Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

While the USOC didn't come right out and say it, I think the fact they passed on 2022 is probably a good indication that their target is a Summer Olympics. Despite the disasterous bids that were Chicago and New York, it would seem that by passing over 2022 and the fact that the longstanding revenue issue has been solved that the USOC would be prepared to give 2024 a shot. As I've stated before, all three cities vying for the USOC to greenlight a 2022 bid had serious flaws and the USOC doesn't want to end up doingh what the the French did by putting up Annecy after consecutive bids by Paris and seeing it get crushed in the first round of voting.

I still don't think the U.S. though has a realistic shot at the Summer Olympics until 2032. If South Africa enters 2024, it's practically theirs. If not, I could see a U.S. bid having a better chance though a bid by Paris could complicate things, especially if Istanbul or Tokyo win 2020. 2028 seems destined for Asia with the unwritten rule that the 8s go to Asia unless Tokyo wins the 2020 Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that Atlanta and Salt Lake were 6 years apart proves nothing. The Olympic landscape has changed significantly in a relatively short period of time. . You can try to play by the rules of the late 90's, but I doubt anyone else will.

I wasn't just looking at Atlanta and Salt Lake. I was looking at 80 years of history.

What makes you think something has changed in the past few years? Have any of the IOC members come out and said that wouldn't vote for a SOC in a country that had a recent WOG?

When it comes to Olympic hosting, I'm of the opinion that the U.S. should take whatever it can get. Even if the USOC decides not to bid for the 2026 or 2030 Winter Games, there's no guarantee that the U.S. is going to get a Summer Games in the 20s or 30s. Hosting a Winter Games in that time span would be better than hosting no Games at all.

+1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the USOC didn't come right out and say it, I think the fact they passed on 2022 is probably a good indication that their target is a Summer Olympics. Despite the disasterous bids that were Chicago and New York, it would seem that by passing over 2022 and the fact that the longstanding revenue issue has been solved that the USOC would be prepared to give 2024 a shot. As I've stated before, all three cities vying for the USOC to greenlight a 2022 bid had serious flaws

I think you got it right the second time. USOG wasn't all that interested in bidding for 2022 because they don't have a city with a good change of winning. Had nothing to do with 2024.

Of course, that's going to be the big problem with 2024 as well. Will there be an interested US city that can win? Outside of LA, I don't see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zekekelso, the interest in new frontiers is not merely the "flavor of the month" -- it is commitment to truly global Games. More cities are able to consider bidding for the Games than ever before and in recent elections the IOC has showed a commitment to moving the Games around the world. That is what makes me think the Olympic landscape has changed. Even Sebastian Coe has said that the IOC's attitudes have shifted dramatically and that prospective bidders need to adjust their expectations in terms of the frequency of their hosting.

From this point forward, I seriously doubt we will see any nation host two Games within any less than 14 years of each other in our lifetimes.

As for 2028, I disagree with stryker's view that Asia is the biggest facor. If Tokyo gets 2020 (as I believe they will) then Europe and South Africa that are the big competition for both 2024 and 2028.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. Beijing. Rio. Sochi. PC. Although the latter two nations have hosted one Summer Games each, neither is a traditional winter locale.

Plus Istanbul is a strong contender and there's lots of noise about going to Africa.

The world is only so big. There WILL be plenty of repeat hosts, but the Games will keep moving all over the planet.

The only possible way I can imagine any country hosting 4 Games in 22 years or even 2 in 6 is if the economy and the Olympic movement crumble and the IOC has no other choice.

Imagine the US gets 2026. The vote for 2032 is in 2025. Can you really see this IOC awarding ANY country (much less the US!) a second Games before they've even hosted the first one? No way.

