USA 2024

[mr.bernham]

Like i said, ';d love to see Canada host another SOGs. But when you get statements of entitlement like that, it makes me really want the USA to beat Canada to it and set them back a lot longer.

I would like that Canada seems very arrogant. Their sister to the South always gets the glory, we gave you an option, but you said no.

[Athensfan]

I would like that Canada seems very arrogant. Their sister to the South always gets the glory, we gave you an option, but you said no.

What?! Lunacy!

[intoronto]

Like i said, ';d love to see Canada host another SOGs. But when you get statements of entitlement like that, it makes me really want the USA to beat Canada to it and set them back a lot longer.

There is no sense of entitlement. 2024 is isn't entitle for Toronto .

What I a trying to say is 2010 shouldn't affect a future summer hosting

[runningrings]

But it will, fair or not.

[zekekelso]

Funny, the Olympics are supposed to be about bring the world together in peace, harmony and sport. Yet somehow we've gotten the two nicest people on the planet (Canadians and Aussies) in a bitchfest.

[Quaker2001]

Oh no I think the field will start to dry up towards the 2060's. Like you said earlier previous host could start rotating.

I don't see that. Think about the long list of countries that we could foresee being interested in hosting a Summer Olympics, maybe not now, but at some point in our lifetimes.. I've got United States, Canada, China, Australia, France, Spain, Germany, Russia, Turkey, Italy, South Africa. That's 11 right there and I'm sure there are others we could think of and/or that would emerge in the next few decades. To go through all of those countries gives you enough hosts through 2068. And at that point, you have countries like Korea and Mexico and the UK with London might want to re-enter the mix and by then, they'll be able to make a case. Now obviously politics and the economy and a dozen other factors could add more or less to the pool of prospective hosts, but it's not like there's an unlimited number of potential host cities/countries out there where you can keep going without former hosts in the mix. Case in point, Tokyo. Like Rols said, there's nothing wrong with that.

[Quaker2001]

I am struggling to fond the quote but I think it was Bach? who said winter and summer are different events and Pyeongchang wouldn't affect Tokyo as people speculated.

That's not exactly a new revelation. We heard that a lot after Vancouver with the NYC 2012 bid and for all the reasons you could give that New York lost, Vancouver is probably the least of them. And less we forget history that Pyeongchang was within 3 votes of making it back to back hosts in Asia. So the theory that Tokyo would be hurt by PC was thrown out the window a long time ago.

But you're making a big assumption about how this is perceived when it matters the most: in the minds of voting IOC members.

I have a hard time believing that they view it this way. I think that, if presented with two cities, they're going to find anything they can think of to help them come up with a reasoned judgment - like it or not, Canada's three previous Olympics (winter or summer ) will factor into this for any near future Toronto bid. Especially if it is up against the likes of South Africa and France.

It just sounds incredibly greedy to deny that Canada's hosted a pretty respectable tally of games for a nation of its size and stature in the past 37 years - only one shy of the top hosting and sports superpower USA in that time, and say it's having to wait soooooo long to host yet another soon.

Here's my thing with Canada.. they got Montreal 1976 and followed it up shortly thereafter with Calgary 1988. The COC then went for Toronto 1996. They lost and didn't bid again for 12 years. Tried again with Toronto in 2008, didn't win (they did finish 2nd for what that's worth), and then change course and go after a Winter Olympics, which they win on the first shot. We all know the logic about North America and how there are only 2 viable host countries here. So if Canada really wanted a Summer Olympics, why did they shelve Toronto in favor of Vancouver. If Vancouver had lost 2010, would what their course of action been after that? Again, it's similar to the United States where the progression of Winter hosts and Summer hosts shouldn't affect each other, but they do, and they will, and there's not much you can do about it. You can't fault Canada for going after a Winter Olympics when they had a shot at it, but by the same token, it is a negative against their resolve for a Summer Olympics that they twice bid with Toronto only to take them off the table to try with Vancouver.

