Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Of course Americans will get excited about Olympics on foreign soil, but will they remain equally excited decades down the road if the children of the digital age have never seen Summer Olympics in their own country? If the US is asked to wait til the 40s, I believe you will see a fall off in viewership and sponsorship as well as athletic performance. I wouldn't expect that fall off to show up for several years yet.

This is not an America "needs" the Games argument. Not is it any sort of "threat". It's a simple statement about the likely cause and effect relationship of what will happen to one of the IOC's most important partners if they wait 50 years or more between Summer Games. If the IOC is happy to accept the risks/results of their decisions, they should move forward without worry. It appears likely to me that they will do just that.

I don't see why they wouldn't be. Think about an aspiring young gymnast or swimmer who watched the exploits of the U.S. gymnastics team or the swim team of Phelps, Lochte, and Missy Franklin. I'm sure they take a lot of inspiration from seeing those athletes win their medals. I don't know, however, that they discern the difference between an Olympics held in London or Los Angeles. I don't know that it makes a difference to them where the Olympics are held and that they're somewhere other than the United States. They're still seeing the Olympics. They're experiencing and consuming sports in a way we couldn't dream of when we were growing up (not positive about this, but I believe we're around the same age). Certainly if there was the prospect of an Olympics on home soil, that might drive younger athletes even more. But I don't know that the lack of a home Olympics is hurting viewership and sponsorship. Could it happen down the road, maybe even in the next few Olympics cycles? Absolutely it could. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if that happened with Sochi, although I did read an ATR article today that said NBC is projecting record ad sales for the upcoming Olympics. I think that as long as the United States continues to bring home as many medals as they have been (and 2012 was an unqualified success in that regard, especially in the marquee sports), that momentum may very well be strong enough for some years to come.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You bring up a point that shouldn't be understated: it's ok for the US to bid in 2024 or 2028 and lose. If USOC really wants to win, a city might have to lose once in order to win the games. And that's just fine.

I don't think it's fine, and I'm pretty sure most people who aren't as interested or paying attention would think it's fine either. Wasting millions upon millions of dollars on bids that are destined to lose for some pompous jerks in Switzerland who only have an interest in making the US look like fools? Chicago's loss was just the latest sucker punch. The only city I think could manage to bid and lose and not have a huge public backlash would be LA because the city has so much more going on, and all the venues are basically already in place, but as others have already said here LA is "boring." Just look around you don't see NY wanting to bid again, Chicago has a horrible after taste in their mouth from getting kicked in the balls. These other cities that are interested haven't yet poured the real cash in yet only to have it all be for nothing, just wait for another loss or two (or more?) and see how people are willing to accept losing a few times before we "win."

I'm with GoNutz on this one. In almost any other country, it's easier for them to handle that burden when there's often only 1 city that country is pushing for a Summer Olympics and they have the financial backing of their NOC and the national government. That's not the case in the United States. We saw what happened when New York and Chicago lost. I've said before i would love to see a city stick with it for the long haul and that's probably the type of city the USOC should be dealing with. But that's much easier said than done. It's hard to tell a city "you're probably not going to win 2024, but it will help you make a stronger case for 2028/2032." That's a different burden that cities like Rio and Istanbul and Madrid don't have to deal with.

Again, it's 1 of those ongoing debates here of whether or not the USOC should only bid in a race they're confident of winning. Clearly they can't count on that happening, so they have to weigh that against a 2024 where a city might be a sacrificial lamb. But as long as the USOC operates the way it does where the onus is more on the city than on the country, that's going to be a sell tough for any city to walk into a potential minefield like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After Tokyo, I'm getting a strong feeling the US may just sit 2024 out - and I think it may be wise.

The silver lining is that Chicago may be inspired by its fellow 2016 rivals recent success - although it could be deterred by Madrid's.

