Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

I have never thought of polling the IOC before the start of the race, but I think it's a SUPERB idea. This would be extremely helpful to potential candidates. I can see it now: "Rate your interest in Doha as a potential Summer host on a scale of 1-10...." I suppose the question is whether they would tell the truth.

I also completely agree that the members must be able to visit the bid cities. There must be some way to institute ethical safeguards without prohibiting them from seeing the candidates firsthand. It's ridiculous to ask people to compare places they haven't visited with Olympic hosting in mind.

I also wonder if it would be a good idea for NOC's to submit letters of interest prior to the official statement of intent to bid. This would allow the various bids to take the temperature of the IOC prior to going too far down a very expensive path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

A few things here..

The perception is not that the United States has hosted too many Olympics. The perception is that they hosted too frequently in a particular span of time and as such, weren't an appealing choice for another Olympics so shortly after those 4 hostings. And that's to say nothing of the strained USOC-IOC relations which we know severely harmed Chicago 2016's chances.

Is the US beloved by the IOC? Clearly not. Are they valued? You better believe they are. The new revenue deal, the TV money, and TOP sponsors.. that all means the United States is unlike any other country the IOC deals with. Does that entitle them to special treatment? Probably not. But that you mentioned Italy.. Rome 2020 was lined up to be 1 of the favorites if not the favorite in this past race. That was only 14 years past Torino. So to have 2 Olympics 10 years apart in the United States is far from impossible. It may be taking a risk, especially with regard to Toronto, but I think the odds of it happening are much better than 'extremely unrealistic'

Maybe I'm wrong on all this and the USOC is in for a rude awakening. You're right it may not be the best strategy to go after 2026 and that the USOC needs to exercise some caution if Toronto is lingering out there. Still, either way.. the story always goes that North America only has so many cities/countries available to host. The perception you're talking about applies to Canada. They've had their share of Olympics and it might be too much to ask for more. I don't think that same logic applies to the United States, especially where we're talking about 20+ years since their previous hosting and 2 losses in the interim (not that they had a strong case for 2012 or 2016 anyway). So let's agree to disagree on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm wrong on all this and the USOC is in for a rude awakening.

Umm, hasn't that already happened. The first-round 2016 exit wasn't exactly what the USOC had in mind.

(not that they had a strong case for 2012 or 2016 anyway).

Perhaps not. But 2016 was at least a stronger case than 2012 was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless Rio is a complete disaster, South Africa will be a heavy favorite whether they bid for 2024 or 2028. The IOC isn't going to go three cycles without a European SOGs. If South Africa sits out 2024, it's Europe's to lose which would set up South Africa for 2028. The U.S. is better off sitting out 2024 and using 2028 as a warm-up with the condition that if the candidate city loses 2028 that they will be the automatic U.S. candidate for 2032 which is unless South Africa gets cold feet for consecutive cycles, the next realistic chance a U.S. city has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few things here..

The perception is not that the United States has hosted too many Olympics. The perception is that they hosted too frequently in a particular span of time and as such, weren't an appealing choice for another Olympics so shortly after those 4 hostings. And that's to say nothing of the strained USOC-IOC relations which we know severely harmed Chicago 2016's chances.

Is the US beloved by the IOC? Clearly not. Are they valued? You better believe they are. The new revenue deal, the TV money, and TOP sponsors.. that all means the United States is unlike any other country the IOC deals with. Does that entitle them to special treatment? Probably not. But that you mentioned Italy.. Rome 2020 was lined up to be 1 of the favorites if not the favorite in this past race. That was only 14 years past Torino. So to have 2 Olympics 10 years apart in the United States is far from impossible. It may be taking a risk, especially with regard to Toronto, but I think the odds of it happening are much better than 'extremely unrealistic'

Maybe I'm wrong on all this and the USOC is in for a rude awakening. You're right it may not be the best strategy to go after 2026 and that the USOC needs to exercise some caution if Toronto is lingering out there. Still, either way.. the story always goes that North America only has so many cities/countries available to host. The perception you're talking about applies to Canada. They've had their share of Olympics and it might be too much to ask for more. I don't think that same logic applies to the United States, especially where we're talking about 20+ years since their previous hosting and 2 losses in the interim (not that they had a strong case for 2012 or 2016 anyway). So let's agree to disagree on this one.

