Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Being fair Germany deseves WOG! For reals! The have been the country with most golds.... And just Garmish-Pantenkirchen 1936....They deserve WOG more than the US which had hosted in 2002 or than Canada... Even than Norway.

Now.... For the US or Canada will be better to host SUMMER OLYMPICS now rather than winter ones....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying I disagree with the statement that IOC members see Rio as fulfilling the "Americas" turn, but I'm curious...are there any quotes or hard evidence that prove this?

I am ok with Europe hosting more often and I see the argument in terms of the number of potential host nations, but you've also got to look at the size and diversity of the population. Games in the American South versus Games in the Midwest versus Games on the West Coast versus Games on the East Coast connect with totally different parts of the U.S. population. I understand that the IOC geopolitics are highly subjective and to foreigners "It's all the U.S.", but I also don't necessarily think Europe should be rewarded just because their countries are far smaller geographically and in terms of population.

I'm not saying there aren't arguments for other continents. I am saying that sometimes I read these threads and I feel like many posters assume that the arguments for other continents automatically trump the argument for North America. I disagree with that type of thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying I disagree with the statement that IOC members see Rio as fulfilling the "Americas" turn, but I'm curious...are there any quotes or hard evidence that prove this?

I am ok with Europe hosting more often and I see the argument in terms of the number of potential host nations, but you've also got to look at the size and diversity of the population. Games in the American South versus Games in the Midwest versus Games on the West Coast versus Games on the East Coast connect with totally different parts of the U.S. population. I understand that the IOC geopolitics are highly subjective and to foreigners "It's all the U.S.", but I also don't necessarily think Europe should be rewarded just because their countries are far smaller geographically and in terms of population.

I'm not saying there aren't arguments for other continents. I am saying that sometimes I read these threads and I feel like many posters assume that the arguments for other continents automatically trump the argument for North America. I disagree with that type of thinking.

It's funny how things have seemingly changed in such a short space of time. :lol: And I don't mean to sound insulting but I think some wallowing has gone on in the last couple of years and the US needs to snap out of it!

Back in 2003 when I joined this site there was a feeling amongst some that the US had had more than its fair share of Games and that NYC shouldn't be awarded 2012. Just as you now think one contintent shouldn't be awarded more Games because it happens to have lots of capable countries, so many people then thought the US shouldn't be awarded so many Games purely on he basis that is has many capable cities.

The argument then was why is one country (not one continent, one country) getting so many Games and dominating Olympic hosting? SLC was only a year earlier, Atlanta only 7 years earlier and LA '84 fairly recent history in Olympic terms. And NYC was bidding and for a while looked like a strong contender. It looked like the USA was taking over somewhat.

The balance has been redressed and to be honest, it seems to me that the US is now closer to the position every other country in the world has always been in. As a country the US doesn't know when its next Games will be - and that worries some - but then again neither does Germany, France, Australia not to metion nations that have never hosted before. And it's lost a couple of bids - but so had the UK before 2005, France, Germany, Turkey etc. I still think, despite everything and certainly once the IOC has got the new frontier loving out of its system, the US has a much better chance in any given bid race than any other nation on Earth (with the possible exception of China). The US can reasonably expect a Games of one sort or another much more often than any other nation; that's a pretty nice position to be in and one I certainly don't begrudge you.

Lastly, you say "sometimes I read these threads and I feel like many posters assume that the arguments for other continents automatically trump the argument for North America". You know what though, that sentiment seems to come from US posters more often than not. The US has such a huge amount going for it and even with the Chicago and New York losses and the US TV disputes (which will be resolved), it still has more reasons to be optimistic than it does to be down about things, and most would swap places with it.

The truth is, there are not enough hosting slots for the contintents who want to host now, and something has to give. Now that may be the US' hopes, but it may not be. But if they don't bid and worry about perceptions it certainly WILL be. The US needs to sort its **** out, get a good bid in (for a summer or winter Games) and not be on a continual downer if it doesn't win.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying I disagree with the statement that IOC members see Rio as fulfilling the "Americas" turn, but I'm curious...are there any quotes or hard evidence that prove this?