Zeke, time will tell. I'm not going to debate this further with you. If you think we're in for a stretch of back to back hosting there's nothing I can do to convince you apart from letting time play out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the sense that the IOC feels that potential sources of revenue in the U.S. have pretty much been tapped out. Unless NBC makes a huge profit off of the 2014-2020 deal, TV rights fees are unlikely to increase much from the U.S. in the future. Likewise, there don't seem to be a lot of new U.S. companies signing up as IOC sponsors--McDonald's, Visa, and GE have been the major U.S. sponsors for more than a decade (McDonald's and Visa for much longer than that). The IOC sees the big dollars now in China and other emerging markets. Going forward, I could see a situation in which China gets a Winter and Summer Games 6 years apart, but I don't see that happening for the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the sense that the IOC feels that potential sources of revenue in the U.S. have pretty much been tapped out. Unless NBC makes a huge profit off of the 2014-2020 deal, TV rights fees are unlikely to increase much from the U.S. in the future. Likewise, there don't seem to be a lot of new U.S. companies signing up as IOC sponsors--McDonald's, Visa, and GE have been the major U.S. sponsors for more than a decade (McDonald's and Visa for much longer than that). The IOC sees the big dollars now in China and other emerging markets. Going forward, I could see a situation in which China gets a Winter and Summer Games 6 years apart, but I don't see that happening for the U.S.

I really see no support for this at all. The IOC just took a record 4 billion from NBC. How about the addition of Procter & Gamble and Dow making a total of 6 of the 11 Top Sponsors American? Plus the USOC paying the IOC's administrative expenses. That pretty much disproves your whole post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay - don't we all offer R opinions on here. I never claimed anything as fact. You're just twisting my words N taking everything I say outta context again.

Like I've said twice at least already, if the South African government would like to host Olympics sooner rather than later, then they can't be totally adverse in pursuing a bid nor does it leave them in the dark that they can't C how these things a lot of times play out. How is even mentioning that stating a "fact". How is even saying "must realize" stating a "fact". it's merely stating common sense, unless you think that the South African government is totally clueless.

N again, I fail to C the black-&-white comparison that simply bcuz South Africa said no to 2020, that somehow that automatically dictates their decision for 2024 as a big possible NAY. You could be right, but u coud be wrong. "it's still too early to tell". N I even went on to say that that if the government wasn't at all interested, THEN I can C them not caring about the inner workings of the IOC. But I'd still venture to say that they "must realize", at the very least somewhat, how these things play out. Especially since they've already bid once before. Otherwise, they'd be up sh!t's creek whenever they do decide to bid, if they were totally blind about everything. So please, get off my back on that one already!

N yeah, simply due chronologically, 2024 does come before 2026, merely bcuz the USOC said no to 2022. But like I also mentioned earlier, perhaps it was moreso that the USOC gauges that 2022 wasn't going to North America anyway, much like many of us were saying here not too long ago how Europe was "destined" to get those Games.

The last two U.S. bids were summer ones, but that was mainly bcuz another winter bid right after SLC wasn't going to get anywhere. N especially when Vancouver got 2010 that just then totally threw a wrench on any other U.S. winter bids. But u could be right that the USOC perhaps prefers summer Games now. But "it's still too early to tell", especially as more time passes from Salt Lake N Vancouver.

Although, I at least agree that Summer Games would be preferable to me as well, as long as we had a compelling, worthwhile bid(s) come forward, which is still up in the air at this point.

My gosh, your written command of the English language just BLOWS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few thoughts here having been away from my computer most of the day..

I said for a while about the revenue agreement that the fact they were dragging out could be an indication they weren't in any hurry to put a bid in. Now the official line from the USOC is that 2022 would have put them on too quick of a timeline even though there were cities out there ready to jump like the kid in class who can't wait for the teacher to finish the question before blurting out the answer. So I still agree with the line of thinking that this is less about the USOC targeting a Summer bid and more about them looking at 2022 and deciding it's not the right move, regardless of what that does to the future. That they've so much as said they're sinking a new effort into 2024 and 2026 indicates to me we'll likely see a bid for both if the USOC finds a city they like.

As for the whole new frontiers concept, we don't know that's going to remain the new "flavor of the month" going forward. Sochi, Rio, and PC all offer something new in terms of nations not having hosted a particular Olympics. Istanbul could make it 4 in a row. We're all assuming the the IOC is going to head to Africa the first opportunity they get, but how many times have we said the IOC is a Euro-centric organization. They may not necessarily want to spend more than 12-16 years without a Summer games in Europe. Look at what FIFA did backing out of its continental rotation policy. As noted, the IOC's collective attitude may have changed, but we don't know if the idea of going to as many new places as possible is going to stick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There aren't that many viable new frontiers left. The recent election of new frontiers is about more than the new frontiers themselves. It exposes the IOC's desire for diverse global Games. To me that suggests a greater commitment to continental rotation and a wider span of time separating Games held in the same country.

