Jump to content

Impact of the Financial Crisis on Olympic bids


Recommended Posts

Dannyel you are speaking from a very long time ago about the emerging economies the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China & South Africa)

But I read somewhere about the T-BRICS, They are including Turkey in this category. The Turkish economy is very strong and stable. In fact evoluating fast. Last year the first two quartals Turkey grow with 11% the second two quartals by 9%. China and Turkey were the only two countries growing with 10% in this years first 2 quartals.

The one and only thing is now the BIDBOOK. The Turkish PM gave the order to make a totally new and a bid. I hope that this time the Isanbul Bidbook will suprpise us in a very high level. fingers crossed. But if not .. then it will be the same 'sing-along-song' (what won't happen)

regards

fatih

In fact, for me it doesn't matter the acronym, the fact is we have a new "class" of countries: the emergents.

Brazil, Russia, China, India, Turkey, South Africa are the main expoents of this group.

Mexico, Indonesia and few other are also emerging countries, but less powerful at this moment.

Anyway, my point is, the rich world is suffering from a crisis that seems to be deeper than we thought.

Emerging world is doing pretty nice in the crisis, for sure, suffering a bit, but doing well.

We still have the poorer countries in the World that should be included in the emerging group.

Somehow, the old "first, third" world denomination does not fit the 21st century, maybe only to french people who invented this crap naming thing. That's my point.

IMHO, South Korea is a rich country, not an emerging one.

Dannyel you are speaking from a very long time ago about the emerging economies the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China & South Africa)

Turkey is a great emering country. Nobody is pointing otherwise. Indeed, this is the biggest card Istanbul must play to win the 2020 race: We are with strong economics due these hard days. We are the financial safe choice.

Many here couldn't imagine some sentence like this few years ago... "Turkey is the safest financial choice for an Olympic Games over Japan, Italy and Spain"

World is changing..................... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The emerging world could afford the Olympic at this very moment. The problem is Brazil and Russia are expecting to host soon. China just did 2008 and India seems to be lost without a map in the Olympics world...

South Africa, the newest member of BRICS, is, maybe, wasting the greatest opportunity ever to bid... I'm not inside why they are not bidding, but I think this is the perfect time for a South African olympics bid. Anyway, it's up to South African taxpayers to decide, not me.

And more, if the crisis gets worse, be sure, Istanbul will win 2020 by huge landslide.

And yet, despite this, there is still a sizeable gap between the bids emerging countries are offering the IOC and traditional developed countries.

Rio's bid was good, but it was the weakest of the four technically. The strongest in the 2016 field probably came from Spain and the US, two of the nations most affected by the downturn.

Similarly, Sochi had a piece of land and a vision. A terribly risky bid compared to its rivals. All the infrastructure and venues needed to be built.

Durban is well short of hotel rooms, its infrastructure is not up to scratch by all accounts and there have been doubts cast from many people about South Africa's readiness.

India just hosted a poor CWG. They might be booming but that doesn't mean much when the organisational skills are not there.

And Istanbul has been rejected several times by the IOC already.


The US is still capable of getting big projects done, and their private sector is still well capable of generating huge sponsorships and incomes for the IOC. I don't doubt the same is true for most major European economies either, even those which are struggling right now. Remember, the national debt figures we talk about are in the hundreds of billions, or in the US' case, into the trillions. An Olympics will barely dent this.

The IOC will not reject bids from developed countries with struggling economies as quickly as some would think. They are still the nations with the infrastructure and cities most capable of hosting. Rio won, but its bid was less technically sound than some of its rivals. I doubt, had there not been a strong urge to go to South America (or conversely, had a European City put forth a Rio-esque bid) it would have done half as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rio won because it showcased the "spirit" in their bid. There was a passionate soul behind it. From the video they created to the visual design of logo, venues and presentation you could feel a real Olympic concept behind it. e.g Madrid couldn't give me the soul with their plan though they had a technically great bid, Tokyo had the same problem. Chicago's bid also had the lack of "feeling" other than an Olympic Games in parks which would be a risky project for city's future. e.g London also managed to sell an ideal about "youth" and everything they offered had a dynamic vision and you could feel they can do it. Beijing and Athens had also concepts that really mattered. The point it is not only having a quality and technically strong bid but also making IOC members believe that you will create a concept that will really matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Undoubtedly true, but I was just highlighting an interesting gap between the technical quality of bids from developed and emerging countries, which continues to exist despite the constrasting forutnes of their economies. I wasn't saying the technical was all that mattered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chicago's bid also had the lack of "feeling" other than an Olympic Games in parks which would be a risky project for city's future.

Not really.