People in Chicago have long memories, and they're not going to forget the 2016 vote anytime soon. A lot of people in Chicago didn't want the Olympics anyway, and there is absolutely no interest from the city's business or political leaders for another bid. Just because Tokyo lucked into an Olympics against a very weak field does not mean that Chicago will win the next time it bids. I would love to see the Olympics in Chicago, but I do not expect them to bid again any time in the distant future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, it's 1 of those ongoing debates here of whether or not the USOC should only bid in a race they're confident of winning. Clearly they can't count on that happening, so they have to weigh that against a 2024 where a city might be a sacrificial lamb. But as long as the USOC operates the way it does where the onus is more on the city than on the country, that's going to be a sell tough for any city to walk into a potential minefield like that.

My opinion is that the USOC must make a bid no matter what. The games need to return to North America at some point, but the pressure of the continental rotation will only happen if the IOC continues to reject bid after bid. Even if the bid is simply a prelude to a 2028 or 2032 bid, it still must be done. This is especially true if the USOC cannot bid with NYC/Chicago in 2028/2032 (which seems to be the case given the tepid interest by those cities currently). Other cities need to test the water to see how the IOC will react. Will the IOC show interest in a bland LA bid less than 50 years after the '84 games? Will the IOC ignore DC's jurisdictional/political hurdles? Are SF, Dallas, Boston & Philadelphia large enough to draw interest? Are any of these city governments truly committed to doing whatever it takes to host the Summer Olympics? These questions cannot be answered without actually making a bid and figuring out through trial & error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion is that the USOC must make a bid no matter what.

These questions cannot be answered without actually making a bid and figuring out through trial & error.

Ah, the marks of a true newbie. Not knowing what it takes to put together an Olympic bid and effortless goading from the armchair. Not timing your bid makes you look foolish, amateurish and totally clueless. Obviously, you don't realize the commitment and stakes involved in putting any sort of bid together. Don't you think Madrid and Istanbul are ABSOLUTELY gutted after several tries?? :rolleyes:

But welcome to GB anyway, Warped Reality. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, the marks of a true newbie. Not knowing what it takes to put together an Olympic bid and effortless goading from the armchair. Not timing your bid makes you look foolish, amateurish and totally clueless. Obviously, you don't realize the commitment and stakes involved in putting any sort of bid together.

Very true. However, how am I to learn about the process if I don't throw my outrageous opinions at the wall and see what sticks and what doesn't?

I agree that timing & commitment are very important. However, how can one gauge the commitment of Philadelphia/Boston/Washington without actually going through the motions of bidding? Maybe I'm wrong, but couldn't it come across as arrogant if the USOC waits until 2032 to make their next bid and acts as the presumptive host well before the IOC makes their decision? Surely there is a place for humility in the process?

Los Angeles is many things but bland is not one of them.

I wrote that because I really don't see any over-arching narrative with Los Angeles, but I could be wrong here. The city has hosted twice already and doesn't seem to have anything new in store. I don't think this will come across as very inspiring after Tokyo's turn as a repeat host.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true. However, how am I to learn about the process if I don't throw my outrageous opinions at the wall and see what sticks and what doesn't?

I agree that timing & commitment are very important. However, how can one gauge the commitment of Philadelphia/Boston/Washington without actually going through the motions of bidding? Maybe I'm wrong, but couldn't it come across as arrogant if the USOC waits until 2032 to make their next bid and acts as the presumptive host well before the IOC makes their decision? Surely there is a place for humility in the process?

I wrote that because I really don't see any over-arching narrative with Los Angeles, but I could be wrong here. The city has hosted twice already and doesn't seem to have anything new in store. I don't think this will come across as very inspiring after Tokyo's turn as a repeat host.

We don't know what Los Angeles has in store. We don't even know if the USOC is bidding for 2024. So it's way too soon to dismiss any city as having nothing new to offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what fantasy world can such well-travelled people consider North America and South America the same continent? Are these the same people that fell for Rio's "map" back in 2009? If its anyone's "turn" between Europe and North America, it's North America. This idea of Europe's entitlement to every third Games is outdated.

