Jump to content

Recommended Posts

That's way too expensive, the US should pass for a while. As long as NBC can get the prime events scheduled at least somewhat convenient for EST, the USOC should pass until they come back around to a better situation. It will happen, there are only so many megalomaniacs and one party states trying to justify themselves and "enter" the World stage. Besides that, the whole Russia gay thing is really showing how the IOC operates and thinks, so let them come crawling to the US rather than stooping and acquiescing to their whims, if they want the US they'll make it clear, until then I think the US and the USOC should distance ourselves from those people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

if everyone in this thread just agrees to agree with you will you please stop? i'm not sure how many more pages of you posting the exact same post on the damn bus drivers getting lost we can take. i

Why do you like to repeat yourself multiple times? Its very annoying.

In sum....

That's way too expensive, the US should pass for a while. As long as NBC can get the prime events scheduled at least somewhat convenient for EST, the USOC should pass until they come back around to a better situation. It will happen, there are only so many megalomaniacs and one party states trying to justify themselves and "enter" the World stage.

Like the UK in 2012, Korea in 2018, Canada in 2010, Brazil in 2016, Greece in 2004, Australia in 2000, Japan in 2020? In fact, democracies outnumber one-party states in recent hosting history.

And what about potential bidders France, Italy, Norway, South Africa etc.

Sochi and Beijing have done a horrible job in skewing perceptions, but they are exceptions.

The US needs to time it right if they really want to host, not to wait for the IOC to change to their liking (something which may or may not happen).

Edited by Rob.
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's way too expensive, the US should pass for a while. As long as NBC can get the prime events scheduled at least somewhat convenient for EST, the USOC should pass until they come back around to a better situation. It will happen, there are only so many megalomaniacs and one party states trying to justify themselves and "enter" the World stage. Besides that, the whole Russia gay thing is really showing how the IOC operates and thinks, so let them come crawling to the US rather than stooping and acquiescing to their whims, if they want the US they'll make it clear, until then I think the US and the USOC should distance ourselves from those people.

It has been a while, in 2024 the last time US would have hosted any games would be 22 years an the summer games 28 years
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what the US will actually gain by hosting the games. We were honestly lucky to host a bunch in the last century before the costs ballooned out of control.

Sure it would be more expensive to travel to the Olympics in Paris than Chicago, but it would also be more rewarding. And you can always watch on TV if you don't have the cash.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the UK in 2012, Korea in 2018, Canada in 2010, Brazil in 2016, Greece in 2004, Australia in 2000, Japan in 2020? In fact, democracies outnumber one-party states in recent hosting history.

And what about potential bidders France, Italy, Norway, South Africa etc.

Sochi and Beijing have done a horrible job in skewing perceptions, but they are exceptions.

The US needs to time it right if they really want to host, not to wait for the IOC to change to their liking (something which may or may not happen).

Possibly there will come a time, possibly the US never hosts again. Would it really matter? I don't really think so. The Olympic Games only really have their great history, and tradition left, the rest has been commercialized and commoditized and is now slapped on products just like any other brand. It's like comparing the BBC or PBS, with Sky or FOX, the Olympics used to be like BBC, now they're more like Sky, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just not a thing that I think is such a highly coveted product as it used to be. They're still a great show, and entertaining, just maybe not really worth all the hype and consternation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

France=32. Years, albertville 1992

Plus, many members of the ioc want the US in 2024 including Bach

Nope, it's 100 years, or else intoronto would have included Torino for Italy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the UK in 2012, Korea in 2018, Canada in 2010, Brazil in 2016, Greece in 2004, Australia in 2000, Japan in 2020? In fact, democracies outnumber one-party states in recent hosting history.

And what about potential bidders France, Italy, Norway, South Africa etc.

Sochi and Beijing have done a horrible job in skewing perceptions, but they are exceptions.

The US needs to time it right if they really want to host, not to wait for the IOC to change to their liking (something which may or may not happen).

That's much easier said than done. As Baron has written, the US delegation was SHOCKED when Atlanta won. Almost everyone argued Tokyo's timing was lousy when they announced their 2020 bid. Paris' timing was great for 2012. Istanbul's timing was pretty darn good for 2020, until domestic disturbances gummed everything up. It's always a gamble.

There's no way to know for certain who the competition will or won't be until the deadline for submissions.