- You had the USOC presenting its nation's 3rd biggest city in a 2nd successive bid;

- you had the president of the US, who also happens to be a citizen of Chicago, go out of his way to show up and boost his city and that his administration was 100% behind the bid;

- you had some 300 ordinary Chicagoans pay $3,500 out of their own pockets to fly on a junket to Copenhagen support the bid,

...and this is a "lack of feeling." :rolleyes:

Pls don't be disingenuous. Rio won because it was that continent's time; just as if Africa bids for 2024, it's theirs for the asking. Plain and simple truth. Don't over- or under-embellish the story of 2009-2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Rio bid was technically the worst (Nor IOC)... I like more Rio plan than Tokyo with all those artificial islands... And don't forget Japaneses "forget" how to do math pointing many inexistent venues are ready... This shows me how BAD TECHNICALLY was Tokyo bid with childish mistakes or Madrid lack of information on who would pay the games (BTW, a sin for a country with financial problems)...

And not to forget IOC's opinion, if you guys read again the Evaluation Report unveiled weeks before the vote.

Some will say, IOC made an evaluation report showing a trend to vote in Rio. So I can say Rio 2012 was the best bid and IOC showed the trend to favour Madrid, Tokyo and London. biggrin.gif

Let's stick to the facts. With a "weak" bid plan Rio wouldn't even be shortlistened. But I agree Madrid plans sounded better in paper than Rio's one.

The gap between rich cities and emerging cities are in the POV. No doubts, Rich cities already reached some nice urband solutions that emerging cities did not... And c'mon, nobody in 3 years point me clearly the gap between Rio and Madrid plans, for example. NOBODY.

smile.gif

*I said Tokyo for 2012 bid, forget it... My mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rio made the same strong "South American" appeal in 2012, BidIndex putted Rio in front of London and Paris at first glance, the "techinical" project, some in Brazil say, was better than 2016's, and Rio got not shortlistened....

The bid race for Olympic Games is not only made about sentimentalism and slogans... For sure, this play some role in the election, but never more than 30%-40% of the decision.

Every single time I read things like this, I see bad losers around detracting the victor. Sorry guys, it's my opinion. sad.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Rio bid was technically the worst (Nor IOC)... I like more Rio plan than Tokyo with all those artificial islands... And don't forget Japaneses "forget" how to do math pointing many inexistent venues are ready... This shows me how BAD TECHNICALLY was Tokyo bid with childish mistakes or Madrid lack of information on who would pay the games (BTW, a sin for a country with

financial problems)...

And not to forget IOC's opinion, if you guys read again the Evaluation Report unveiled weeks before the vote.

Some will say, IOC made an evaluation report showing a trend to vote in Rio. So I can say Rio 2012 was the best bid and IOC showed the trend to favour Madrid, Tokyo and London. biggrin.gif

Let's stick to the facts. With a "weak" bid plan Rio wouldn't even be shortlistened. But I agree Madrid plans sounded better in paper than Rio's one.

The gap between rich cities and emerging cities are in the POV. No doubts, Rich cities already reached some nice urband solutions that emerging cities did not... And c'mon, nobody in 3 years point me clearly the gap between Rio and Madrid plans, for example. NOBODY.

smile.gif

*I said Tokyo for 2012 bid, forget it... My mistake.

Well, many told Chicago's bid was safer and the "best" mean while it had a 7.0 o IOC's evaluation... I still cant explain why they were the last on the vote... Rio's plan was pretty much showing that the can host great events (Pan Am)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Rio bid was technically the worst (Nor IOC)... I like more Rio plan than Tokyo with all those artificial islands... And don't forget Japaneses "forget" how to do math pointing many inexistent venues are ready... This shows me how BAD TECHNICALLY was Tokyo bid with childish mistakes or Madrid lack of information on who would pay the games (BTW, a sin for a country with financial problems)...

And not to forget IOC's opinion, if you guys read again the Evaluation Report unveiled weeks before the vote.

Some will say, IOC made an evaluation report showing a trend to vote in Rio. So I can say Rio 2012 was the best bid and IOC showed the trend to favour Madrid, Tokyo and London. biggrin.gif

Let's stick to the facts. With a "weak" bid plan Rio wouldn't even be shortlistened. But I agree Madrid plans sounded better in paper than Rio's one.

The gap between rich cities and emerging cities are in the POV. No doubts, Rich cities already reached some nice urband solutions that emerging cities did not... And c'mon, nobody in 3 years point me clearly the gap between Rio and Madrid plans, for example. NOBODY.

smile.gif

*I said Tokyo for 2012 bid, forget it... My mistake.

