USA 2024

[Athensfan]

What about a compromise where the USOC asks a city to commit to two consecutive bids? it's not so open-ended as to make a city feel like they're promising the moon. Plus, considering 2012, 2016 and the increasing distance from recent American hostings, if a city can't win in two tries, it's probably time to try somebody else. I don't think we should start looking at PC like the new standard.

The thing that worries me about a city committing to multiple bids is that I fear the IOC won't take the first bid seriously. It would almost have to be a secret, under-the-table agreement in order to avoid handicapping the first try.

All this pre-supposes that the USOC is willing to commit to trying for only Summer or Winter Games for at least two cycles. I'm not sure they'll want to tie themselves down that way.

Still, I think they need to find some way to build momentum instead of just submitting one-off, totally distinct, isolated bids.

[FYI]

And of course, it appears that the IOC is taking steps to curb the so-far open-ended spending on a bid. So if they are serious about that, then that might help at least the Winter bidding (for US candidates) since there are really only 3 regions in play.

I'd still say that it would be a limited field in either case.

For Winter, I can only see maybe Reno committing to such a strategy. Can't see Denver, or anyone else, doing so. And for Summer, can only see L.A. (or perhaps some 2nd-tier city) committing to such a strategy. It would take a lot of "convincing" to have many other cities be sold on such a strategic plan from the get-go.

And the IOC being serious about curbing bid city spending remains to be seen. Let's see how they handle the 2020 process.

[CanisMinor]

IMO, the only option is for the USOC to run a domestic process and choose a city that would bid until it wins.

I disagree, sometimes this works, but more often than not it doesn't. I think the evidence doesn't necessarily support a repeat bid strategy. For example:

- London 2012 was preceded by UK bids from Manchester and Birmingham.

- Sydney was preceded by bids from Melbourne and Brisbane

- Barcelona was preceded by a bid from Madrid

- Atlanta last bid in 1920

- Seoul had no precedent

On the other hand, many repeat bidders like Detroit, Paris and Madrid remain unsuccessful.

I believe the key is bidding when geopolitical factors look likely to favor your country, and then put forward the best candidate you can at the time. When the IOC needs money, they will come back to the US. They won't care whether it is New York, LA or Seattle. As long as the bid is robust, they will take it.

[baron-pierreIV]

I'd still say that it would be a limited field in either case.

For Winter, I can only see maybe Reno committing to such a strategy. Can't see Denver, or anyone else, doing so. And for Summer, can only see L.A. (or perhaps some 2nd-tier city) committing to such a strategy. It would take a lot of "convincing" to have many other cities be sold on such a strategic plan from the get-go.

And the IOC being serious about curbing bid city spending remains to be seen. Let's see how they handle the 2020 process.

But it's been seen that a one-magic-appearance like Chicago thinks it did, is not enuf to carry the day. It ain't. The IOC has many other constituents to fulfill even if they milk the US saps for the money. So US cities now have to adopt a Detroit-PyeongChang-Madrid-Istanbul mindset = bid until they are so sick of you that you'll eventually get it. But be prepared for the long haul.

[Athensfan]

I disagree, sometimes this works, but more often than not it doesn't. I think the evidence doesn't necessarily support a repeat bid strategy. For example:

- London 2012 was preceded by UK bids from Manchester and Birmingham.

- Sydney was preceded by bids from Melbourne and Brisbane

- Barcelona was preceded by a bid from Madrid

- Atlanta last bid in 1920

- Seoul had no precedent

On the other hand, many repeat bidders like Detroit, Paris and Madrid remain unsuccessful.

I believe the key is bidding when geopolitical factors look likely to favor your country, and then put forward the best candidate you can at the time. When the IOC needs money, they will come back to the US. They won't care whether it is New York, LA or Seattle. As long as the bid is robust, they will take it.

I see what you're saying about repeat bids. Do you really think that from the IOC's perspective, money is the only incentive for returning to the US? Sincere question.

[baron-pierreIV]

I disagree, sometimes this works, but more often than not it doesn't. I think the evidence doesn't necessarily support a repeat bid strategy. For example:

- London 2012 was preceded by UK bids from Manchester and Birmingham.