Umm, hasn't that already happened. The first-round 2016 exit wasn't exactly what the USOC had in mind.

Perhaps not. But 2016 was at least a stronger case than 2012 was.

A few things here..

The perception is not that the United States has hosted too many Olympics. The perception is that they hosted too frequently in a particular span of time and as such, weren't an appealing choice for another Olympics so shortly after those 4 hostings. And that's to say nothing of the strained USOC-IOC relations which we know severely harmed Chicago 2016's chances.

Is the US beloved by the IOC? Clearly not. Are they valued? You better believe they are. The new revenue deal, the TV money, and TOP sponsors.. that all means the United States is unlike any other country the IOC deals with. Does that entitle them to special treatment? Probably not. But that you mentioned Italy.. Rome 2020 was lined up to be 1 of the favorites if not the favorite in this past race. That was only 14 years past Torino. So to have 2 Olympics 10 years apart in the United States is far from impossible. It may be taking a risk, especially with regard to Toronto, but I think the odds of it happening are much better than 'extremely unrealistic'

Maybe I'm wrong on all this and the USOC is in for a rude awakening. You're right it may not be the best strategy to go after 2026 and that the USOC needs to exercise some caution if Toronto is lingering out there. Still, either way.. the story always goes that North America only has so many cities/countries available to host. The perception you're talking about applies to Canada. They've had their share of Olympics and it might be too much to ask for more. I don't think that same logic applies to the United States, especially where we're talking about 20+ years since their previous hosting and 2 losses in the interim (not that they had a strong case for 2012 or 2016 anyway). So let's agree to disagree on this one.

First, the perception is still that the US has hosted too many Olympics. The American total is 8. And that's out of a total of 35 Olympic Games. Over one fifth of the Olympic Games in history have been held on American soil. I don't think the IOC is blind to that.

Second, the US isn't valued, the money is. As long as NBC and American TOP sponsors pay through the nose, what does it matter who hosts? Those companies see the Games as a wise investment with or without domestic Olympics. Unless something changes dramatically (and there's no reason to think that it will) American money does not buy the USOC leverage with their bids. The new revenue deal makes this even more true because the IOC gets an even bigger piece of the pie.

Rome 2020 to Torino 2006 would've been a 14 year gap, four more years than what you're proposing (2026,2036). Personally, I never did see Rome as a favorite, but it's a moot point anyway because the bid was withdrawn and there's no way to know whether it would've won or not. Therefore it does not help your argument.

You failed to address the most important part of my argument, namely that the Summer Games will return to North America no later than 2032. Do you really think that the IOC would wait for the United States' timetable and bypass a viable Toronto bid? Absolutely not. If the US gets 2026, Toronto is very likely to get 2028 or 2032. Would the IOC suddenly return to the USA in 2036 just because they get a lot of money from American companies that is guaranteed whether the US hosts or not?

None of this has anything to do with how many viable candidate cities there are in the US vs. Canada. You must see that there are real problems with your prognostication.

I'll reiterate my view: the USOC should not bid for 2026 unless they are prepared to wait well into the 40s AT THE EARLIEST to host Summer Games. Is it possible that hell will freeze over and the IOC will magically bestow two Games upon the United States within 10 years? Sure. Anything is possible. But the USOC needs to evaluate the LIKELY consequences of a Winter bid prior to moving forward. Unless they are at peace with those LIKELY consequences, they should not offer a winter bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, the perception is still that the US has hosted too many Olympics. The American total is 8. And that's out of a total of 35 Olympic Games. Over one fifth of the Olympic Games in history have been held on American soil. I don't think the IOC is blind to that.

You're only counting the total of Summer Games here, which is 35. Count everything, & the number is like 58. So 50 Games have not been held in the U.S. That's not 1/5 of the Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're only counting the total of Summer Games here, which is 35. Count everything, & the number is like 58. So 50 Games have not been held in the U.S. That's not 1/5 of the Games.

I misread the statistic. We're up to 48 total Games so far. 16.7% have been on American soil.

You're right. My apologies.

