A Lisbon bid - bids from smaller countries.

[Shrek201]

What's the problem of discussing a city's capacity and potential with valid arguments - regardless of geopolitics?

If people don't want to 'waste time', they don't write here. Simple.

True. But in the realm of reality, the smaller beta cities will never get near that big stage.

[Victor Mata]

We never know. 15 years ago Rio de Janeiro would be among the nevers people here so often talk about. London just turned the games to a more sustainable less pharaonic direction and the IOC may want to open itself to other markets other than the same old profitable ones over and over.

[Crusader]

There are Olympic cities (alphas) and there are the beta/gamma IOC Session/YOG cities. Cities like Copenhagen, Lisbon, Montevideo, Dublin, Vienna are favorite beta IOC Session cities. That's why they get those 2nd-tier events because they will NEVER qualify for the Olympic Games. I mean there are anought alpha cities scrambling for the one prize, and folks think that the bet's can even get near the gate.

People, please, stop wasting everybody's time.

For your information:

Lisbon = Alpha - (minus)

Brussels = Alpha

Copenhagen = Beta+ (plus)

Vienna = Alpha - (minus)

Prague = Beta+ (plus)

Cities often considered as future Olympic hosts or hosting include:

Berlin = Beta+ (plus)

Rome = Beta+ (plus)

Cape Town = Beta

Rio = Beta- (minus)

Your argument seems to have the same ability to hold water ....... as a sieve

[Lord David]

There are Olympic cities (alphas) and there are the beta/gamma IOC Session/YOG cities. Cities like Copenhagen, Lisbon, Montevideo, Dublin, Vienna are favorite beta IOC Session cities. That's why they get those 2nd-tier events because they will NEVER qualify for the Olympic Games. I mean there are anought alpha cities scrambling for the one prize, and folks think that the bet's can even get near the gate.

People, please, stop wasting everybody's time.

Never qualify? They (well aside from Vienna 1964) have never attempted a bid yet. Only once they've or we've proven that their Olympic aspirations are bound to failure, then you can argue that they never qualify for the games.

[Shrek201]

For your information:

Lisbon = Alpha - (minus)

Brussels = Alpha

Copenhagen = Beta+ (plus)

Vienna = Alpha - (minus)

Prague = Beta+ (plus)

Cities often considered as future Olympic hosts or hosting include:

Berlin = Beta+ (plus)

Rome = Beta+ (plus)

Cape Town = Beta

Rio = Beta- (minus)

Your argument seems to have the same ability to hold water ....... as a sieve

[Sir Rols]

I think the specific problem of the Netherlands is the Amsterdam v Rotterdam debate and the ambivalence of public support.

But the thing is, the Netherlands is one of the fewer smaller countries that really is working gradually towards a bid. And even then it would depend on so many things out of their control - if Europe gets 2024, for example, it would kill their plans. Ditto it might be hard for an Amsterdam or Rotterdam if it found itself up against a Paris or a Durban. But, yes, they are thinking and planning for it, and are hopeful.

As opposed to the likes of Copenhagen:

A Denmark Olympic Bid Not Feasible - Report

Copenhagen Won’t Bid For An Olympic Games

or Budapest:

No Chance For Hungary Olympic Bid – Report

While these stories were about earlier bid cycles, I haven't seen or heard of any developments in either country to indicate things have changed.

I get discouraged by such stories myself. I'd love to see places like Copenhagen or Budapest or Lisbon as viable contenders. But the thing is, it's all very well to come up with personal venue lists and claim that this "proves" that those cities could host a Games. You could come up with semi-viable or realistic venue lists for just about any city one could pull out of a hat - and it can be a fun exercise in places like here to do just that. But realistically, for small countries of the likes of Denmark or Portugal, the costs of staging a games and all the added infrastructure required would really put an incredible strain on their smaller economies - the investment required would just be seriously out of balance with how much of their economy would need to be devoted to it.

I don't want to be a naysayer - as I mentioned earlier, I'd love to see some of these smaller and colourful cities host. And I think it may happen now and again, but it would necessarily be a rare event. The best chances, like I said, are the likes of South Africa or the Netherlands, who are smart enough to want to work towards such hostings gradually and strategically, and seem to be working towards responsibly.

There's serious speculating, and there's down and out fantasy dreaming, and most of these dreams about smaller locals are unlikely to ever become anything else but fantasies. Some people here seem to put too much emphasis on their abilities to come up with venue plans, or dubious and debatable lists of international city "rankings", as if that's the be-all-and-end-all, but ignore the inconvenient things like political and national will and desire, stated intentions, domestic social priorities and political opposition, overall national economy and the ins-and-outs of sports bidding politics.