I would be shocked if the USOC went for both 2024 and 2026. If they don't have time for 2022 now, how will they squeeze in prep for 2026 in the wake of the 2024 campaign? And if their reason for passing on 2022 was a lack of confidence in the potential bidders, how is the cast of characters likely to change for 2026? It will almost certainly be the same three cities.

The USOC has left the door open for 2026, but so far I haven't seen much that suggests they really want to walk through it. My interpretation of the USOC's actions is that they would prefer Summer Games if they can get them, but don't want to block off the option of Winter Games.

It's also possible that politics could be playing in. Perhaps there is some strategy and/or benefit to be derived from keeping the IOC thinking they are interested in both and from keeping the competition unsure of their intentions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There aren't that many viable new frontiers left. The recent election of new frontiers is about more than the new frontiers themselves. It exposes the IOC's desire for diverse global Games. To me that suggests a greater commitment to continental rotation and a wider span of time separating Games held in the same country.

I agree on the surface, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be an exception to the rule, especially where the United States is concerned. And really, we've yet to see the first new frontier of this decade play out even though there are 3 on the horizon. Yes, there's a push to globalize the games, but I don't think that necessarily prevents the United States from bidding on games in closer proximity time-wise than what we'd normally see from other countries.

I would be shocked if the USOC went for both 2024 and 2026. If they don't have time for 2022 now, how will they squeeze in prep for 2026 in the wake of the 2024 campaign? And if their reason for passing on 2022 was a lack of confidence in the potential bidders, how is the cast of characters likely to change for 2026? It will almost certainly be the same three cities.

What about the competition though? Many here, myself included, seem to think that 2022 has Europe written all over it but that 2026 could be ripe for the picking for the USOC. So to me, this seems like a calculated move by the USOC to not bid in an election they don't think they can win which is a nice departure from the past theory of just keep bidding every cycle until you win. And remember also.. to mount a bid in 2022 would be to just start now (obviously Denver and especially Reno-Tahoe have been at the ready for a while). I think they'd have no problem running a 2024 campaign and a 2026 campaign concurrently given enough prep time, which they'll have. But that they didn't feel comfortable with 2022 on a limited timeline (again, which could have been a side effect of the revenue negotiations) doesn't necessarily say much about 2026.

The USOC has left the door open for 2026, but so far I haven't seen much that suggests they really want to walk through it. My interpretation of the USOC's actions is that they would prefer Summer Games if they can get them, but don't want to block off the option of Winter Games.

Let's agree to disagree on that one. We're all assuming we'll see a bid for 2024, but I disagree with your assessment.. I haven't seen much that suggests the USOC isn't interested in 2026 and that 2024 is their only target. They're going to have to make a decision on whether or not to pursue 2026 because the 2024 elections take place, so I'm not making the assumption that they're only saying 2026 for the sake of saying it.

I know your hope is that the USOC commits to going after a Summer Olympics and treats the Winter as a very secondary priority. I don't see the latest revelations the same way. They're giving themselves some time to make these decisions, but I see no reason they can't pursue both 2024 and 2026. The key, as we've been saying, is for the USOC to improve their relations with the IOC. Once they do that, we'll probably get more insight into the intentions of the USOC. My gut still tells me they'd prefer a Summer Olympics, as we know you do, but they have to be aware that it's a much easier road to landing a Winter, and they'll be the experts on what that does to their Summer aspirations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the competition though? Many here, myself included, seem to think that 2022 has Europe written all over it but that 2026 could be ripe for the picking for the USOC. So to me, this seems like a calculated move by the USOC to not bid in an election they don't think they can win which is a nice departure from the past theory of just keep bidding every cycle until you win.

We're all assuming we'll see a bid for 2024, but I disagree with your assessment.. I haven't seen much that suggests the USOC isn't interested in 2026 and that 2024 is their only target. They're going to have to make a decision on whether or not to pursue 2026 because the 2024 elections take place, so I'm not making the assumption that they're only saying 2026 for the sake of saying it.

I had mentioned that earlier & it was conveniently ignored. The phrases like "2022 is 'destined' for Europe, much like 2012 was" quickly come to mind on these boards before. Not to mention the fact that 2022 is still only 20 years from Salt Lake City, & also Vancouver 2010 wasn't that long ago either, the last North American Winter Games. All this, I think, had much more of an impact on whether or not on bidding for 2022 rather than it being the "cast of characters" that they USOC had to chose from.