[Vrysxy]

2024 should go to the US (or at most 2028) is just math, the odds of the United States hosting the games in 2024 are very hight. If we look at the past, since the 1960s, the United States has hosted the Games in every decade except 1970s and 2010s. Let's see

1900s = 1904 in St. Louis, MO

1910s = NO

1920s = NO

1930s = Lake Placid in NY and Los Angeles in 1932. Twice (interesting)

1940s = No games

1950s = Games returned to previous winner cities.

1960s = Squaw Valley, CA in 1960

1970s = Denver won, but they rejected it, so it went to an European city.

1980s = Lake Placid again in 1980 and Los Angeles in 1984. Twice (interesting)

1990s = Atlanta 1996

2000s = Salt Lake City in 2002

2010s = Chicago lost for 2016 (first gap since the 70s)

2020s = There are four Olympics left for that decade in which the United States would be interested in 2024, 2026 and 2028... It could be in either 2024, 2026 or 2028, but no later than 2032... What do you guys think?

[USAOlympicsFan]

2024 should go to the US (or at most 2028) is just math, the odds of the United States hosting the games in 2024 are very hight. If we look at the past, since the 1960s, the United States has hosted the Games in every decade except 1970s and 2010s. Let's see

1900s = 1904 in St. Louis, MO

1910s = NO

1920s = NO

1930s = Lake Placid in NY and Los Angeles in 1932. Twice (interesting)

1940s = No games

1950s = Games returned to previous winner cities.

1960s = Squaw Valley, CA in 1960

1970s = Denver won, but they rejected it, so it went to an European city.

1980s = Lake Placid again in 1980 and Los Angeles in 1984. Twice (interesting)

1990s = Atlanta 1996

2000s = Salt Lake City in 2002

2010s = Chicago lost for 2016 (first gap since the 70s)

2020s = There are four Olympics left for that decade in which the United States would be interested in 2024, 2026 and 2028... It could be in either 2024, 2026 or 2028, but no later than 2032... What do you guys think?

I agree and I can see The Olympics being in the U.S in in 2024 or at least 2028 at the latest but I think 2024 is a better chance then 2028. I think the USOC should bid on summer Olympics before another Winter Olympics which actually is part of the reason they opted out of bidding for 2022.

[Athensfan]

That's not exactly a new revelation. We heard that a lot after Vancouver with the NYC 2012 bid and for all the reasons you could give that New York lost, Vancouver is probably the least of them. And less we forget history that Pyeongchang was within 3 votes of making it back to back hosts in Asia. So the theory that Tokyo would be hurt by PC was thrown out the window a long time ago.

Here's my thing with Canada.. they got Montreal 1976 and followed it up shortly thereafter with Calgary 1988. The COC then went for Toronto 1996. They lost and didn't bid again for 12 years. Tried again with Toronto in 2008, didn't win (they did finish 2nd for what that's worth), and then change course and go after a Winter Olympics, which they win on the first shot. We all know the logic about North America and how there are only 2 viable host countries here. So if Canada really wanted a Summer Olympics, why did they shelve Toronto in favor of Vancouver. If Vancouver had lost 2010, would what their course of action been after that? Again, it's similar to the United States where the progression of Winter hosts and Summer hosts shouldn't affect each other, but they do, and they will, and there's not much you can do about it. You can't fault Canada for going after a Winter Olympics when they had a shot at it, but by the same token, it is a negative against their resolve for a Summer Olympics that they twice bid with Toronto only to take them off the table to try with Vancouver.

And if the US gives up on Summer Games and wins a Winter bid instead, they will suffer the same fate. Vancouver definitely handicaps Canada's Summer aspirations. American Games in 2026 would have an identical effect. The US should not bid for 2026 unless they are prepared to wait well into the 40s for Summer Games.

[Quaker2001]

2024 should go to the US (or at most 2028) is just math, the odds of the United States hosting the games in 2024 are very hight. If we look at the past, since the 1960s, the United States has hosted the Games in every decade except 1970s and 2010s.