- Sydney was preceded by bids from Melbourne and Brisbane

But see in those consecutive UK and Oz bids, the IOC top brass and the troops were essentially rubbing shoulders with the same BOA and AOC faces thru the consecutive bids...so it didn't matter which cities they were. (Or I mean it was good that their lead-up was to their premier alpha city.) I'm sure if we had a Chicago - SF- Dallas- NYC run (and with basically the same USOC personnel building bridges with the IOC), NYC (or the last city) could probably get it...providing other factors were also favorable.

But again, if Munich is frontrunner for 2022, then I think 2026 would ours for the asking...but we have to enter Denver for 2022 as a sacrificial lamb.

[FYI]

But see in those consecutive UK and Oz bids, the IOC top brass and the troops were essentially rubbing shoulders with the same BOA and AOC faces thru the consecutive bids...so it didn't matter which cities they were. (Or I mean it was good that their lead-up was to their premier alpha city.) I'm sure if we had a Chicago - SF- Dallas- NYC run (and with basically the same USOC personnel building bridges with the IOC), NYC (or the last city) could probably get it...providing other factors were also favorable.

So in essence, we really don't "need a city" to committ itself to bid until it wins then. If this scenario just takes us back to square one, anyway.

And perhaps that's Y the USOC submitted the 2020 WADA papers so they could maybe follow in the tri-city steps of the U.K. & Australia (New York 2012, Chicago 2016 & then maybe clenching it with Los Angeles 2020).

Perhaps the USOC was hoping for Los Angeles to step into the 2020 ring, & then polish the bid as they went along. That may have been their outlook & could've worked (with a city already knowing how it works), but in the end, in didn't pan out that way.

[FYI]

I think the evidence doesn't necessarily support a repeat bid strategy. For example:

- London 2012 was preceded by UK bids from Manchester and Birmingham.

- Sydney was preceded by bids from Melbourne and Brisbane

- Barcelona was preceded by a bid from Madrid

- Atlanta last bid in 1920

- Seoul had no precedent

On the other hand, many repeat bidders like Detroit, Paris and Madrid remain unsuccessful.

I believe the key is bidding when geopolitical factors look likely to favor your country, and then put forward the best candidate you can at the time. When the IOC needs money, they will come back to the US. They won't care whether it is New York, LA or Seattle. As long as the bid is robust, they will take it.

Yeah, but at the same token, Manchester, Birmingham, Melbourne & Brisbane are all Beta, & Gamma cities, that for the most part, the IOC isn't interested in anyway. And Seoul only had Nagoya to contend with. A Japanese city that also didn't have any precedent bids. So the IOC obviously had to choose between one of the two newbie bids.

I don't think that there's any set pattern or formula that one could look at here & determine anything definite when every bidding race is different with their own set of dynamics, hence, ironically the geopolitics.

[baron-pierreIV]

I don't think that there's any set pattern or formula that one could look at here & determine anything definite when every bidding race is different with their own set of dynamics, hence, ironically the geopolitics.

Correct. But there's always a backstory that determines the dynamics and outcome. For examples:

- for the US, the unresolved income-sharing issue

- for Rio, the longtime service of Havelange in both the IOC and FIFA worlds + it was time for South America

- for Madrid 2016, JAS' last hurrah...altho in terms of numbers, that still resulted in a #2 outcome.

And surely for 2024, Durban will be the undisputed frontrunner.

Re the spending limits the IOC might put in place, I think the RSA/Durban's staying out of 2020 might've alerted them to address the issue, maybe w/ an eye that RSA can't use that as an excuse for 2024.

[Quaker2001]

So in essence, we really don't "need a city" to committ itself to bid until it wins then. If this scenario just takes us back to square one, anyway.

I think it's more a case of not putting all your eggs in 1 basket, at least from the city's perspective. If you think about NYC 2012, the stadium debacle aside, that was really a 1-shot deal and I know it's easy to say this in hindsight, but I don't think they were ever going to seriously look at bidding again. Ditto for Chicago 2016. Tough to tell where their mindset might have been had they finished 2nd to Rio instead of getting eliminated in the first round.