N I know, many here seem to easily say things like "the USOC should just bid for 2024" when we don't even know if a credible & compelling plan will come forward for them. Of course, it is possible, but at this point it doesn't seem extremely likely. Right now, if I were to put any money on it, I'd still say that Los Angeles could come forward, along with some 2nd-tier city. But anything else beyond that is very iffy, at least for 2024 that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a tendency to over-analyze these things and look more than a couple of cycles into the future. Forget that those in the know, by default, will always know more than us. I think we're all trying to look at this decision and decide what it means. You know what.. take it at face value. The USOC is not bidding for 2022 because they don't feel confident enough they can win. That's all I would read into that. 2026 will be different from 2022 just like 2024 will differ from 2020. Let's just the USOC some credit for focusing on strategy rather than to bid every cycle like they've done in past. I know we've said it would be ideal to find a bid candidate and for them to run with it, but it's hard to fault the USOC for this tact. Let them take these things 1 by 1 and develop a long term strategy so they can come up with a winner, not to simply assume that their time will come simply because it's the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't know that there won't be a decent bid for 2024 either. Why assume the worst? We do know the winter candidates all have their problems -- none of which will be any different 4 years later.

There is no point in working on 2024 and 2026 simultaneously. Word of the 2026 bid will leak and would totally undercut the 2024 bid. The USOC was very clear about focusing exclusively on Chicago during the 2016 campaign. That "all my eggs in one basket" image is essential for the IOC to take the bid seriously.

Saying, "We're working on 2026 too in case 2024 fails" is terrible strategy. It makes it look as if the US has little confidence in their own bids. It certainly doesn't command respect.

If the USOC wants 2026, they shouldn't bid for 2024. If they want 2024, they shouldn't bid for 2026. They can make either choice depending on what they want most, but in my opinion it's definitely either/or -- not both/and.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't know that there won't be a decent bid for 2024 either. Why assume the worst? We do know the winter candidates all have their problems -- none of which will be any different 4 years later.

Who's assuming anything? All we know is that the USOC is taking a look at both 2024 and 2026. We don't know what they're going to pick. But if you're telling me that them passing on 2022 shifts the needle towards choosing 2024 over 2026, I don't buy that. Besides, what's stopping them from picking both.

There is no point in working on 2024 and 2026 simultaneously. Word of the 2026 bid will leak and would totally undercut the 2024 bid. The USOC was very clear about focusing exclusively on Chicago during the 2016 campaign. That "all my eggs in one basket" image is essential for the IOC to take the bid seriously.

Disagree. I know past precedent isn't worth all that much in the grand scheme of things, but the United States won the 2002 Olympics before the 1996 Olympics had been held (after almost winning 1998). Why does the USOC need to put all its eggs in 1 basket? Canada put Toronto up for 2008 and then won with Vancouver for 2012. Ditto for Russia in 2012 and 2014. The way the USOC operates, they can have 2 bids running concurrently. Is it the best strategy to go with? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't buy the logic that says the USOC has to pick 1 or the other or that if they're bidding for 2024 that they have to completely kill 2026 from their planning.

Saying, "We're working on 2026 too in case 2024 fails" is terrible strategy. It makes it look as if the US has little confidence in their own bids. It certainly doesn't command respect.

Isn't that exactly the strategy you thought was such a smart idea for Denver? That it would show they're so passionate about the Olympics that it would help them regardless of which Olympics they eventually bid for? So why is that such a bad idea for the USOC? I know that relations with the members of the IOC is key here, but the timeline of bidding, while it will overlap some, doesn't mean they can't pursue both. Nor do I view 2026 as a fallback strategy in the event of a 2024 loss.

If the USOC wants 2026, they shouldn't bid for 2024. If they want 2024, they shouldn't bid for 2026. They can make either choice depending on what they want most, but in my opinion it's definitely either/or -- not both/and.