I actually think Rio had the most compelling bid, but it certainly wasn't technically the strongest.

Here were scores from the applicant cities

Tokyo = 8.3

Madrid = 8.1

Chicago = 7.0

Doha = 6.9

Rio = 6.4

Prague = 5.3

Baku = 4.3

Tokyo was almost two full points ahead of Rio. Sure, they're were some negative notes in the evaluation report about the other candidates, but I have a feeling the IOC was being a little knit picky with the other cities in order to make Rio come out looking like they were on a more level playing field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a little question;

I read a several times that the IOC 'wanted to go' to .. (another field/another continent etc..) and went for Rio. But the quotations/numbers show that Tokyo and Madrid were the most strongest and technical bid in the applicant stage.

But what is the exactly reason that Rio came out of the Envelope?

* Was it the intense and modest crying of Silva da Lula .. ?? (I think that that impressed).

* Was it the Olympic e/o Olympic Spirit in the Final visual promotion presentation ??

* Or can we call it just like: The IOC wanted to go to Rio/South America?

* Wich were the decisive criteria/elements (e.g. financial) on an outcome of a Rio Bid?

regards

fatih

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rio made the same strong "South American" appeal in 2012, BidIndex putted Rio in front of London and Paris at first glance, the "techinical" project, some in Brazil say, was better than 2016's, and Rio got not shortlistened....

The bid race for Olympic Games is not only made about sentimentalism and slogans... For sure, this play some role in the election, but never more than 30%-40% of the decision.

Every single time I read things like this, I see bad losers around detracting the victor. Sorry guys, it's my opinion. sad.gif

Bid Index 2012 probably didn't equate the 2007 PanAms still yet had to be hosted by Rio.

And seriously, "let's stick to the facts", shall we. Did Rio & it's bid team (along with Lula) not over-emphasize that it was "finally Brazil's & South America's time" by dragging that dumb map with them whereever they went to highlight that point? If Rio's plan was so "sound", then Y play that same record about "South America" over & over again. Of course Rio's plan had to at least be decent & viable enough to be accepted, but let's not be so disingenuous either as if Rio's plan was so leaps & bounds over everyone else's when in fact it wasn't.

The Final Evaluation Report doesn't really "prove" anything other than what the IOC sees most accommodating for them at the time. And for 2016 it was South America, plain & simple. I mean seriously, how can Madrid "lose sight" of the Games concept for 2016 when for their 2012 bid their vision was rated 20/20. And don't even bring up their financial crisis as a "sin", since when the 2016 bid race was going on their economy was not in the bad shape as it is now.

The IOC also did to Tokyo 2016 what they did to Osaka 2008. The IOC for 2008 wanted to make sure that there was no other Asian candidate to compete against Beijing, where the IOC was hellbent to go. So they did what they could to sideswipe Osaka's bid. The IOC for 2008 & 2016 MAGNIFIED the other cities' weaknesses while sugar-coating Beijing's & Rio's. So this isn't about "bad losers detracting from the victor". Like it or not, it's called simply "sticking to the facts", danny. And besides, other than a handful of Spanish members here, & virtually no Japanese members, that doesn't even make much sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So IOC is moved by fairy tales with happy endings? Hey Istanbul, create a nice slogan, tell IOC a nice story about the "two continent things", it's enough, forget that thing about bid plans... blink.gif

Again FYI, you are telling us the race for Olympic Games is a slogan-contest and Rio made it great???

Curiously all the specialized media pointed that Rio plan was nice (for many not the better one, but some liked it very much).

Only here in the forums we see this "technically weak" stuff. Again, nobody showed me where Madrid bid was so superior against Rio in "technical aspects".

Specially when Rio presented the more complete bid book for 2016 (Some international media and even the Inside the Games site pointed that, not me).

Everybody here came at the presentation day saying Rio made the worst presentation ever for a bid city.

All the media putted "Rio showed its serious face", instead of videos and "proud citizens" and 4-minute children writing a letter video, Rio made is presentation as an entire bid plan reviewed live in International TV, showing the solutions for IOC questionings made in Evaluation Report.

Is this a technically weak bid?

C'mon FYI, you're nice guy, but you can't afford Rio may had won by its merits as President Rogge and many people around points.

Slogans and maps, Chicago's epic fail and even Lula's tears. Everything is a reason for Rio victory, not its own merits.

smile.gif

Bid Index 2012 probably didn't equate the 2007 PanAms still yet had to be hosted by Rio.

For 2016, after the PanAms, Rio got first again in the first BidIndex for 2016...

What is the point?

