most times than likely going to be more frequent repeat hosts in that category.

However, for 2018, you coincidently still have 2 other options were the rotation favors them over France, which has hosted the Winter Games 3 times already. So why not pick one of the newer options (when all 3 are equal in all other aspects) when you have the opportunity to choose from. Apples & oranges.

And why are you mixing the Winter & Summer Games together. The 2 are a different ball game altogether. And is Toronto a "likely entrant" like Madrid, Rome & Tokyo. Haven't read anything of the sort like the other cities, other than here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And as Athan said, at least Madrid or Toronto could point out they would first timers as cities.

This is filled with such double standards, to say the least.

When Chicago was bidding for 2016, all of you USA nay-sayers were saying that it didn't matter if the U.S. was bidding with a different city, it was still in the U.S. which has hosted already.

Well, Madrid & Toronto are in countries that have hosted already, too. So no difference there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people here are underestimating Madrid. To me the 2016 race with Madrid beating Tokyo and Chicago showed that Madrid is a force to be reckon with. However unfortunately for them and similarly with Toronto in 2008, there was one other city that was the "chosen one". The next "chosen one" will be a city from South Africa, but with them being a no show in 2020 I see Madrid as a real strong contender.

Madrid's major loss to Rio wasn't IOC being against Madrid but IOC being overwhelmingly for Rio. Had Rio not being part of the race, Madrid would have a good chance landing the Games. Of course, as you said they had JAS's bucket list going for them and should they bid for 2020 they may recline back to the lower part of the totem pole without the sympathy votes. 2016 is just more of a "We Want RIO" instead of "We Don't Want Madrid".

Madrid did not necessarily win over Chicago and Tokyo. It is impossible the gauge such an assumption without the cities going head to head in the final rounds. Madird came second out of the momentum of the first round, which it won with 26 votes. That's JAS support base, which is incredibly the same as the 2012 first round.

I bet the IOC would not go to Madrid in any way in 2016, since 2012 went to Europe. Had Rio been out, Chicago would most likely take the SOGs. The amount of votes Madrid won after the first round, even with Tokyo losing 2 votes in the second round was next to none. Everyone went to Rio, and for a very small margin we have not seen a second round win.

Indeed the IOC did go overwhelmingly for Rio, but they did not do at all for Madrid. It is even more likely that the votes Madrid won in the last 2 rounds were actually against Rio, rather than for Madrid.

However, for 2020, continental rotation is not in Madrid's way, so it is a viable candidate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When Chicago was bidding for 2016, all of you USA nay-sayers were saying that it didn't matter if the U.S. was bidding with a different city, it was still in the U.S. which has hosted already.

But that may be because the USA has hosted not once, but three times recently, with a lapse of time of less than 10 years between each of them (1984, 1996 & 2002).

Anyway, if the USA had bid for 1996 with Los Angeles, I highly doubt they would have got it, so even here city rotation might have been important.

And yes, there are fewer options for the Winter Games than the Summer Games, but for 2010 the IOC could have chosen a new host (South Korea) instead of going to a country that had already hosted 22 years before, and they didn't. I wonder if Canada would have got those Games if they had bid with Calgary again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And yes, there are fewer options for the Winter Games than the Summer Games, but for 2010 the IOC could have chosen a new host (South Korea) instead of going to a country that had already hosted 22 years before, and they didn't. I wonder if Canada would have got those Games if they had bid with Calgary again.

Probably not. Vancouver/Whistler had last bid in 1976 (vs. Denver). The thing is, with the age of wide-screen, color HD-TV, scenic settings for the Games PLAY a very important role now. The IOC realizes the importance of "photogenic" Games. See, Madrid is maybe a B- in "photogenic" terms. Rome is probably an A-.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not. Vancouver/Whistler had last bid in 1976 (vs. Denver). The thing is, with the age of wide-screen, color HD-TV, scenic settings for the Games PLAY a very important role now. The IOC realizes the importance of "photogenic" Games. See, Madrid is maybe a B- in "photogenic" terms. Rome is probably an A-.

How about Toronto :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC realizes the importance of "photogenic" Games. See, Madrid is maybe a B- in "photogenic" terms. Rome is probably an A-.

I agree with you on that. Having been to both Madrid and Rome, I think Rome has by far more famous and iconic landmarks than Madrid.

It doesn't mean Madrid is ugly to be seen on photos or TV. Madrid also has many buildings and monuments that look great, but not as famous or historical as Rome's. However, maybe because of that, the Madrid Games could be a surprise for international audiences. The Olympics there can help discover a city of Madrid that many people don't know.

And I'm also going to correct my previous post: there hadn't been three recent Olympics in the USA but four (2 SOG, 2 WOG: 1980, 1984, 1996 & 2002) and it wasn't less than 10 years between them either but less than 12. ;)

PS: I see Madrid and Toronto very similar "photogenically" speaking. The only difference is that Toronto has the world known landmark Madrid lacks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...