As we know, the geopolitics of any bid are impossible to predict so it's tough to ask a city to commit to an Olympics that may or may not set up well for them. It shouldn't be a matter of a city bidding until it wins, more just that they should be prepared to bid more than once and not be scared away if it doesn't happen the first time out.

[FYI]

Tough to tell where their mindset might have been had they finished 2nd to Rio instead of getting eliminated in the first round.

This has always been an interesting hypothetical for me. Would Chicago had been much more keen for another try for 2020 had they not been shunned so quickly in the 2016 vote? I think the type of defeat also speaks volumes whether a city wants to put forth their foot again, or not.

Look at Madrid. Even with the odds stacked behind it, they finished 2nd for 2016 & are now keen for another run right away. Although in Madrid's case, I still think the gap of 32 votes between Rio & them isn't a good case alone for mounting another bid right away. Not like PyeongChang, where they lost twice by very narrow margins, & then finally taking it all the way on their 3rd consecutive attempt.

I doubt we'll see Annecy anytime soon, either.

[bgdrewsif]

Gee, why has noone mentioned Phoenix, Arizona??? we have great sporting facilities... Gendale was just selected to host the 2015 Super Bowl again... we have great summer sun (temperatures hotter than the surface of the sun not withstanding) we have great dining and culture (just imagine hosting to IOC dignitaries at Jack in the Box or El Pollo Loco) And our world class hospitalities like the Holiday Inn Express or the Downtown Mariott and Hilton... Plus we have 4.1 millon people here as America's fifth largest city and most of whom are unemployed so there are lots of available volunteers for the games and the athletes could stay in our tens of thousands of forclosed houses... the largest athlete accomodations ever... It would be great!

[Athensfan]

As we know, the geopolitics of any bid are impossible to predict so it's tough to ask a city to commit to an Olympics that may or may not set up well for them. It shouldn't be a matter of a city bidding until it wins, more just that they should be prepared to bid more than once and not be scared away if it doesn't happen the first time out.

Very fair, balanced statement. Totally agree.

I do think the manner of the defeat has a significant impact on a city's willingness to try again. Evidently, Chicagoans are taking 2016 very much to heart and I can't really blame them. I do think that vote was mainly the result of the USOC's sour relationship with the IOC and some very smart political maneuvering from Rio and Tokyo. I don't think the vote said much about the IOC's feelings towards Chicago as a potential host.

[baron-pierreIV]

I do think the manner of the defeat has a significant impact on a city's willingness to try again. Evidently, Chicagoans are taking 2016 very much to heart and I can't really blame them. I do think that vote was mainly the result of the USOC's sour relationship with the IOC and some very smart political maneuvering from Rio and Tokyo. I don't think the vote said much about the IOC's feelings towards Chicago as a potential host.

Don't u ever stop with such idiotic blathering??

[Quaker2001]

This has always been an interesting hypothetical for me. Would Chicago had been much more keen for another try for 2020 had they not been shunned so quickly in the 2016 vote? I think the type of defeat also speaks volumes whether a city wants to put forth their foot again, or not.

Look at Madrid. Even with the odds stacked behind it, they finished 2nd for 2016 & are now keen for another run right away. Although in Madrid's case, I still think the gap of 32 votes between Rio & them isn't a good case alone for mounting another bid right away. Not like PyeongChang, where they lost twice by very narrow margins, & then finally taking it all the way on their 3rd consecutive attempt.

Tough to tell, but I think they might have. Obviously you can't blame Chicago in light of how they went down, but I think their bid could have survived another cycle or 2 if they wanted to keep it alive (easy for me to say as I didn't have years invested into it). NYC 2012 was always going to be a 1-shot deal. It was originally based around a stadium plan involving an NFL team, so if that concept hadn't fallen apart and NYC won the 2012 bid, it gets built. But when it lost, the Jets certainly weren't going to wait around to see what happened after, so they went ahead and made their own stadium plans. Ditto for the Mets who were a part of the last ditch option.

That's why the USOC needs a bid with staying power. Not just that they'll persevere like Madrid and Paris have or Rio did en route to a win, but more that all the planning that goes into an Olympic bid might be useful more than once. That's the biggest shame of NYC 2012 and Chicago 2016.. that they went for it all with little regard to the future, and who knows if that exact same Chicago 2016 bid couldn't have won in another race. Contrast that with a city like Munich which is already buzzing about jumping into the next available race.