Once again, let's agree to disagree on this one. They don't need to commit to a long-term strategy where Summer bidding precludes Winter bidding and vice versa. IMO, if the USOC thinks they have a winnable bid for 2024, they should submit that candidate. Likewise, if they think they have a winnable bid for 2026, they should submit that candidate regardless of what's going on with 2024. The problem with the USOC in the past has been an aura of arrogance that they are perceived as expecting to win even if they haven't earned. As long as that perception gets fixed and the USOC puts their best foot forward, I have no problem with them bidding for any and every Olympics they feel they have a shot at winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with u that bidding on both would be an under-cutting strategy. But I don't think that anyone here is "assuming the worst" on the the likelihood, or not, of a 2024 bid. To use one of your favorite lines; "we've haven't seen any 'evidence' " that we could C one. At least from the city that u'd like to C the most. Although, like I've constantly been saying, if I were to "assume" something at this point, Los Angeles N a 2nd-tier city seems like it would be the best bet considering what we do know N have seen in the last couple of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quaker, its one thing for Denver to tell the USOC that they are interested in both. The USOC is picking a team to compete internationally. They need to consider everything. It's a completely different matter for the IOC to know that the US is hedging their bets. The IOC is looking for the most outstanding host for each edition of the Games. They anoint one winner. On the international stage the goal is to become "THE ONE." Hedging bets doesn't project the singular excellence the IOC wants.

As for Sochi and Vancouver, they don't disprove my point because both of the first bids lost. Show me a Summer bid that won while a subsequent Winter bid was being planned for two years later and I'll concede that the US might as well work on both simultaneously. Otherwise, I'd still argue that a subsequent Winter bid will compromise Summer chances to such a degree that a Summer bid would be pointless.

I'm amazed that we're even discussing whether the IOC would award the US two Games within 6 years. Have we been reading the same news for the last decade? The IOC's attitude towards the US has noticeably cooled. The choruses of "the US AGAIN?" rang out loud and clear around NYC and Chicago. The IOC clearly wants global Games and cultural variety. I just see no grounds for debate on this matter. American hostings WILL be spaced farther apart than they were from 1980-2002.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quaker, its one thing for Denver to tell the USOC that they are interested in both. The USOC is picking a team to compete internationally. They need to consider everything. It's a completely different matter for the IOC to know that the US is hedging their bets. The IOC is looking for the most outstanding host for each edition of the Games. They anoint one winner. On the international stage the goal is to become "THE ONE." Hedging bets doesn't project the singular excellence the IOC wants.

How is it hedging their bets though? Is the USOC not capable of handling a Winter bid and a Summer bid because the timelines overlap? I don't buy that. You may be right that it could be an issue, but I don't see that it has to be either/or. Which is to say that if the USOC announces that they're fielding a bid for 2024, I don't think that means they need to forget about 2026 as a result because they have to focus solely on a Summer bid.

As for Sochi and Vancouver, they don't disprove my point because both of the first bids lost. Show me a Summer bid that won while a subsequent Winter bid was being planned for two years later and I'll concede that the US might as well work on both simultaneously. Otherwise, I'd still argue that a subsequent Winter bid will compromise Summer chances to such a degree that a Summer bid would be pointless.

I wasn't trying to prove a point other than to note that at least 2 countries have submitted bids from summer going to winter and it just so happens that both of them won. There's really no precedent for looking at it the other way around because the last Summer host country that has ever been interested in a Winter Olympics is the United States in 1996 and before that you didn't have the Winter offset from the Summer. What's the difference between Summer to Winter versus Winter to Summer? Why is 1 workable but the other is pointless? How many other countries out there at least consider both and then make a choice. Again, if the USOC is going to bid for 2024, I think it's ridiculous to think they have to wait for the results of that election before they even consider bidding again.

I'm amazed that we're even discussing whether the IOC would award the US two Games within 6 years. Have we been reading the same news for the last decade? The IOC's attitude towards the US has noticeably cooled. The choruses of "the US AGAIN?" rang out loud and clear around NYC and Chicago. The IOC clearly wants global Games and cultural variety. I just see no grounds for debate on this matter. American hostings WILL be spaced farther apart than they were from 1980-2002.

Oh come on, there are far more pointless discussions on these boards than this one! No question the USOC and IOC had strained relations for a while that need to get fixed before the United States is likely to get picked for any Olympics again. But remember, it was the IOC and its members that awarded Atlanta and Salt Lake in that time span. Yes, it's a new ballgame with all these new frontiers, but don't tell us what WILL happen. 4 games in less than a quarter of a century is not going to happen, I'll certainly concede you that one. 6 years apart is unlikely as well. But 10 years, 14 years? We don't know. And I've said this before and I'll say it again.. if that TV money from NBC ever starts to dry up (which hasn't happened yet in spite of NBC's losses on Vancouver and London) and they need that U.S. investment, just watch how quickly the Olympics will return to the United States and then it's definitely not impossible to see hostings relatively close together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm amazed that we're even discussing whether the IOC would award the US two Games within 6 years. Have we been reading the same news for the last decade? The IOC's attitude towards the US has noticeably cooled. The choruses of "the US AGAIN?" rang out loud and clear around NYC and Chicago. The IOC clearly wants global Games and cultural variety. I just see no grounds for debate on this matter. American hostings WILL be spaced farther apart than they were from 1980-2002.