Doesn't work that way anymore, so that math doesn't hold up. The number of countries and areas of the world that are in the discussion to host an Olympics has increased in recent years. So the United States should no longer except to host Olympics at the frequency with with they did in the past. Remember also.. the US hosted the 1980 Winter Olympics and the 1984 Summer Olympics because they ran uncontested. The `96 win was a lucky break based on the competition they were up against. You can't use that logic for 2024 if the competition the USOC is up against includes any or all of Paris (France hasn't had a Summer Olympics since 1924), Rome (not since 1960), Berlin (not since 1936, unless they push Munich 2022), and of course South Africa. That's what they'd be up against. So it's not like the United States can face those cities and countries and play the "we've hosted a lot of Olympics before, 2024 should go to us" card.

[Vrysxy]

Money is money, and the IOC revolves around that.. The united States is not just any other country. If that's the case, then the Olympics should go to Africa and should NOT return to Europe before North America...

[Quaker2001]

And if the US gives up on Summer Games and wins a Winter bid instead, they will suffer the same fate. Vancouver definitely handicaps Canada's Summer aspirations. American Games in 2026 would have an identical effect. The US should not bid for 2026 unless they are prepared to wait well into the 40s for Summer Games.

Not an identical effect. 2 differences.. #1 is the obvious difference between the United States and Canada. Don't need to get into that here after we've been over it 1,000 times before. #2 though is the city selection. Canada has 1 and only 1 city that they will push for their next Summer Olympics. That's been the case for more than 2 decades now and won't change anytime soon. The United States doesn't have that. So it's not killing a clear vision for 1 city to bid for a Winter Olympics. You're right that a 2026 U.S. hosted Winter Olympics means 2028 is a no go and 2032 is probably out as well. 2036 though? Might not be too much to ask to pull that off. Of course there's the risk that Toronto jumps into the mix before that happens and potentially pushes a U.S. Summer Olympics much further. But if the United States is looking at at least until 2032 before what could be our next best shot at a Summer Olympics, it may not be the wisest idea to put off any and all Winter Olympics potentially until the 2040s because that's pretty much what your strategy entails.

[Quaker2001]

Money is money, and the IOC revolves around that.. The united States is not just any other country. If that's the case, then the Olympics should go to Africa and should NOT return to Europe before North America...

The IOC is a European-centric organization. Never in the history of the Olympics have more than 2 consecutive Olympics been held outside of Europe. You're asking for there to be 4 in a row and a 20 year gap between European-hosted Summer Olympics. I just don't see that happening.

You're right that the IOC depends a lot on the money coming out of the United States in terms of television rights and sponsorships. But we've yet to see any indication that the amount of money they get from TOP sponsors and American television has dropped or is going to drop based on the lack of a US-hosted Olympics. On the contrary.. Comcast and NBC just pledged $4.38 million knowing they wouldn't have an Olympics in the United States during the next contract (save for the slimmest of possibilities for 2020).

I've said it before and I'll say it again.. When the money from the United States starts to dry up, the IOC will be begging the USOC to come back here. Until that happens though, there is no pressing need for the IOC to force an Olympics here if there are decent options out there from Europe

[Vrysxy]

Things have changed, Europe is not the center of the World my dear...

[baron-pierreIV]

Things have changed, Europe is not the center of the World my dear...

I quite agree...but I think for the next selection, the Euros might still be the sentimental favorites. But after the 2024 selection, I think a "European" thinking will start to disappear.

[Quaker2001]

Things have changed, Europe is not the center of the World my dear...

Didn't know I was your dear.. thanks.

And Europe may not be the center of the world, but it still is for the IOC. I'll believe that until I see evidence to the contrary. If I'm counting this up right, Europe still has twice as many IOC members than any other continent. So in your opinion, what exactly has change that Europe is no longer the center of the World for them? They've found South America on the map and will soon find Africa, but it doesn't mean they're going to forget where most of their own members come from anytime soon.

I quite agree...but I think for the next selection, the Euros might still be the sentimental favorites. But after the 2024 selection, I think a "European" thinking will start to disappear.