The 2024 bidding could be a perfect illustration of this. If a US city wants to bid for 2024, they need to be mindful of factors out of their control (namely the competition which could include some other cities that won't be easily beaten) and make sure they know that city's goal, whether it's to land that specific Olympics or simply land any Olympics (think Los Angeles of the 1970s). But if cities are going to continue to take shots 1 by 1, then I'd say that the next Summer Olympic host in the United States is probably going to be more born out of lucky timing than careful planning and a well thought out technically sound bid.

[CanisMinor]

I don't think the vote said much about the IOC's feelings towards Chicago as a potential host.

On the converse, though, the IOC has come out and encouraged the US to bid again; but I have never heard the IOC encourage Chicago to bid again. I suspect this is because they realize they burned their bridges with Chicago, and not because they think Chicago isn't viable.

Tying into this, and to your earlier point, I truly believe the IOC sees the US as the money source. Really, there is nothing sexy or new about a US Games, no matter which city hosts. It will be just another US games. The only appeal is the perceived larger revenues generated by a games in the US.

If you think about recent games: Sydney was a little exotic party, Athens was tradition, Beijing was a new frontier, London - well I don't really know why London other than it was a show-down of European capitals, and Rio is a new frontier. The only thing the US offers is money.

[baron-pierreIV]

The only thing the US offers is money.

For a summer Games. Plus they'd know the Yanks would win a few more medals at home...but not much less elsewhere. So might as well whip the party around. And they want a brand-new dedicated T&F stadium which they can't seem to get with a US bid...other than the tired old LA Memorial Coliseum. Oops - forgot a desert city was offering a whole brand new one.

[baron-pierreIV]

Sydney was a little exotic party, Athens was tradition, Beijing was a new frontier, London - well I don't really know why London other than it was a show-down of European capitals, and Rio is a new frontier. The only thing the US offers is money.

Sydney I don't think was all that exotic. It was longer travel for the Europeans, if anything. I mean Oz is very much a brash, 20th-21st century country like the US. It was more skirting with the later date; in a gorgeous setting. And they got it right this time...without having to hold another horse party elsewhere. But which in fact in retrospect, Stockholm 1956 was actually better for the horses and the Europeans back then. And the whole irony of Equestrian being denied in Melbourne 55 years ago was that it was the Australian team and horses, of all the teams, that had the longest distance to travel BACK and FORTH to attend the Stockholm party.* And that was pre-jet and pre-jumbo-size plane days. I don't know if they just sold or donated their horses in Europe after the Games, or bothered to ship them back to Oz.

Athens was tradition - exactly. They had to go back there somehow.

Well, Beijing because it is the most populous nation on earth and they're no longer a backwater country unlike #2 India--still mired in deep poverty and great inefficiency (see Delhi 2010).

If the US didn't win too many medals, maybe that might be another potato in the sack.

-------------------------------

* The other nations that had considerable travel times (at least 20 hours by air back then) for Stockholm were NZ, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and RSA. I mean at that time, nobody wondered whether the horses suffered jet lag or not, as I am sure they do too...except nobody's asked them.

[Soaring]

Five out of the last nine Olympic cities selected to host the Games were repeat bidders, so being a repetitive bidder obviously wouldn't hurt a city's chances, but surely it does strengthen a bid. But I agree that it is not guaranteed a city will grab a victory by simply bidding all of the time. Some cities (like Detroit) just aren't meant to host.

I believe Chicago knew that 2016 was really their only chance at snatching a Games especially when it came closer to the vote. You could clearly see Mayor Daley's stomach drop on the day of the vote, and he said before and after the election that this was probably Chicago's only and best chance to host the Olympics.

I mean, the stars seemed to almost be aligned perfectly when we entered the race officially in 2007.

#1 We weren't against a field full of preeminent cities like London and Paris. Tokyo was the biggest competition in terms of "world city" status, but with Beijing so fresh in the IOC member's minds, it was certainly seen as less competitive than 2012.