All any bidder can do (including the USA) is avoid bidding for a cycle that immediately succeeds Games on your own continent, nurture good relationships with the IOC, put your best bid forward and hope. Conventional wisdom and common sense can't really guarantee much of anything.

France=32. Years, albertville 1992

Plus, many members of the ioc want the US in 2024 including Bach

I'd be careful there. Bach said something along the lines of "it's time for the US to submit a good bid," which would imply that NYC and Chicago weren't. Honestly, to me it sounded more like a dig than a statement of support. I agree that NYC's bid was weak, but Chicago's was superb.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's much easier said than done. As Baron has written, the US delegation was SHOCKED when Atlanta won. Almost everyone argued Tokyo's timing was lousy when they announced their 2020 bid. Paris' timing was great for 2012. Istanbul's timing was pretty darn good for 2020, until domestic disturbances gummed everything up. It's always a gamble.

There's no way to know for certain who the competition will or won't be until the deadline for submissions.

All any bidder can do (including the USA) is avoid bidding for a cycle that immediately succeeds Games on your own continent, nurture good relationships with the IOC, put your best bid forward and hope. Conventional wisdom and common sense can't really guarantee much of anything.

I'd be careful there. Bach said something along the lines of "it's time for the US to submit a good bid," which would imply that NYC and Chicago weren't. Honestly, to me it sounded more like a dig than a statement of support. I agree that NYC's bid was weak, but Chicago's was superb.

If US wants 2024 they need a city like NYC or Chicago to compete against Paris and rome

That's much easier said than done. As Baron has written, the US delegation was SHOCKED when Atlanta won. Almost everyone argued Tokyo's timing was lousy when they announced their 2020 bid. Paris' timing was great for 2012. Istanbul's timing was pretty darn good for 2020, until domestic disturbances gummed everything up. It's always a gamble.

There's no way to know for certain who the competition will or won't be until the deadline for submissions.

All any bidder can do (including the USA) is avoid bidding for a cycle that immediately succeeds Games on your own continent, nurture good relationships with the IOC, put your best bid forward and hope. Conventional wisdom and common sense can't really guarantee much of anything.

I'd be careful there. Bach said something along the lines of "it's time for the US to submit a good bid," which would imply that NYC and Chicago weren't. Honestly, to me it sounded more like a dig than a statement of support. I agree that NYC's bid was weak, but Chicago's was superb.

If US wants 2024 they need a city like NYC or Chicago to compete against Paris and rome.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the UK in 2012, Korea in 2018, Canada in 2010, Brazil in 2016, Greece in 2004, Australia in 2000, Japan in 2020? In fact, democracies outnumber one-party states in recent hosting history.

And what about potential bidders France, Italy, Norway, South Africa etc.

Sochi and Beijing have done a horrible job in skewing perceptions, but they are exceptions.

The US needs to time it right if they really want to host, not to wait for the IOC to change to their liking (something which may or may not happen).

I'm with Athens on this one.. timing can often be a matter of circumstance. It's easy to say it was Rio's time in 2016, but look at the competition? The other options were a return to the U.S. after 20 years, a return to Spain after 24 years, or a return to Asia after 8 years. So yea, given the competition, they were the timeliest bid of the bunch.

The USOC probably isn't going to get an ideal set of circumstances in any bid race in the upcoming future. They're unlikely to fall into the set of circumstances that landed them Atlanta for 1996. They need to find some middle ground between bidding for every available Olympics and sitting on the sideline until they see the perfect storm come together from them.

But as much as we talk about timing, that's the secondary concern. The primary concern is finding a city to bid with, because without that, timing is all but irrelevant.

If US wants 2024 they need a city like NYC or Chicago to compete against Paris and rome.

Maybe they do, but they're not getting Chicago for 2024. And it doesn't look like they'll be getting New York either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Note - the Superbowl planners *badly* bungled transportation plans last night for the Superbowl.

Fairly or not, that's going to be help against any NYC bid for a while.

A big deal? No. But every little negative hurts.

Especially in NYC's case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Note - the Superbowl planners *badly* bungled transportation plans last night for the Superbowl.

Fairly or not, that's going to be help against any NYC bid for a while.

A big deal? No. But every little negative hurts.

I've been talking about the logistics of the Super Bowl on some football forums for awhile now. I had said for awhile that the biggest potential pitfall was the transportation. And it did fail in spectacular fashion. You're right.. it's not a small deal. And yes, that could come back to haunt an NYC Olympic bid.