Here's the breakdown:

27 Summer Games

21 Winter Games

8 of those hosted by the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll reiterate my view: the USOC should not bid for 2026 unless they are prepared to wait well into the 40s AT THE EARLIEST to host Summer Games. Is it possible that hell will freeze over and the IOC will magically bestow two Games upon the United States within 10 years? Sure. Anything is possible. But the USOC needs to evaluate the LIKELY consequences of a Winter bid prior to moving forward. Unless they are at peace with those LIKELY consequences, they should not offer a winter bid.

Not that I wanna get into this slinging match with you & Quaker. But "likely" is not "evidence" of anything. I can see your point, but in the end, it can't prove anything until the cards are actually turned over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second, the US isn't valued, the money is. As long as NBC and American TOP sponsors pay through the nose, what does it matter who hosts? Those companies see the Games as a wise investment with or without domestic Olympics. Unless something changes dramatically (and there's no reason to think that it will) American money does not buy the USOC leverage with their bids. The new revenue deal makes this even more true because the IOC gets an even bigger piece of the pie.

Thank you for making the EXACT argument I've been making for years now. I mean literally almost word-for-word, the exact argument. I find it curious to hear you make that argument when you've argued that the United States needs a home soil Olympics to reinvigorate the Olympic movement. Even still, I don't think the IOC is going to want to wait until that money dries up before they return here. That certainly doesn't mean the United States will get another Olympics before it's time (and hindsight being 20/20, 2012 and 2016 were probably before our time), but we'll see how that plays out.

Rome 2020 to Torino 2006 would've been a 14 year gap, four more years than what you're proposing (2026,2036). Personally, I never did see Rome as a favorite, but it's a moot point anyway because the bid was withdrawn and there's no way to know whether it would've won or not. Therefore it does not help your argument.

Careful there, Athens.. my argument is not based on who YOU perceived as a favorite. Given the weak competition, Rome would have been a formidable opponent and I think many here would agree to that.

You failed to address the most important part of my argument, namely that the Summer Games will return to North America no later than 2032. Do you really think that the IOC would wait for the United States' timetable and bypass a viable Toronto bid? Absolutely not. If the US gets 2026, Toronto is very likely to get 2028 or 2032. Would the IOC suddenly return to the USA in 2036 just because they get a lot of money from American companies that is guaranteed whether the US hosts or not?

None of this has anything to do with how many viable candidate cities there are in the US vs. Canada. You must see that there are real problems with your prognostication.

I'll reiterate my view: the USOC should not bid for 2026 unless they are prepared to wait well into the 40s AT THE EARLIEST to host Summer Games. Is it possible that hell will freeze over and the IOC will magically bestow two Games upon the United States within 10 years? Sure. Anything is possible. But the USOC needs to evaluate the LIKELY consequences of a Winter bid prior to moving forward. Unless they are at peace with those LIKELY consequences, they should not offer a winter bid.

Presumably, yes the Summer Olympics will return to North America in the next 3 available cycles. Key word.. "presumably." Again, I will certainly grant your scenario that if the United States gets 2026, Toronto has a good case for 2028 or 2032. And I don't disagree with the idea that a Winter bid (and win) does damage to their Summer hopes. But I still disagree that the perception has hosted too many Olympics. The perception is that they hosted too many Olympics in too short a period of time and that's the issue at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I misread the statistic. We're up to 48 total Games so far. 16.7% have been on American soil.

You're right. My apologies.

Here's the breakdown:

27 Summer Games

21 Winter Games

8 of those hosted by the United States.

That percentage is going to drop once you include the 4 future hosts that have already been award, plus 2022 which won't be in the United States. And none of the Olympics cancelled by war were slated for the United States. So even if you don't count those, it's still going to be 8 out of 53. And it's interesting to note that 4 of those came in a span of 13 Olympics. Since then, the United States is 0 for 9, soon to be 0 for 10. That's what I'm talking about the frequency of hosting. So to have 2 hostings in a span of 6 Olympics (which is what it would be to have 2 Olympics 10 years apart) is a stretch, but far from unrealistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the ATL games probably should count for 2 since it was the centennial game not just some normal oly

No it shouldn't. So what that it was the centennial games. As history sees it, it was just another Olympics.