I'm not saying there aren't arguments for other continents. I am saying that sometimes I read these threads and I feel like many posters assume that the arguments for other continents automatically trump the argument for North America. I disagree with that type of thinking.

Well, are there ever any quotes from anyone regarding continental rotation? Not so much. So why are you expecting anything on this? The rare times we get a quote from Rogge or someone else like that about continental rotation, we all just dismiss it as Roggespeak or any sort of anecdotal comment that has no meaning. But having seen the voting process over time now does give us some insight into how these things work. I don't claim to know the mindset of IOC voters, but I think we posters here tend to over-analyze these things. We talk about "timing" and "turns" as if these things mean anything. That's a load of crap. These voters maybe think 1 cycle down the road, but they take the candidate cities as they're presented in front of them and then vote based on whatever technical or geopolitical criteria they have. It's really as simple as that. They're not thinking about 2028 or 2032 or when North America is in line for another summer games or continents fulfilling their quota or any nonsense like that. That's my opinion, with or without any "evidence" you want to make a case either way.

As for "the argument for North America," what argument is that? The value of the IOC putting the Olympics here is in TV dollars. And as has been noted, NBComcast has somewhat killed that argument by essentially saying the Olympics are valued the same regardless of where they are held. So why is the European-based IOC going to choose a North American city, especially after swatting aside New York and Chicago, especially if a lesser city gets put up. Atlanta largely won out of circumstance from weak competition. It's unlikely we're going to see a field that weak for a while and if none of the Alpha cities in the United States step up, then no "timing" or "it's NA's turn" argument is going to make it happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the US deserved 2012 and I think 2016 was too soon for more American Games. I also supported the decision to sit out 2020. That is not wallowing by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm not complaining about the past. I disagree with those who assert that Summer Games are hopeless for the US until 2036, 2040, whatever. It depends who you ask.

I was not taking issue with the Rio statement. I was asking an honest question: is there any evidence to support the hypothesis that many have accepted as fact?

As for the argument for American Games, from 2024 onward there's an increasingly strong geopolitical argument, American Games are notoriously profitable, American audiences turn out in droves, American Games have the potential to model a more responsible, sustainable Games, the US has a towering sports legacy, the US has a fantastic track record of sports organization. That's a compelling argument and it should not be dismissed for decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I quoted you but I wasn't directing that post at you at all, or anyone in particular actually. There just seems to be an undercurrent of real pessimism about the US' chances in the future. I do think the frequency of US Games will reduce, but despite that and once the TV dispute is resolved, I actually think the US has more reasons to be optimistic than virtually any other country on Earth - as you said above.

The US "took the hit" this time with the latest new frontier. I suspect a slot which may have traditionally been Europe's may dissapear to South Africa at some point in the next decade or two. And Asia's influence will only increase (a strong European bid in Munich losing to Korea is an example of this). Things are more uncertain for the US now in bidding circles as there's not a "slot" which you can say with certainty is the US' to take, but they have more reasons to be cheerful than most nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but you've also got to look at the size and diversity of the population. Games in the American South versus Games in the Midwest versus Games on the West Coast versus Games on the East Coast connect with totally different parts of the U.S. population. I understand that the IOC geopolitics are highly subjective and to foreigners "It's all the U.S.", but I also don't necessarily think Europe should be rewarded just because their countries are far smaller geographically and in terms of population.

I actually think that this line of thinking has some strength when it comes to the Winter Games, less so the Summer Games. Because (if we discount the southern hemisphere) there are only three continental groupings capable of hosting regional differences become more significant. So just as a Munich bid is as much an Alpine bid as a European bid, a US bid from another region (another part of the Rockies, New England or wherever) would be acceptable relatively soon after another hosting.

I think this is also a reason why a bid from Quebec (if they could sort out the mountain situation) would be acceptable within a shorter time frame than a country of similar population and sporting prominance bidding again shortly after hosting.

North America only has two countries in winter sports terms so those two countries should expect to host more than countries in regions with more potential hosts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US "took the hit" this time with the latest new frontier. I suspect a slot which may have traditionally been Europe's may dissapear to South Africa at some point in the next decade or two. And Asia's influence will only increase (a strong European bid in Munich losing to Korea is an example of this). Things are more uncertain for the US now in bidding circles as there's not a "slot" which you can say with certainty is the US' to take, but they have more reasons to be cheerful than most nations.