I do concur with all of the above. I think it's too simplistic for some to be comparing past elections with the way things R today. It's been mentioned the main reason Y Atlanta won at heels of LA '84 was bcuz of how successful those Games were. N the argument could probably be used Y SLC city won before Atlanta had even hosted.

But it's different times now. A different IOC N a different USOC. I also agree with you that campaigning for two Games simultaneously is not the best course of action. Many cite that's what didnt do Toronto many favors when Vancouver was in the background. One could argue that those Games were destined for Beijing anyway. But perhaps Toronto could've been more of a challenge if the IOC then couldn't have seen an opportunity to give Canada a "consolation prize" if Vancouver wasn't in the picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no point in working on 2024 and 2026 simultaneously. Word of the 2026 bid will leak and would totally undercut the 2024 bid. The USOC was very clear about focusing exclusively on Chicago during the 2016 campaign.

How'd that work out again?

Saying, "We're working on 2026 too in case 2024 fails" is terrible strategy.

Of coure it is. What you say - and mean! - is that you want both 2024 and 2026.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the split Olympics era, the last 5 SOC hosts are from countries with no real possibility of bidding for a WOG. Before that, the SOC were awared to the US - which also bid for the WOG 2 years later, and Spain - which bid for the WOG 6 years later. Doesn't like biddign for a WOG keeps you from getting a SOG. And we know bidding for a SOG doesn't prevent a country from getting a WOG.

Is there a chance bidding for a WOG would cause some harm to a SOG bid? Maybe. But you don't abandon the chance of getting a WOG on an unproven theory that trying would somehow harm a SOG bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This debate is a bit like "what came first - the chicken or the egg".

The only thing I will add, is that I feel that the OWG in recent times has been used as a consolation prize to a lost OG bid.

Italy's Turin 2006 following Rome 2004's defeat.

Canada's Vancouver 2010 following Toronto 2008's defeat.

Russia's Sochi 2014 following Moscow 2012's defeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How'd that work out again?

Of coure it is. What you say - and mean! - is that you want both 2024 and 2026.

Chicago's loss was due to sour USOC/IOC relations and the IOCs passion to go to South America -- that's it. It was right to invest the current bid with singular purpose and having other bids in the works would not have made Chicago any more successful.

The question is not whether the USOC COULD work on two bids simultaneously (they could, but it would be a stretch). The question is how the second bid would politically undercut the first and prompt the IOC to say "Why should we give them Summer when we know they'll be back for Winter? That makes our Summer decision easier. They can make do with Winter." It detracts from the momentum of the current bid.

In my opinion the key point about Vancouver is not that they won after Toronto's loss. The question is how long will Canada have to wait for Summer Games as a result of their decision to winterize. I hope the USOC does not follow suit. Canada's best hope for a SOG is a US WOG. Just as Canada's recent WOG puts the US in a better position to land a SOG.

Expecting the US to host both 2024 and 2026 sounds amazingly arrogant and laughably unrealistic. I can't imagine that the IOC would receive such an approach in any other way.

The only thing I will add, is that I feel that the OWG in recent times has been used as a consolation prize to a lost OG bid.

Italy's Turin 2006 following Rome 2004's defeat.

Canada's Vancouver 2010 following Toronto 2008's defeat.

Russia's Sochi 2014 following Moscow 2012's defeat.

Right. And not one of those countries landed (or could have landed) Summer Games 6 years later. In fact, there's no reason to believe we'll be returning to any of those countries for Summer Games any time soon. They got their consolation prizes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? None of those were looking for Summer Olympics 6 years after their Winter winnings. N look how many thought early on that Rome 2020 was going to be a favorite rught before they pulled out.

Definitely would agree within a 10-year time span, but after that, not really. Especially when it comes to countries like Italy & Russia that have large population bases & R a sporting prowess at the Summer Olympics,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...