Tokyo was almost two full points ahead of Rio. Sure, they're were some negative notes in the evaluation report about the other candidates, but I have a feeling the IOC was being a little knit picky with the other cities in order to make Rio come out looking like they were on a more level playing field.

Before a complete BidPlan, even me could vote badly for Rio.

The point is the evolution of the bid, specially after the bidbook and videos unveiled by Rio bid team. =]

I think we should be back to the topic, Rio already won, this is already past and this discussion will lead to nothing. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not technically weak, but technically weaker. In terms of hotels, existing infrastructure, venue spread, transportation etc. Nobody is sayng Rio only won because of nice slogans, of course it didn't, so don't set that up as a straw man argument. And Rio can still win on merit despite having a riskier technical plan than its rivals; Rogge's words don't contradict anyone's arguments here.

As I said when answering your original point about emerging economies' bids, and this extends beyond Rio to Sochi, Durban, Istanbul and indeed India should they bid (so there's no need to take this argument personally), despite their booming economies these nations still present bids which are technically riskier than many of those from developed nations and cities. And it'll probably be at least a couple of decades before that pattern changes.

So you say Istanbul would wipe the floor with Madrid or Rome if the economic problems in Europe continue, but I'm really not so sure. The fundamentals already on the ground vs an economy on an upward trend and a possible new frontier pull. The new frontiers have won out in a few races recently but by no means all, and there's still a lot for the IOC to like about Madrid, for exmaple, compared to its rivals despite the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which are the fundamentals Madrid or Rome have, Istanbul does not?

I really like to undestand your point over it. :)

Just to point one thing. I don't think we will witness the start of an emerging-era in hosting events. I really don't believe on it.

But, for sure, we already can see a 50-50 situation, and the crisis CAN (or can not) play a role in favour of countries that have money available to expend. So, during this downturn, it's likely to give the games to countries with better economic situation. They are the less risky about paying the event right now.

In fact, nothing changes. In the past, rich countries were the ones with money available, meanwhile the actual emerging countries were suffering from sucessive crisis... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not technically weak, but technically weaker. In terms of hotels, existing infrastructure, venue spread, transportation etc.

This is not a technical question, it's about what the city already have.

If this is a "technical" issue, so why should we have bid plans???

In this I have to agree, Madrid was soooooooooo superior, they had already almost everything in place.

Rio 2016 will be not the most spread out Olympics in the last 20 years... And in 2012, Rio's plans (a bit similar to the 2016s) were the most compact one in the race... How could be? Maybe the others made too compact plans for 2016??? :rolleyes:

But this does not matter anymore.

Now it's time to argue about Istanbul plans and all the "bad things" Istanbul have against the same-old-same-old European capitals bidding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the economy impacting 2020 as much as it may impact future races.

The IOC has chosen two Winter hosts that are not big on charisma: Sochi and PC.

They've chosen one Summer host that is big on charisma, but is also somewhat risky: Rio.

If these three Games all have their share of problems and deficiencies AND if the 2020 host is beset by economic woes -- we could see the IOC longing for a safe harbor soon after -- a host that can guarantee well-organized Games and big revenue. The obvious choice would be the United States.

If all these recent daring choices of host cities pay off both financially and logistically, I think the IOC will continue to push the envelope by making more unusual selections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the economy impacting 2020 as much as it may impact future races.

The IOC has chosen two Winter hosts that are not big on charisma: Sochi and PC.

They've chosen one Summer host that is big on charisma, but is also somewhat risky: Rio.

If these three Games all have their share of problems and deficiencies AND if the 2020 host is beset by economic woes -- we could see the IOC longing for a safe harbor soon after -- a host that can guarantee well-organized Games and big revenue. The obvious choice would be the United States.

If all these recent daring choices of host cities pay off both financially and logistically, I think the IOC will continue to push the envelope by making more unusual selections.

I'd say IOC are not choosing charismatic cities, again, they are choosing those who can be less risky about pay the building of the games at the moment of the vote... See the list: Russia, South Korea, Brazil...

About problems, I'm not inside the works for Sochi, but Rio is ahead of the cronogram (surprisingly, even for me and specially compared the to mess of the World Cup organization).

Rio have the money in bank guaranteed, works at full steam and even venues already in place... So at this point, please, Rio is proving more and more that it wasn't a risky choice so far.

I agree with you that USA will be always a safe harbour, but at this very moment, choosing USA in the middle of the financial crisis sounds weird...

And not to forget the eurocentrism of the voters inside IOC, many can be blaming USA for all the financial disgrace, since the problem started there with the Lehman Brothers thing...