The same fantasy world where the continents (world regions) are represented by five rings.

On a possible US bid: You can't win if you ain't in. If you have a bid worth submitting, you submit it. You don't sit out playing some sort of 12-dimensional chess hoping to set up a future bid. Worst case scenario (for the USOC) is you don't bid, Toronto does and wins!

As for South Africa, many on this board are convinced that (1) Durban is the only logical city in RSA and (2) Durban is a shoo-in if they bid. Those views are far from unanimus. Cape Town has a vastly larger foreign tourist structure, is bigger, etc. And given Istanbul's poor showing, the IOC voters desire for unproven frontiers isn't as firm as (some) people think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true. However, how am I to learn about the process if I don't throw my outrageous opinions at the wall and see what sticks and what doesn't?

Maybe I'm wrong, but couldn't it come across as arrogant if the USOC waits until 2032 to make their next bid and acts as the presumptive host well before the IOC makes their decision? Surely there is a place for humility in the process?

Arrogant? No; not at all. If anything, with Madrid's last lesson, they just appear to have been...sorry to use an apropos pun...very bull-headed and took their "popularity" within the IOC circles a little too seriously. The thing is...unless you are Dubai or say Warren Buffet, and had $50 million to easily write off in ONE check, that's about what it takes to mount a bid today. That has got to come from somewhere. Thousands of person-hours, blood, sweat and tears of a few hundred people -- not to mention the resources of a city that are thrown in when the IOC team comes a-visiting -- are involved in mounting a serious bid. And it is doubly complicated for the US with a host of potential candidates; and the USOC does not like using public funds. So the $50+ millions have to come from private pockets. Those will only open up their pockets so much.

That is why the US, now with FOUR members in the IOC, hopefully, will have a better collective feel when it is the opportune time for the US to mount a summer bid again. You do the sounding out process within the IOC; and even that, with just 2 when Chicago ran, didn't work out too well...much to Chicago's dismay. If u watched any of the recent proceedings, that will give you an idea of how serious and emotionally involving and gutting the whole endeavor is, for all those involved.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United States can have a nice shot for the next cycles if the city they pick (any viable city) manages to present itself as a new place to go (or a renewed place to go) and dismiss a return to America approach to their bid narrative. Frankly, shades of 84, 96 (and maybe 2002) partially explains Chicago's premature exit for 2016 as it would've meant the US would land at least one games per decade since the 80s. Take the expanding international bidding field and you know it's way too many american games in a short span... unless the message and image of the bidding city is not presented more as a first coming and less like a return to the US. Appealing to tradition can backfire as arrogance, as it was the case for Athens in 96...


unless the message and image of the bidding city is not presented more as a first coming and less like a return to the US

sry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion is that the USOC must make a bid no matter what. The games need to return to North America at some point, but the pressure of the continental rotation will only happen if the IOC continues to reject bid after bid. Even if the bid is simply a prelude to a 2028 or 2032 bid, it still must be done. This is especially true if the USOC cannot bid with NYC/Chicago in 2028/2032 (which seems to be the case given the tepid interest by those cities currently). Other cities need to test the water to see how the IOC will react. Will the IOC show interest in a bland LA bid less than 50 years after the '84 games? Will the IOC ignore DC's jurisdictional/political hurdles? Are SF, Dallas, Boston & Philadelphia large enough to draw interest? Are any of these city governments truly committed to doing whatever it takes to host the Summer Olympics? These questions cannot be answered without actually making a bid and figuring out through trial & error.

I agree that timing & commitment are very important. However, how can one gauge the commitment of Philadelphia/Boston/Washington without actually going through the motions of bidding? Maybe I'm wrong, but couldn't it come across as arrogant if the USOC waits until 2032 to make their next bid and acts as the presumptive host well before the IOC makes their decision? Surely there is a place for humility in the process?