#2 A European city hosting in 2012 bode very well for an American city hosting as well, plus with Spain's more recent hosting, that too didn't seem to be the strongest competition. No European city has hosted the Summer Games back-to-back in over 50 years.

#3 Rio was simply not taken too seriously when they joined the race. They weren't even short listed for 2012 or 2004, so how would such a city win on their first try as a candidate city in recent memory? Brazil was also hosting the World Cup, which was seen by some as risky for the Brazilians to handle such a momentous tasks in a short period of time.

#4 Chicago's economy was relatively good in the years leading up the bid launch. Skyscraper cranes littered the skyline, and construction was underway to build a 150 story tower right on the lake shore.

#5 USOC and IOC relations seemed to have improved since the 2012 race, and Jim Scherr was at the helm of the USOC, which was seeing some stability for a change. Scherr also has good ties to Chicago, and his twin brother was also working on the campaign.

#6 Obama Mania. Our bright shining star was just elected president, and surely government support would be the highest it has ever been. Plus Chicago's mayor had been in office for 20 years, and practically owned the city council, so he could push through basically anything he wanted, and it would pass.

CHICAGO'S BID WAS UNSTOPPABLE...

THEN THE BOTTOM FELL OUT OF THE BID

Rio was shortlisted, and began to show that they could put together a dynamic bid. The 2007 PanAms were claimed a "success" by Rogge, and he made comments about their capability.

The US economy fell off a cliff, and things turned sour real fast. Construction and lending froze up, and public support began to falter as the price tag of the Games would surely be in the billions.

Mayor Daley also began to loose his edge when the IOC rejected his letter stating the government would not be on the hook for the Games.

The USOC fired Scherr, and the IOC seemed unsettled by this, because they had to start working with Stephanie Streeter who had no real involvement with the IOC before. To compound things further, negotiations on revenue sharing fell through, US broadcast rights discussions were put on hold, and then the USOC decided to launch their own "TV Network" which infuriated the IOC. Finally, just weeks before the vote, the USOC back tracked, but the damage had already been done.

Public support began to falter, and a small but spirited group of activists were gaining more attention. Chicago 2016 then had to go on damage control, and visit all 50 wards to try and sell the residents on the bid. A last minute insurance deal to cover any financing short falls also seemed to be a tougher sell to city council, but in the end it did pass within weeks of the bid vote.

Obama won the election, but things soon turned partisan in Washington, and he became bogged down by the health care debate, and it was questionable whether he would even go the Copenhagen. When he decided to finally go (or make his intentions all along public), he was criticized on both sides for going.

...and then of course Chicago was eliminated so quickly, and everything was over in a matter of seconds.

So all of these things together left Chicago 2016 wounded, and I am not sure if anyone here is willing to jump in the fray again since things seemed so perfect initially, but turned out so horribly bad. Mayor Daley is no longer in office, and I don't think Emanuel would give much credence to the USOC putting the city on the hook for multiple bids.

[Quaker2001]

On the converse, though, the IOC has come out and encouraged the US to bid again; but I have never heard the IOC encourage Chicago to bid again. I suspect this is because they realize they burned their bridges with Chicago, and not because they think Chicago isn't viable.

Tying into this, and to your earlier point, I truly believe the IOC sees the US as the money source. Really, there is nothing sexy or new about a US Games, no matter which city hosts. It will be just another US games. The only appeal is the perceived larger revenues generated by a games in the US.

I don't put all that much credence into statement from Rogge about who he wants to bid. Especially when we're seeing the number of applicants continue to drop with every bid cycle. Of course he wants the United States involved, but I'm certainly not reading anything into that in terms of that bid's chances of winning, especially knowing who votes on these things.

Aside from the money, a United States Olympics provides 2 things. It's often a safer cost-effective option since most American cities would have the majority of the needed facilities already in place (save for the main stadium, obviously that's a sticking point for most cities) and the promise of large enthusiastic crowds that other cities have often had trouble delivering on. Is that a draw enough for the IOC to come here? Clearly it hasn't been lately and for all the political posturing we've seen in recent years, it's not like they're in a hurry to return here. And, as we've noted, Comcast and NBC really laid down the gauntlet that they don't seem to think the host selection has much of an effect over their ability to generate revenue.