I could see that, but.. I still think Europe, which has more countries to offer than the other continents, will still get more than their share of Olympic hostings. They'll probably only get 1 of the next 3 Summer Olympics, but that will still put them even or ahead of the game when compared to the other continents. And I don't expect that to change anytime in the near future.

[Rob2012]

Though I'd normally hate predicting more than one or two races ahead, I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption that 24, 28 & 32 could go to Europe, US and Africa in any order.

I'd look at it like this:

Europe: nearly every race has a at least one solid European contender. But then again, if Paris is THE city the IOC wants, will they come back again if they're defeated in another race?

US: much more careful with how they bid and the biggest cities won't necessarily keep coming back

South African city: likely to repeat bid so dependent entirely on quality of bid and the competition

---------

With the knowledge that South Africa may be a mainstay for a few races, and the assumption that each bid will be better than the previous one from them, I'd personally only award South Africa 2024 if what Europe and the US offers is weak.

The nightmare scenario in many ways would be if the US and France both put up their strongest bids for 2024. Do you pass-by France again or pass-by a huge opportunity to have the US Games (an inevitability at some stage surely) in the best place possible?

Then you come to all three putting a strong bid in for 2024. Weirdly, in that scenario it could work for the African city. A bit of Game theory suggests the US and France would be more likely to come back again if they BOTH lost in a race almost destined for Africa, and it'd deflect the nightmare scenario for the IOC of having to choose between France and the US.

----------

For 2024, I'll stick my neck out and say:

African city vs a weak(er) field = Africa win

African city vs Paris = Paris win, African city comes back for 2028 or 2032 with a stronger bid

African city vs strong US city = US win, African city comes back for 2028 or 2032 with a stronger bid

Paris vs strong US city = Nightmare, God only knows

Paris vs strong US city vs African city = possible African win

--------

And none of this considers the likes of Rome or Berlin in place of Paris. And I may be underestimating the desire for Africa in which case they trump all as long as they put forward a half-decent bid!

All very complicated. Truth is there's three slots and three strong cases for hosting from the nations/continents.

[yoshi]

Could the IOC have a sort of continental rotation & say (or strongly hint) that say, Euro cities will be heavily favoured for one of the races (2024?), N America will be favoured for 2028, & Africa will be favoured for 2032?

[baron-pierreIV]

Though I'd normally hate predicting more than one or two races ahead, I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption that 24, 28 & 32 could go to Europe, US and Africa in any order.

I'd look at it like this:

Europe: nearly every race has a at least one solid European contender. But then again, if Paris is THE city the IOC wants, will they come back again if they're defeated in another race?

US: much more careful with how they bid and the biggest cities won't necessarily keep coming back

South African city: likely to repeat bid so dependent entirely on quality of bid and the competition

---------

With the knowledge that South Africa may be a mainstay for a few races, and the assumption that each bid will be better than the previous one from them, I'd personally only award South Africa 2024 if what Europe and the US offers is weak.

The nightmare scenario in many ways would be if the US and France both put up their strongest bids for 2024. Do you pass-by France again or pass-by a huge opportunity to have the US Games (an inevitability at some stage surely) in the best place possible?

Then you come to all three putting a strong bid in for 2024. Weirdly, in that scenario it could work for the African city. A bit of Game theory suggests the US and France would be more likely to come back again if they BOTH lost in a race almost destined for Africa, and it'd deflect the nightmare scenario for the IOC of having to choose between France and the US.

----------

For 2024, I'll stick my neck out and say:

African city vs a weak(er) field = Africa win

African city vs Paris = Paris win, African city comes back for 2028 or 2032 with a stronger bid

African city vs strong US city = US win, African city comes back for 2028 or 2032 with a stronger bid

Paris vs strong US city = Nightmare, God only knows

Paris vs strong US city vs African city = possible African win

-----

Quite analytical...but I don't think that scenario/combination is likely to happen. The USOC and CNOF, more than any other NOCs having been burnt badly (well, now joined by Turkey & Spain) will be watching the competition seriously (i.e., South Africa) more closely than ever. And there still is the time between Statement of Interest and actual Short List Game time when any one can withdraw -- as Rome did. What remains to be seen is the streamlining of the process Bach has openly declared. I think that's going to happen sooner rather than later. But it still behooves the individual NOCs and cities to know what they're getting into fully. There were too foolish losers this year; I don't think the IOC really likes that to happen.