It's a difficult position for the USOC and their prospective bid cities. It costs tens of millions of dollars for a city to bid for the Olympics and unlike in other countries, that's money they're not getting from the USOC. So a city can't be placed up there in a case of "trial and error" because then you're asking a city to potentially spend even more money. At the same time, yes there is some credence to the idea that if the USOC doesn't bid until 2032, maybe they don't win a race that might otherwise be set up for them if there are other more experienced bid cities. So that's the thought process the USOC is going through at this point. Either way, and this goes to zeke's point.. if the USOC has a bid worth submitting, they should submit it. Not sure they'll have that though, so they shouldn't simply throw the best city they have out that if that city doesn't have the goods. They got lucky once with Atlanta, but they shouldn't count on that happening again. Either way though, you can't tell a city like a Dallas or a Boston that in order to test their commitment level that they should spend huge amounts of money to enter a race they have little chance of winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United States can have a nice shot for the next cycles if the city they pick (any viable city) manages to present itself as a new place to go (or a renewed place to go) and dismiss a return to America approach to their bid narrative. Frankly, shades of 84, 96 (and maybe 2002) partially explains Chicago's premature exit for 2016 as it would've meant the US would land at least one games per decade since the 80s. Take the expanding international bidding field and you know it's way too many american games in a short span... unless the message and image of the bidding city is not presented more as a first coming and less like a return to the US. Appealing to tradition can backfire as arrogance, as it was the case for Athens in 96...

unless the message and image of the bidding city is not presented more as a first coming and less like a return to the US

sry.

It's too bad that San Francisco is infested with too many liberals, the too civic-conscious and the lefties...becuz a San Francisco bid (i.e., the city) would be very European...and which is why I am thinking (especially since the current USOC president and new IOC member is a Bay Area resident), if the USOC decides to forego 2024, offer up SF as a Session host city for 2017/24. The IOC would just love it here and the Moscone Center/Union Square areas. Everything is so compact. And of course, create more goodwill for the US w/in the IOC.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what fantasy world can such well-travelled people consider North America and South America the same continent? Are these the same people that fell for Rio's "map" back in 2009? If its anyone's "turn" between Europe and North America, it's North America. This idea of Europe's entitlement to every third Games is outdated.

FIBA splits the basketball world into 5 zones.. Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, and the Americas. Yes, that means they combine the Americas into one while leaving Oceania and its grand total of 2 teams as it's own zone. Many other sports use the Pan Am Games as qualifiers and treat the Americas as one entity. As much as we all know that North America and South America are different continents, is it really that surprising some in the IOC would treat them as one where the governing bodies of several sports do just that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on which theory grounds you're standing: for some, South and North America are different continents; for others, it's a single landmass divided in geopolitical subregions. A country's official view on this may shift according to its current interests, as was the case of the US while trying to push Monroe Doctrine and, more recently, the ill-fated Free Trade Area of the Americas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The central problem with the US is that unlike other countries they don't have THE city. You could argue with me, but we don't have a London, Paris, Rome, Beijing, Sydney, or whatever international city you can come up with. All those cities have a NATION that would be effected by the games. How does San Francisco hosting help Mobile or Columbus? It doesn't. The US has many cities that are capable of hosting the games, but they do not have a single city. The only one that comes close is New York which does not seem interested and another loss would not help. The US can't pull a Barcelona because the cities that could use the Barcelona plan do not fit this misconception that only major US cities can host. And lastly it would not have truly national support like London 2012 and Paris 2012 had. The USOC needs to find a city that the entire nation will rally and they will not rally LA, Chicago, or New York. In most Americans eyes those cities get everything from scandals to major events and the Olympics would be nothing new; I'm willing to bet most Americans would think that it's not the first time New York hosted them. The American public does not give a s*** if New York/LA/Chicago hosts they would rather see a city that's never had an event or reputation like the games before. Take Atlanta for example - it was held 12 years after LA and most people fondly remember Atlanta(alot in part because of the bomb), but not LA. It's because Atlanta was new, it was fresh, and memorable LA while memorable for Olympic fans, California, and the IOC- the US doesn't even remember it. That's why the IOC should pick a new city like New Orleans or Austin and have them host the games; I guarantee that people will talk about those games, an NYC 2024 would not be remembered. I step off my soapbox.