So we're left at an impasse. I still believe that if it ever came to the point that the sponsorship and television money from the United States began to dry up, the IOC would be begging to come back here. That could happen at some point, but it's probably going to take a few bid cycles to play out if it does. Either way, I don't think the USOC can sit back and wait for that perfect opportunity to bid because they might not know it's coming (see 1996 Atlanta).

[Athensfan]

Canis, I can acknowledge that money would be a mjor incentive to return to the US -- probably the biggest incentive. I do believe there would be other merits to a US bid as well, including top-notch organization, the unique flavor of the host city, the multicultural character of our country and guaranteed full stadia and public enthusiasm during the Games.

The US may not seem particularly unusual to Americans, but it still holds intrigue for foreigners. With increasingly globalized culture this is less true now than it was in the 80's and earlier, but it still plays a role.

Although LA and Salt Lake were financially successful, they are not remembered solely for that reason. They had many other strengths as well. Unfortunately Atlanta doesn't fall in the same category and could be viewed as evidence that all the US can offer the iIOC is money.

[Athensfan]

With the right candidate I believe the USOC could convince the IOC that they have more to bring to the table than just commercial success. As more time passes without American Games, a US bid will seem more like a pleasant change of pace and less like the same-old-same-old. I do think, however, that money will probably be the IOC's primary reason for returning.

[Barcelona_'92]

Canis, I can acknowledge that money would be a mjor incentive to return to the US -- probably the biggest incentive. I do believe there would be other merits to a US bid as well, including top-notch organization...

Top-notch organization? The last two Games in the U.S. had significant organizational problems. Atlanta was a disaster, and the SLOOC was nearly bankrupt before they brought Mitt Romney in to take over. Salt Lake ended up being a well-organized Games, but the organization leading up to the Games had a lot of problems. Going back to the 80s, Lake Placid also had major organizational problems, especially with transportation. Obviously, other cities have had organizational problems as well, but aside from LA, organization was not a strong point of 3 of the last 4 Games in the U.S.

[Athensfan]

I don't know much about Lake Placid. LA's organization was superb. SLC righted the ship before the Games and the Olympics went beautifully. In my mind that's what counts.

Atlanta fell very far short, but I regard it as an aberration. As a tier-two city and substandard host, I don't think Atlanta should be viewed as representative of what the US has to offer. That's why I argued previously that future bids should not draw parallels between themselves and Atlanta.

When it comes to sports organization, the US has a wealth of experience. As a sport-crazy nation we lead the world in that area. Current ironies aside, consider MLB, NBA, WNBA, NHL, NFL, MLS, extensive collegiate sports, golf, tennis, volleyball tournaments, cycling tours, world-class marathons, in addition to countless competitions in other fields. Other countries can compare in a few areas, but none have the continual diversity and volume of major sporting events that the US does.

[baron-pierreIV]

Top-notch organization? The last two Games in the U.S. had significant organizational problems. Atlanta was a disaster, and the SLOOC was nearly bankrupt before they brought Mitt Romney in to take over. Salt Lake ended up being a well-organized Games, but the organization leading up to the Games had a lot of problems. Going back to the 80s, Lake Placid also had major organizational problems, especially with transportation. Obviously, other cities have had organizational problems as well, but aside from LA, organization was not a strong point of 3 of the last 4 Games in the U.S.

U're so full of baloney!! Atlanta ended up with a $10 million surplus, HOW COULD THAT BE TERMED A DISASTER? U believe such exaggerated BULLSH*T. The transportation problems happened in only 2 instances; the Games info glitch was IBM's fault. That was really it. EVERYTHING ELSE WENT WELL; and as I said, it had a $10 million surplus.

Don't be stupid. I don't know where you heard that "...SLOOC was nearly bankrupt..."? Romney came in after they had already signed up MAJOR sponsors and he came in just to run the place. As a matter of fact, Ueberroth did more for LA than Romney did for SLC because the nuts an dbolts were already in place when Romney came in. They just needed a high-profile Mormon to run things. Compare those to a bankrupt Montreal Games, or $44 billion for Beijing , maybe $25 billion for Sochi; and unaccounted billions for Moscow and Sarajevo??