And that's another thing.. the IOC wants to hold it against the United States for hosting too often. It's not exactly the USOC's fault a lesser American city got selected as host because the competition in that particular race was weak. I can't argue with the logic that says they didn't want history to repeat like that in 2012 and 2016, but Atlanta wasn't supposed to win 1996. That was supposed to be Athens and then that may very well have altered the entire timeline of future hosts and maybe we're not having this discussion right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for making the EXACT argument I've been making for years now. I mean literally almost word-for-word, the exact argument. I find it curious to hear you make that argument when you've argued that the United States needs a home soil Olympics to reinvigorate the Olympic movement. Even still, I don't think the IOC is going to want to wait until that money dries up before they return here. That certainly doesn't mean the United States will get another Olympics before it's time (and hindsight being 20/20, 2012 and 2016 were probably before our time), but we'll see how that plays out.

Careful there, Athens.. my argument is not based on who YOU perceived as a favorite. Given the weak competition, Rome would have been a formidable opponent and I think many here would agree to that.

Presumably, yes the Summer Olympics will return to North America in the next 3 available cycles. Key word.. "presumably." Again, I will certainly grant your scenario that if the United States gets 2026, Toronto has a good case for 2028 or 2032. And I don't disagree with the idea that a Winter bid (and win) does damage to their Summer hopes. But I still disagree that the perception has hosted too many Olympics. The perception is that they hosted too many Olympics in too short a period of time and that's the issue at hand.

I did not make your old argument. It is totally reasonable to say that American audiences and athletes need Games on home soil to keep them engaged. That is not at all contradictory to saying that American sponsors seem to give the IOC barrels of money irrespective of what's happening with the Olympic movement in the US.

As for Rome, the point is they withdrew and there is no way to know whether they would've won or not. Opinions count for nothing either way and there are plenty of contradictory ones that cancel each other out. Italy is not hosting two Games 14 years apart. Even if they were that's four years more than you described. They don't help your argument.

If you believe that the IOC does not feel the US has hosted too many Olympics, that's your prerogative. The core issue we were debating was whether American Winter Games in 2026 would damage American Summer ambitions to the same extent that Vancouver 2010 damages Canada's Summer ambitions. I maintain that the Americans would be at least equally damaged if not moreso. You argued that the US could land both 2026 and 2036 and I explained why I see that as totally unrealistic. I think that's a fair summary.

That percentage is going to drop once you include the 4 future hosts that have already been award, plus 2022 which won't be in the United States. And none of the Olympics cancelled by war were slated for the United States. So even if you don't count those, it's still going to be 8 out of 53. And it's interesting to note that 4 of those came in a span of 13 Olympics. Since then, the United States is 0 for 9, soon to be 0 for 10. That's what I'm talking about the frequency of hosting. So to have 2 hostings in a span of 6 Olympics (which is what it would be to have 2 Olympics 10 years apart) is a stretch, but far from unrealistic.

Honestly, Quaker, I don't know how you can look at the IOC's voting patterns and think that they will award ANY country 2 Olympics within 10 years, least of all the United States who they are clearly not particularly enamored with.

Perhaps there is an slim chance of 2 Games in 14 years, but only if the Summer edition comes first and the IOC finds themselves hard up for a Winter host.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it shouldn't. So what that it was the centennial games. As history sees it, it was just another Olympics.

And that's another thing.. the IOC wants to hold it against the United States for hosting too often. It's not exactly the USOC's fault a lesser American city got selected as host because the competition in that particular race was weak. I can't argue with the logic that says they didn't want history to repeat like that in 2012 and 2016, but Atlanta wasn't supposed to win 1996. That was supposed to be Athens and then that may very well have altered the entire timeline of future hosts and maybe we're not having this discussion right now.

no one remembers the reason...........only the host is remembered

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, Quaker, I don't know how you can look at the IOC's voting patterns and think that they will award ANY country 2 Olympics within 10 years, least of all the United States who they are clearly not particularly enamored with.

Perhaps there is an slim chance of 2 Games in 14 years, but only if the Summer edition comes first and the IOC finds themselves hard up for a Winter host.