For that to happen, either the next European Games or the next South African Games would have to wait until the 2030's.

If Rome/Madrid takes 2020, then South Africa wouldn't host until the 2030's. If Tokyo wins 2020 and Europe/South Africa wins 2024, then the loser of 2024 would have to wait until the 2030's. Taking the example that Tokyo wins 2020 and South Africa wins 2024, do you really see Europe waiting until the 2030's, or would you see them as the frontrunner for 2028? I mean, if it came down to this, Europe would already be waiting 16 years for a Games, already a new record.

If Rome/Madrid takes 2020 and South Africa takes 2024, South Africa isn't taking away from Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is this: in the US and Canada a lot of cities are able to stage the games without problems, Toronto, Vancouver, Chicago, LA, NYC just to name a few... Same thing with Europe... Berlin, Paris, Rome, Madrid.... Etc... So that's why there are really short terms in years between hosts... Not the case of Asia, Africa, Oceania, ME, Latin America....the "olympic circle" of cities is maybe just 50 cities in the whole world for hosting SOG or less...

So my bets will be: If europe gets 2020, then SA 2024, tokyo 2028, na 2032, europe 2036... If istanbul 2020, na 2024, europe 2028, tokyo 2032, SA 2036. if asia 2020, europe 2024 (paris), sa 2028, na 2032....

Keys:

na: North America (US/CAN)

sa: South Africa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see where this notion is coming from that if Istanbul wins 2020 that automatically crowns North America for 2024. For starters, we don't even know if there are even going to be any worthwhile North American bidders. Yes, there could be, but for now it is far from a given to firmly conclude a North American slot for those Games.

Then, that also doesn't mean that South Africa couldn't win because of Istanbul. The IOC wanted so much for South Africa to bid for 2020 that I see their sentiment as a genuine gesture that they really want to finally go to Africa sooner rather than later.

Also, Istanbul is enough of a differentiator for any Western European cities to make their bids. I don't see an Istanbul win as a closed door for Western Europe in particular. If Paris really wants a centennial Olympics, their entry wouldn't surprise me at all. Along with perhaps Berlin, Frankfurt, Rome again, or even Russia wanting to make a go at a Summer Games.

And then finally Asia. Would Tokyo take Pyeongchang's lead as to "third times the charm?". Or maybe China might want to host again. So Istanbul maybe winning 2020 by no means stamps 2024 for anyone.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see where this notion is coming from that if Istanbul wins 2020 that automatically crowns North America for 2024. For starters, we don't even know if there are even going to be any worthwhile North American bidders. Yes, there could be, but for now it is far from a given to firmly conclude a North American slot for those Games.

Neither do I. The idea that any notion of continental rotation can predict where a future Olympics will be is complete and utter nonsense. You have to be in it to win it. How many people were saying that 2020 set up well for South Africa to win? And how'd that work out for them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I quoted you but I wasn't directing that post at you at all, or anyone in particular actually. There just seems to be an undercurrent of real pessimism about the US' chances in the future. I do think the frequency of US Games will reduce, but despite that and once the TV dispute is resolved, I actually think the US has more reasons to be optimistic than virtually any other country on Earth - as you said above.

The US "took the hit" this time with the latest new frontier. I suspect a slot which may have traditionally been Europe's may dissapear to South Africa at some point in the next decade or two. And Asia's influence will only increase (a strong European bid in Munich losing to Korea is an example of this). Things are more uncertain for the US now in bidding circles as there's not a "slot" which you can say with certainty is the US' to take, but they have more reasons to be cheerful than most nations.

Thanks for the clarification.

I agree with you. I think the most recent US bids were ill-timed, but I think the next few summer cycles starting with 2024 have a lot of potential for Americans. It's true that there isn't an obvious "slot" but there are good chances.

Yes, the IOC rejected two top US cities, but given the frequency of American hosting, BOTH bids were still too soon. That doesn't mean the IOC hates NYC, Chicago and the rest of the US. The circumstances surrounding the losses, if thoroughly understood, should not dissuade potential bid cities. The USOC needs to communicate this perspective to all Olympic-worthy cities who might otherwise be wary.