Part of the issue (not so much with yesterday, but in general, and the 2012 bid tried to address this) is that there are only 2 tracks under the Hudson River connecting NY and New Jersey. That's all that's used by Amtrak and NJ Transit. So if there's an issue with 1 of the tracks, that slows things down tremendously. 1 of the projects proposed in recent years is to build another tunnel to relieve some of the congestion, but that has yet to happen due to a lack of funding. If NYC ever were to bid again for an Olympics, you can be sure that would come up again, particularly if there were any venues in New Jersey (which there undoubtedly would be).

Link to post
Share on other sites

New to the forums... just thought I'd throw in my two cents. I'm an American, I'd enjoy seeing the Games in person while being hosted in my country. However, I don't think the US really deserves to host the games for awhile. There are a lot of viable cities and states that are seeking to host the games for the first time; it's hard for me to justify - from an international perspective - giving the games to the US again when so many emerging markets and growing international powers want to host the games, are capable of doing so but have yet to been given the games once. So long as there are serious contenders who've never hosted, they should be favored.

Link to post
Share on other sites

New to the forums... just thought I'd throw in my two cents. I'm an American, I'd enjoy seeing the Games in person while being hosted in my country. However, I don't think the US really deserves to host the games for awhile. There are a lot of viable cities and states that are seeking to host the games for the first time; it's hard for me to justify - from an international perspective - giving the games to the US again when so many emerging markets and growing international powers want to host the games, are capable of doing so but have yet to been given the games once. So long as there are serious contenders who've never hosted, they should be favored.

"Serious contenders who've never hosted" not only nixes the US, it also eliminates Rome, Paris, Toronto, Madrid, Stockholm, Berlin, Shanghai, St. Petersburg, Busan, Guadalajara, Sao Paulo, Melbourne, Brisbane (and quite a few others).

That means that the IOC can choose between Durban, Bangkok, Buenos Aires, Singapore, Doha (if they move the dates), Tel Aviv (duck and cover), Santiago, Delhi (if the Indians start following the rules), Prague, Dubai, Christchurch, Budapest, Copenhagen, Havana, Casablanca and Cairo. That's assuming any of them actually bid.

Does that sound like a compelling lineup to you guys?

You really are all in favor of Olympic affirmative action, aren't you, politician?

Link to post
Share on other sites

New to the forums... just thought I'd throw in my two cents. I'm an American, I'd enjoy seeing the Games in person while being hosted in my country. However, I don't think the US really deserves to host the games for awhile. There are a lot of viable cities and states that are seeking to host the games for the first time; it's hard for me to justify - from an international perspective - giving the games to the US again when so many emerging markets and growing international powers want to host the games, are capable of doing so but have yet to been given the games once. So long as there are serious contenders who've never hosted, they should be favored.

How much does the United States contribute to the Olympic movement in terms of sponsorship and TV dollars? Short answer.. a lot. Yes, the United States hosted most than we probably deserved in a relatively short period, but now that's starting to even itself out and I don't think anyone would think it unjustified for the United States to host sometime in the next few available cycles. You can't always award the Olympics to first time hosts and completely shut out large countries simply because they've had it before. You can't ask a country like the United States (among many others) that they have to wait and potentially lose out to a less deserving city/country if they don't deserve it.

Since you're new, and sorry to repeat this to those who have heard it before.. Olympic bidding is very often about circumstance. In a different time and place, Istanbul could win. But at the time and given the political instability in Turkey, they weren't the right choice last September. Tokyo was even though they've hosted before. Even if there are emerging markets and growing international powers, it doesn't mean they're bigger and better than those who have had the Olympics before. Which means it's not always prudent to give those new markets the Olympics if it's not the right time and place for it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Serious contenders who've never hosted" not only nixes the US, it also eliminates Rome, Paris, Toronto, Madrid, Stockholm, Berlin, Shanghai, St. Petersburg, Busan, Guadalajara, Sao Paulo, Melbourne, Brisbane (and quite a few others).

That means that the IOC can choose between Durban, Bangkok, Buenos Aires, Singapore, Doha (if they move the dates), Tel Aviv (duck and cover), Santiago, Delhi (if the Indians start following the rules), Prague, Dubai, Christchurch, Budapest, Copenhagen, Havana, Casablanca and Cairo. That's assuming any of them actually bid.

Does that sound like a compelling lineup to you guys?

You really are all in favor of Olympic affirmative action, aren't you, politician?