Forgot to add that they do not remember LA'84 because it was nothing new or unusual for the city. People tend to remember unusual things more than what seems usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The central problem with the US is that unlike other countries they don't have THE city. You could argue with me, but we don't have a London, Paris, Rome, Beijing, Sydney, or whatever international city you can come up with. All those cities have a NATION that would be effected by the games. How does San Francisco hosting help Mobile or Columbus? It doesn't. The US has many cities that are capable of hosting the games, but they do not have a single city. The only one that comes close is New York which does not seem interested and another loss would not help. The US can't pull a Barcelona because the cities that could use the Barcelona plan do not fit this misconception that only major US cities can host. And lastly it would not have truly national support like London 2012 and Paris 2012 had. The USOC needs to find a city that the entire nation will rally and they will not rally LA, Chicago, or New York. In most Americans eyes those cities get everything from scandals to major events and the Olympics would be nothing new; I'm willing to bet most Americans would think that it's not the first time New York hosted them. The American public does not give a s*** if New York/LA/Chicago hosts they would rather see a city that's never had an event or reputation like the games before. Take Atlanta for example - it was held 12 years after LA and most people fondly remember Atlanta(alot in part because of the bomb), but not LA. It's because Atlanta was new, it was fresh, and memorable LA while memorable for Olympic fans, California, and the IOC- the US doesn't even remember it. That's why the IOC should pick a new city like New Orleans or Austin and have them host the games; I guarantee that people will talk about those games, an NYC 2024 would not be remembered. I step off my soapbox.

mr.bernham, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Please do not tell me you're actually arguing that Atlanta was remembered fondly in large part because of the bombing and that most people don't remember LA (would it have helped if they did have a bombing). That's 1 of the dumber things I've read here lately, and that's saying something.

Me personally, I was in high school when the Olympics were Atlanta, so I remember those games well but have almost no memory of Los Angeles. But I don't get the argument how the country remembers Atlanta, but that Californians and hardcore Olympic fans are the only ones that remember Los Angeles. I don't know where you get that idea from. Let alone where you further that idea that the USOC needs to forgo large cities and instead look at a New Orleans or an Austin. How exactly would those games be more memorable than an NYC or a Chicago, large multi-cultural cities that appeal to people all over the world? The IOC isn't going to accept lesser cities from the United States when they have major cities from around the world interested in the Olympics.

I get what you're saying about the United States not having that 1 city (although I'll offer up China with Beijing AND Shanghai and Germany with Berlin AND Munich), but that doesn't mean smaller cities are the answer. How exactly would Mobile or Columbus hosting help San Francisco? I don't get how you put this together. I'm sorry if I sound harsh here, but if you're going to be a 15-year-old kid posting in these forums, a post like this borders on troll-like. It is that ridiculous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mr.bernham, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Ok, a simple "wrong" would've done just fine, but...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United States can have a nice shot for the next cycles if the city they pick (any viable city) manages to present itself as a new place to go (or a renewed place to go) and dismiss a return to America approach to their bid narrative. Frankly, shades of 84, 96 (and maybe 2002) partially explains Chicago's premature exit for 2016 as it would've meant the US would land at least one games per decade since the 80s. Take the expanding international bidding field and you know it's way too many american games in a short span... unless the message and image of the bidding city is not presented more as a first coming and less like a return to the US. Appealing to tradition can backfire as arrogance, as it was the case for Athens in 96...

unless the message and image of the bidding city is not presented more as a first coming and less like a return to the US

sry.

Makes sense. I guess the USA is "burdened" by having such a large and diverse country. No single city represents everyone's interests. Could the solution be to emphasize America's regions? I believe Atlanta showcased the New American South, which was a "new frontier" of a different sort.