The ball at this very moment is with the emerging countries AND their emerging MARKETS for sponsors - not to forget that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and saying russia is not charismatic.... i dont know.and taking this as an irony.. the country of winter,home of 14m km2 siberia, may be the most advanced winter sports country will be the candidate of winter games and ıoc will regret this ??? dont think so

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So at this point, please, Rio is proving more and more that it wasn't a risky choice so far.

I agree with you that USA will be always a safe harbour, but at this very moment, choosing USA in the middle of the financial crisis sounds weird...

And not to forget the eurocentrism of the voters inside IOC, many can be blaming USA for all the financial disgrace, since the problem started there with the Lehman Brothers thing...

Respectfully, I must insist that Rio was by far the riskiest choice of the 2016 candidates at the time of the vote. That doesn't mean they won't stage excellent Games, but the US, Spain and Tokyo were tried and true alternatives. Even the word "emerging" implies an element of risk.

We have a global economy. How can you possibly hold the US responsible for all Europe's problems? Also I'm not talking about the US "in this very moment" -- as you say. If you read my post, I talk about FUTURE Games -- meaning after 2020. I also clearly described two scenarios -- one where the less conventional choice of hosts pays off financially and organizationally and one scenario where it doesn't. I clearly said that either the IOC will start looking for safety or it will keep pushing the envelope. It depends what happens.

As for Sochi's charisma, I'm talking about the city -- not the whole of Russia. Anonymous IOC members were quoted as saying that if they'd seen the city before the vote, they never would have voted for it. There has also been plenty of conversation in other threads about how Sochi is unlikely to be a big ratings draw. As a locale it just doesn't capture the imagination of the average viewer. That's all I'm saying. Sochi may organize fantastic Games.

I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that the IOC is trying some new things: first Russian Winter Games (in a seaside resort town), first South American Games, first non-Japanese Asian Winter Games in a country not particularly known for its winter sports tradition or winter sports audiences. If these gambles pay off, the IOC may continue to look for the more unusual alternatives. If these gambles do not pay off, the IOC is likely to look for a safe harbor sooner rather than later. The US is just one of several options that the IOC might consider "safe." Regardless, I don't see the current economic crisis having a big impact on the 2020 race.

If the economy (or for that matter anything else) negatively affects the quality of the upcoming Games (2014-2020) I think that will induce the IOC to choose more conservative hosts in subsequent votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just forget this" cities get the olympics not countries" thing we all know that. ;) they dont choose beijing just for their beautiful forbbiden palace but for 1,3 billion people and giant economy, same as sochi and somehow rio too...

and the main prob of IOC is just 3 words like abba says... money money money...;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just forget this" cities get the olympics not countries" thing we all know that. ;) they dont choose beijing just for their beautiful forbbiden palace but for 1,3 billion people and giant economy, same as sochi and somehow rio too...

and the main prob of IOC is just 3 words like abba says... money money money...;)

Ok....... the IOC chooses a country rather than a city -- true -- at least to a degree (I think they'd prefer NYC to Tulsa). None of that addresses my point.

If nobody tunes in to watch the Games, it doesn't matter how big Russia or Brazil's population is or how big their economy is. I'm not saying that no one will watch, I'm just saying that IF they don't, the IOC will have to start choosing a different type of host. It's very important that these upcoming Olympics be perceived as successful if the IOC is going to continue sailing into uncharted waters.

As of now, thanks to a sweetheart television deal with NBC I have to say the main problem of the IOC is NOT "money money money...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok....... the IOC chooses a country rather than a city -- true -- at least to a degree (I think they'd prefer NYC to Tulsa). None of that addresses my point.

If nobody tunes in to watch the Games, it doesn't matter how big Russia or Brazil's population is or how big their economy is. I'm not saying that no one will watch, I'm just saying that IF they don't, the IOC will have to start choosing a different type of host. It's very important that these upcoming Olympics be perceived as successful if the IOC is going to continue sailing into uncharted waters.

As of now, thanks to a sweetheart television deal with NBC I have to say the main problem of the IOC is NOT "money money money...."

ahahaha ..:) olympics is a giant feeding with just money and goes to the places where money is surplus . u r right its like a categorization. first they choose countries can handle the games, then the candidate cities.

on the other hand about tuning and watching the games IMO with every different culture and place the olympics go the more audience its get. people may get angry again with me but was really excited about 2008 beijing and cant wait for 2016 rio. but cannot feel the same way with london or athens. sure there will be amazing races and i will totally watch the whole org. but its st else.. its not exciting me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

emre, I understand and respect your personal experience. The real question is how the global audience will react.

need to check the statistics but its also hard to compare each other due to time zones. beijing was the most watched event in the world as i know followng by USA football/baseball ,i dont remember which one is that, final. right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...