The IOC wasn't enamored with the United States for 2012 and 2016 because of strained relations with the USOC and history of multiple recent hostings. You've said yourself that the more time that passes from those recent hostings, the less of an effect they'll have on the USOC's aspirations to land another Olympics. So when the USOC finds the right candidate (which could prove to be tough for 2024) and it's the right time (which may not be until 2032), then we'll see if the IOC is not particularly enamored with the USOC. For all the rhetoric we've had hear about going Winter then Summer as opposed to Summer then Winter, I agree that 10 years between the two is a risky proposition and probably unlikely. But it's far from the realm of possible. So again, let's agree to disagree on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this "debating" on whether or not the IOC would award the United States again two Olympics within 10 years is seemingly a pointless excercise. Since we really don't know yet what kind of competition & geopolitics would come to play in those particular hypothetical races to cast certain predictions at this far ahead, crystal ball point.

For example, even the USOC wasn't expecting to win Atlanta 1996. They recognized that it was very unlikely due to the proximity of the Los Angeles 1984 Games. And hence, why the USOC also didn't choose San Francisco as their candidate at that time (which they were running in the domestic phase) so the USOC could at least put some distance with yet another California Olympics.

Is it too much for the U.S. to get 2026 & 2036, for example? Maybe. But for all we know, the competition for 2036 could be another weak field. And a U.S. bid could come humming along & steal the show again. So until then, it's uncertain how an outcome like that could turn out this far out. Especially, when again, we don't/won't know what type of dynamics will be at play those times. So in the end really, neither of you are right, nor neither of you are wrong. Since "we really just don't know, & we'll just have to wait & see" how the Olympic Gods will cast their final decisions.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this "debating" on whether or not the IOC would award the United States again two Olympics within 10 years is seemingly a pointless excercise. Since we really don't know yet what kind of competition & geopolitics would come to play in those particular hypothetical races to cast certain predictions at this far ahead, crystal ball point.

For example, even the USOC wasn't expecting to win Atlanta 1996. They recognized that it was very unlikely due to the proximity of the Los Angeles 1984 Games. And hence, why the USOC also didn't choose San Francisco as their candidate at that time (which they were running in the domestic phase) so the USOC could at least put some distance with yet another California Olympics.

Is it too much for the U.S. to get 2026 & 2036, for example? Maybe. But for all we know, the competition for 2036 could be another weak field. And a U.S. bid could come humming along & steal the show again. So until then, it's uncertain how an outcome like that could turn out this far out. Especially, when again, we don't/won't know what type of dynamics will be at play those times. So in the end really, neither of you are right, nor neither of you are wrong. Since "we really just don't know, & we'll just have to wait & see" how the Olympic Gods will cast their final decisions.

Actually this is not a pointless exercise at all. I agree that trying to predict hosts several cycles out is silly, but that is not what's happening here.

If the USOC bids for 2026, they must recognize that the LIKELY consequence of winning such a bid will be waiting for Summer Games until the 40s AT THE EARLIEST. The USOC must ask themselves, "Can we wait until the 40s or 50s for Summer Games? Because unless we get really lucky we're most likely going to have to."

If the answer is "yes, we're happy to wait longer for Summer Games", go ahead and bid for Winter Games.

If the answer is "no, Summer Games are the priority and we don't want to wait another few decades" (as I expect it will be), don't submit a Winter bid.

That's why this is not a pointless exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, Quaker, I don't know how you can look at the IOC's voting patterns and think that they will award ANY country 2 Olympics within 10 years, least of all the United States who they are clearly not particularly enamored with.

Um, if you look at history, it's happened very frequently. Your argument has to be "things have changed."

Who knows more about the IOC voters.... posters here, or the NOCs? That's a serious, non-rhetorical questions. Who do you think knows more? The NOC - who are friends with, travel with, talk to and in many cases are IOC voters certainly believe that a WOG and SOC within a short period of time are possible. What do you know that they don't?

The IOC wasn't enamored with the United States for 2012 and 2016 because of strained relations with the USOC and history of multiple recent hostings.

Or maybe, as hard as it is for us Americans to believe, the IOC simply preferred Rio and London to the NYC and Chicago bids offered up. It wasn't anti-US bias, timing, biorhythms or anything other than the best bids won, and they weren't American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...