So far, Lake Placid is the only host east of the Mississippi and north of the Mason-Dixon despite the fact that the upper midwest and northeast megalopolis contain about a third of the country's population. With Chicago and New York sitting it out, the only other candidates are Boston, Philly and DC. Personally, I think Boston (and the rest of New England) offers the most distinctive regional culture, so perhaps that is where we could find a compelling narrative? And how about a tribute to the Patriots' Day bombing, which occurred at an event that was originally organized in response to the 1896 Olympic revival? That ought to be an emotional narrative; showcasing the apolitical perseverance of athletes in spite of grave tragedy.

Obviously, this will require Bostonians to commit a whole lot of dollars and cents, but I guess we'll see their attitudes in the coming months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mr.bernham, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Please do not tell me you're actually arguing that Atlanta was remembered fondly in large part because of the bombing and that most people don't remember LA (would it have helped if they did have a bombing). That's 1 of the dumber things I've read here lately, and that's saying something.

Me personally, I was in high school when the Olympics were Atlanta, so I remember those games well but have almost no memory of Los Angeles. But I don't get the argument how the country remembers Atlanta, but that Californians and hardcore Olympic fans are the only ones that remember Los Angeles. I don't know where you get that idea from. Let alone where you further that idea that the USOC needs to forgo large cities and instead look at a New Orleans or an Austin. How exactly would those games be more memorable than an NYC or a Chicago, large multi-cultural cities that appeal to people all over the world? The IOC isn't going to accept lesser cities from the United States when they have major cities from around the world interested in the Olympics.

I get what you're saying about the United States not having that 1 city (although I'll offer up China with Beijing AND Shanghai and Germany with Berlin AND Munich), but that doesn't mean smaller cities are the answer. How exactly would Mobile or Columbus hosting help San Francisco? I don't get how you put this together. I'm sorry if I sound harsh here, but if you're going to be a 15-year-old kid posting in these forums, a post like this borders on troll-like. It is that ridiculous

What I'm trying to say is that the USOC rather than going for a city where the Olympics seems like something old choose a city that would be memorable and new. The only city out of the ones I mentioned that could host the Olympics in the future is Austin the others were used to say how the Olympics need to be in a city that would help the entire nation economically (not that those cities would). Those large cultural cities won't do crap for our nation. As for Atlanta the goods of their games outweigh the bombs effect, but it is still something that keeps it in peoples mind.

A games in LA/NYC/Chicago seems normal (which is good, the games should feel natural) but for the US it is too normal that citizens notice it when it happens and when it's over it leaves their mind. Atlanta at the time was a new major city (I would compare it to modern Dallas). Being a major city the games fit and felt natural, but the games felt new; people saw Atlanta as a new city and host and it was exciting. LA seemed like the everyday grind; nothing new, nothing special. The only way that this could be reversed (in my opinion) is if New York bid and went all out with their games, both visually and organization wise. Thanks for reading and hope this did not make you more stupid.

Makes sense. I guess the USA is "burdened" by having such a large and diverse country. No single city represents everyone's interests. Could the solution be to emphasize America's regions? I believe Atlanta showcased the New American South, which was a "new frontier" of a different sort.

So far, Lake Placid is the only host east of the Mississippi and north of the Mason-Dixon despite the fact that the upper midwest and northeast megalopolis contain about a third of the country's population. With Chicago and New York sitting it out, the only other candidates are Boston, Philly and DC. Personally, I think Boston (and the rest of New England) offers the most distinctive regional culture, so perhaps that is where we could find a compelling narrative? And how about a tribute to the Patriots' Day bombing, which occurred at an event that was originally organized in response to the 1896 Olympic revival? That ought to be an emotional narrative; showcasing the apolitical perseverance of athletes in spite of grave tragedy.

Obviously, this will require Bostonians to commit a whole lot of dollars and cents, but I guess we'll see their attitudes in the coming months.

Boston or DC I think would be a great shot at representing the US.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...