Without arguing about semantics regarding affirmative action, I will say that I am very much in favor of the Olympics continuing to become more inclusive. They are the largest international sporting event, the largest global gathering of people for 'friendly competition' and they should be treated as such. They should not be games run by and given to rich, developed countries and no others. As more countries and cities grow economically - and the developing world is growing at a speed far greater than the developed world which is a trend that won't stop for a very long time - more cities will become legitimately viable hosts.

And don't rely on straw men to justify your disagreement. The argument I made was that, so long as there are viable cities and countries which want to host the games and have the capacity to do so, I don't understand why countries - and especially cities - that have already hosted the games should receive them again. Now, a permanent ban - a one-time host policy - is probably too far. But I could see a rule that, say, host cities can't bid again until 50 years after they've hosted while host countries can't bid again for 25 or 30 years.

The fact is that the games continually go to a small number of rich, mostly Western, mostly European countries despite the fact that half the world's population is in Asia and about 90% of the world's population lives in the developing, non-Western World.

Finally, and here is where I take the most issue with what you said, you suggest that only a handful of cities and countries can host the games. You also seem to assume - and I could be wrong - that this isn't changing anytime soon, that the same cities and countries that were viable two decades ago will be the same that are viable two decades from now with few additions to the roster.

The next choice for a host city will be made next year and will determine the 2022 Winter Host. Three countries that have never hosted are among the 5 bidding. All three were viable options until Ukrainian politics boiled over into mass protests that threaten the very existence of the country's current regime. Poland and Kazakhstan are both fully capable of hosting and both are countries that have never held the games (throw in Slovakia, too, as it is part of the Krakow bid and also is a country capable of hosting the games but which has yet to do so). Thus, even with the Winter Games - for which there are far fewer viable host cities - there are many cities bidding that - if chosen - would become the first city in their country to host. When it comes to the Summer Games, the number of cities capable of hosting is much higher and the list won't remain static. Many cities in developing countries are growing rapidly and well - they may not be prepared to host the games if awarded them today and given 7 years to put them together, but the next open bid is for the 2024 Olympics - cities bidding for those games have 10 years to get ready. Since hosts are chosen 7 years before they actually host, one has to consider how ready a city is likely to be when bids are being made and when the host for a particular bid would actually hold the games. If we want to predict, say, the next 3 unannounced Summer Hosts we're looking at 2024, 2028 and 2032 - the last of which is almost 20 years from now. At the rate countries and cities are growing these days, it's silly to assume that cities currently seen as unviable will remain so that long.

So, below is just a quick list of cities I believe are currently capable of making a serious bid and which are in countries that have never hosted the games. Below that list is a longer list of cities that I believe would be able to host the Olympics by 2032/2036 (so, in roughly 2 decades) from countries that've never hosted. For arguments sake, I'm just identifying 1 potential host city per country.

Likely could host now & from countries never to have hosted the Olympics:

  1. Singapore
  2. Shanghai, China
  3. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  4. Taipei, Taiwan (although this is unlikely given Taiwanese-Chinese relations)
  5. Buenos Aires, Argentina
  6. Istanbul, Turkey,
  7. Prague, Czech Republic
  8. Copenhagen, Denmark
  9. Dublin, Ireland
  10. Montevideo, Uruguay
  11. Lisbon, Portugal
  12. Zagreb, Croatia
  13. Auckland, New Zealand
  14. Bucharest, Romania
  15. Almaty, Kazakhstan
  16. Krakow, Poland
  17. Doha, Qatar
  18. Dubai, UAE
  19. Casablanca, Morocco
  20. Lima, Peru
  21. Budapest, Hungary
  22. Riga, Latvia
  23. Belgrade, Serbia
  24. Ljubljana, Slovenia

Likely could host by 2040:

  1. Bangkok, Thailand
  2. Santiago, Chile
  3. San Jose, Costa Rica
  4. Panama City, Panama
  5. Jakarta, Indonesia
  6. Mumbai, India
  7. Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam
  8. Durban, South Africa
  9. Tangier, Morocco
  10. Kiev, Ukraine
  11. Libreville, Gabon
  12. Gaborone, Botswana
  13. Tunis, Tunisia
  14. Manila, Philippines
  15. Guatemala City, Guatemala
  16. Guayaquil, Ecuador
  17. Baku, Azerbaijan
  18. Colombo, Sri Lanka
  19. Muscat, Oman
  20. Accra, Ghana
  21. San Salvador, El Salvador

Now, not all of those cities may sound appealing to you - but I assure you that the citizens of those cities and countries would be very happy to receive the games and all of these cities have rich cultures, histories, landmarks and other notable features making them particularly interesting world destinations. These cities are all well integrated into the global economy and most have extensive transportation and communication infrastructure, with many having decent sports complexes. Moreover, the cities/countries on list 1 are stable enough and have the funds and rule-of-law to implement the games while those on list 2 could possibly pull it off today, but are more likely to be considered good candidates in a decade or two after.