I hope part of the streamlining process Bach implements is to actually poll the IOC earlier, informally, to save the cities that would eventually lose more grief. It's like if Durban openly declares and everyone else stays home; then fine. No need for the big drama they have to open their Sessions. The process is just too costly for the SOG that they could still probably encourage the competition for the WOGs (again fiscalizing the budgets) and the YOGs. They can't tell cities when to bid; but they can caution them seriously along the way NOT to pursue...or at least defer the dream for another day.

And LET the members actually visit the cities again. That might even be more economical in the long run (i.e., leading to wiser and earlier choices). I'd also cap the sports at 20; and maybe have 3 as rotating or guest sports...say, depending on existing facilities of the would-be host that are not allotted to the core 17 sports.

[yoshi]

Yeah, that's a good idea, so take 2016 as an example, someone from the IOC could have just said to Spain that the games were very unlikely to be given to Europe, or said to Chicago that it was best to wait until USOC & the IOC have sorted themselves out. Would've saved a lot of money & grief.

[FYI]

Not only the Europeans, the U.S. & Africa, but what about Istanbul, too. I think that needs to start being figured into the equation. Will they come back for 2024 stronger than before having learned their lesson from their most recent loss. Cuz that'll throw a wrench into all of this, as well.

[paul]

Not only the Europeans, the U.S. & Africa, but what about Istanbul, too. I think that needs to start being figured into the equation. Will they come back for 2024 stronger than before having learned their lesson from their most recent loss. Cuz that'll throw a wrench into all of this, as well.

whats the lesson they could learn

[Athensfan]

Not an identical effect. 2 differences.. #1 is the obvious difference between the United States and Canada. Don't need to get into that here after we've been over it 1,000 times before. #2 though is the city selection. Canada has 1 and only 1 city that they will push for their next Summer Olympics. That's been the case for more than 2 decades now and won't change anytime soon. The United States doesn't have that. So it's not killing a clear vision for 1 city to bid for a Winter Olympics. You're right that a 2026 U.S. hosted Winter Olympics means 2028 is a no go and 2032 is probably out as well. 2036 though? Might not be too much to ask to pull that off. Of course there's the risk that Toronto jumps into the mix before that happens and potentially pushes a U.S. Summer Olympics much further. But if the United States is looking at at least until 2032 before what could be our next best shot at a Summer Olympics, it may not be the wisest idea to put off any and all Winter Olympics potentially until the 2040s because that's pretty much what your strategy entails.

I think that's a naive analysis that places too much stock in outdated precedent. It is precisely because the US is the US that the IOC will expect them to wait as long as Canada if not longer. There is already a strong perception that the US has hosted too many Olympics. Thinking the US has any chance to land both 2026 and 2036 is extremely unrealistic.

The vote for 2036 is in 2029 just three years after the hypothetical Winter Games. Imagine this: would the IOC have given Italy Torino 2006 and Rome 2016? Or Canada Vancouver 2010 and Toronto 2020? Or Russia Sochi 2014 and Moscow 2024?

Do you really think the US is so beloved and valued by the IOC that they would make a special exception for the Americans? Not at all. If anything the waits between American Games are likely to be longer as a way of offsetting the fact that we hosted 4 Olympics between 1980 and 2002.

Plus, your 2026/2036 American double is contingent on Toronto failing to land 24/28/32. Do you really think that's likely? Again, I don't.

In my opinion, the Summer Games will return to North America no later than 2032 no matter what. If the USOC goes for 2026 or 2030, they will all but guarantee Toronto the Games sometime in the next three cycles. That would undoubtedly push the next American SOG to the 40s at the earliest.

[FYI]

whats the lesson they could learn

To campaign harder, & hot solely rely on the "new frontier" card, which apparently was what Erdogan was thinking.

*Not solely rely..