I'm not convinced that the IOC maps things out for decades the way Gamesbidders do. I think they simply look at the options before them and make a choice. Which bid leaders do they like and trust? Which bids are technically viable? What would make a nice change of pace? Who hasn't hosted for awhile and deserves a shot? Which bid is most responsive to the IOC's concerns and priorities? I don't think it's much more complicated than that. They take each race more or less one at a time and I doubt they're looking much further than 9 years ahead at any given time (the next two Games to be awarded). Given these circumstances, I think the US has a very good shot at Summer Games.

I don't think any victory or loss for 2020 rules North America in or out for 2024. I think they've got a shot at 2024 no matter how things turn out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't mean the IOC hates NYC, Chicago and the rest of the US.

Except Denver. Denver's on their sh*t list!!

Which bid leaders do they like and trust? Which bids are technically viable? What would make a nice change of pace? Who hasn't hosted for awhile and deserves a shot? Which bid is most responsive to the IOC's concerns and priorities?

Certainly NOT a loopy, unreliable city like Denver!!

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

I'm not convinced that the IOC maps things out for decades the way Gamesbidders do. I think they simply look at the options before them and make a choice. Which bid leaders do they like and trust? Which bids are technically viable? What would make a nice change of pace? Who hasn't hosted for awhile and deserves a shot? Which bid is most responsive to the IOC's concerns and priorities? I don't think it's much more complicated than that. They take each race more or less one at a time and I doubt they're looking much further than 9 years ahead at any given time (the next two Games to be awarded). Given these circumstances, I think the US has a very good shot at Summer Games.

I don't think any victory or loss for 2020 rules North America in or out for 2024. I think they've got a shot at 2024 no matter how things turn out.

I think most level-headed gamesbidders also do the same. And especially the ones that have been on here for years to see first-hand on how the IOC gives out their verdicts on these things.

It's the complete out there, fanatical, bias supporters of whatever bids that seem to "map things out for decades". Which really seems to contradict the very last sentence here. Since we don't even know yet who's going to come out to play for 2024. Nor, I'm sure is the IOC even thinking about 2024 yet either. And we won't have a clearer picture on 2024 'til 2020 is decided & even 2022 as well. The IOC clearly takes one race at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not going to bother with the anti-Denver rant. Desperation takes many forms....

As for 2024, FYI, all I'm saying is that North America could have a chance no matter what happens with 2020. I certainly wouldn't pronounce anyone a favorite. I agree with you that the next American summer hosting could be 30 years away, though of course I hope that's not the case.

Regarding my earlier comment about prognosticating.... when posters schedule Europe followed by Africa, followed by Asia, followed by Europe again, followed by North America, I do think they're extrapolating a bit too far. This happens fairly regularly and is often longtime, respected members join in.

I think the above hypothesis (and it's variations) have merit. It's interesting to ponder, but I don't think there's so much merit that the US should forego any thought of Summer bids until 2036 or later.

Just look at what's happening with 2020. Many had anointed Rome before the race began and most had written off Tokyo as foolhardy. Now Rome seems dubious and Tokyo looks like a frontrunner.

Starting in 2024, I think the "cons" of a US bid start disappearing. That doesn't mean that another bid won't still have enough "pros" to beat the US. it just means that American Summer bids from here on out won't be lame ducks.

In retrospect, it seems clear that both 2012 and 2016 were lame duck bids due to frequent, recent American hosting and grave organizational deficiencies in the USOC. Blackmun and company are righting the ship at the USOC and we're getting to the point where there's plenty of distance from 1996.

For these reasons, I think both the USOC and potential American candidate cities should be optimistic about the chances of future Summer bids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I peeked at your post, Baron...

Denver may not be perfect, but it's got more going for it than Reno. Frankly, the choice of American candidates for 2022 isn't much better than the Republican options for President. That's one of many reasons why the USOC should focus on Summer Games.

This is a 2024 thread. Wouldn't your Reno campaign make more sense elsewhere?

That's all for now. No more peeking....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...