Should we really let the US have their 8th Olympics when none of these countries have ever hosted? Should Canada host for their 4th time? France for its 5th time? Japan will host it's 4th games in 2020. Maybe Italy deserves its 4th?

Seriously?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously?

Oh boy. There is so much in that post that needs a small dose of reality. Didn't want to quote the whole thing, but let's go over a few things here..

First off, you gave a list of 24 cities that you say could host now (most of which are pretty darn questionable) and another 21 that could host in the following 20 years. That list is utterly laughable. The fact there's only 1 Olympics every other year, meaning only 10 Olympics in the 20 years before 2040 that haven't been awarded yet. That fact alone means that the IOC can be a lot more picky than a very broad range of potential host cities and countries that you have included on that list.

And I do love your characterization that the Olympics only go to rich Western countries. Which is humorous since of the 11 Olympics this country (past and pending), it includes 3 from Asian nations, 1 from Oceania, and 1 from what is most definitely not Western Europe. Aside from that, look at Greece. The Olympics aren't to blame for that country's economic woes, but it certainly didn't help. The Olympics put a burden of billions of dollars on a city and a country and unless there's a good legacy plan, they're not always going to get their money's worth. That's why you can't ask Montevideo (seriously?.. to quote John McEnroe, you can't be serious) and Uruguay to be that city. Not for an event that doesn't happen every year.

More than that though, and this is the key point you need to understand.. this is a competition. The host city for the Olympics is chosen by a popular vote and only cities who bid are eligible. So, take a look at the 2020 race. You had only 3 candidates, 2 prior hosts and a country who had never hosted. Given the political turmoil in Istanbul, can you really blame the IOC for not choosing them? Given the nature of that bid, was there any sensible choice other than Tokyo? You can look at cities and countries in their own bubble and say they're capable of hosting an Olympics. You know what, some of those cities probably are. But the question isn't whether or not they're capable. The question is can they convince a majority of IOC voting members to choose that city over whatever competition they're up against.

Okay, so you want the Olympics to be more inclusive. Maybe part of the solution for that is for them to scale down the Olympics in order to reduce costs. That would get more cities involved. Nothing wrong with that. But it's still a large burden to put on those cities, especially those that might not be ready for it in developing countries. And when you have the United States paying far more in television rights fees than any other country, it's not that far out of line for them to get more than their share of hostings.

That said, you say that citizens of those cities and countries you listed would be very happy to receive the games. Are you sure about that one? Ask the citizens of Oslo how they feel about that one. They look to be in a good position to land the 2022 Olympics, but there are rumblings that they'll drop out of the race because they're worried about the costs. And it's their citizens that are driving that concern. If a city like that is having second thoughts about an Olympics, imagine how citizens in Muscat, Oman would react. Are you honestly going to sit there with a straight face and tell me they'll be ready for an Olympics within the next decade or so?

I understand your line of thinking about making the Olympics more inclusive. But again, it's only awarded once every 4 years (for Summer and again for Winter). If you were to pick 25 countries and say each of them gets 1 of the next 25 Olympics, that means the last of those countries is waiting a century for their next Olympics. At some point in the next few cycles, we'll probably have a first time host in South Africa. But beyond them, the next likely European hosts are probably Paris and Rome, not Bucharest and Budapest. To come back to North America, it will be the United States or Canada, not Guatemala or El Salvador. You need to apply your theory to the real world. Maybe what you're talking about is an idealistic fantasy, but if you seriously think it applies to the real world of the IOC, now or within the next couple of decades, you need a big time reality check.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

What Games should Riga host? Summer, a city of around 700,000 in a country of roughly 2 million? Winter, when the next viable mountains are hundreds/thousands of kilometres away? Yes, seriously?

You can argue about politics obviously, but I'm sorry to say that you still have to consider economics and geography when you present those arguments.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...