[Athensfan]

I certainly like to think there's still a chance for the likes of a Lisbon, Prague, Copenhagen or (one of my fave fantasies) Budapest to bid. It would really add a bit of spice to the hosting pantheon.

Don't think we should hold our breath immediately, though.

I agree. They are all very charming destinations that could make wonderful host cities. The problem is the size and expense of the Games. It's very difficult for me to imagine any of those countries concluding that hosting the Olympic Games makes financial sense. Of the above list, I think Prague is the most likely, but the bottom line will still be a problem.

[Crusader]

But the thing is, the Netherlands is one of the fewer smaller countries that really is working gradually towards a bid. And even then it would depend on so many things out of their control - if Europe gets 2024, for example, it would kill their plans. Ditto it might be hard for an Amsterdam or Rotterdam if it found itself up against a Paris or a Durban. But, yes, they are thinking and planning for it, and are hopeful.

As opposed to the likes of Copenhagen:

A Denmark Olympic Bid Not Feasible - Report

Copenhagen Won’t Bid For An Olympic Games

My issue with the links is obviously they were influenced by the 'terror' caused by Beijing and the $30-40bn that the Chinese spent on the games coming from 2007 and 2008. It would be interesting to compare with London which at worst cost half this in $

Over the last few years Denmark have sought to hold more and more international competition and unlike the rest of Europe include the Czechs, Hungarians and Dutch have not been badly affected by the Euro crisis. They have been expanded infrastructure like the Copenhagen Metro and also the forthcoming Fehrmann Tunnel between Germany and Denmark and have proven with the Oresund and Great Belt Fixed Links that they can build massive infrastructure budgets on time and under budget - infrastructure costing twice the price of the London Olympics. Compare this to the Dutch who spent €billions on a new high speed rail link that nobody wants to use and is losing money hand over fist

I think the level of public support will be also significantly higher than in many other Euro countries because the Danes aren't doing that badly economically. Having been led down by the Swedes who decided to pair with Norway when bidding for the Euros, the Danes have now an inclination to go it alone. Amsterdam are of course hosting the European Athletics Championships in 2016 but the Olympic Stadium is way short of even the IOC minimum capacity and now listed as national monument, they are going to struggle to update it suitably. So the Dutch will face the similar problem as the USA in terms of this, while the Danes with 3XN, CF Moller and Arup have 3 leading world architectural companies itching to design a new national stadium which can be used by the National Team, as a neutral venue and designed to be fully multi purpose.

I do agree that the small nation idea is unlikely BUT I also think they can sneak up the middle as an inoffensive, neutral, yet different candidate who in the Scandinavians case the IOC know will be the safest of safe bets. And when you think that Lisbon and Copenhagen are in fact over the metro areas bigger than Rome, I am not sure that the 'size' question is as big an issue as some fear.

[Sir Rols]

They have been expanded infrastructure like the Copenhagen Metro and also the forthcoming Fehrmann Tunnel between Germany and Denmark and have proven with the Oresund and Great Belt Fixed Links that they can build massive infrastructure budgets on time and under budget - infrastructure costing twice the price of the London Olympics.

The difference is, these are projects that are economic drivers and pay for themselves eventually by opening up more economic links. The Games, by contrast, are a frippery and a luxury.

What is so essential about the Games that small countries NEED to host them? Apart from the fact that nerds like us like a bit of variety in their speculations, and the ones who make public commitments to go for the Games tend to be the usual suspects.

[Shrek201]

/\/\ It's NOT just the actual host city that's a consideration. There are warm-up sites, training sites. At least the top 2 dozen nations LOOK for training grounds (mostly universities) where they can base their teams. In the last Games, even the host GB track team based themselves in Vichy, France, of all places, so their team could train without distractions.

A tiny country of 8-10 million is really ill-equipped to host a 21st century Summer Olympic Games. I mean why waste so much effort and bandwidth on TOTALLY unrealistic bids??

Further, a country of 60 million like the GB/UK could NOT find enough bodies to fill the private security needs of the last Games, and a country of 8-10 million (like Denmark, Portugal, Austria, Azerbajian, etc., etc.) can?

Get real, Crusader.

[hektor]

Denmark and the Netherlands are not the same size as an economy. The GDP of the Netherlands is more than twice the one of Denmark. Indeed the Netherlands are more comparable with Turkey in terms of size of the economy.

Smaller European countries by nominal GDP

(Worldwide rank #16) The Netherlands - 779 B$

(Worldwide rank #19) Switzerland - 528 B$

(Worldwide rank #20) Poland - 469 B$

(Worldwide rank #21) Belgium - 469 B$

(Worldwide rank #22) Sweden - 459 B$

(Worldwide rank #24) Norway - 413 B$

(Worldwide rank #27) Austria - 397 B$

(Worldwide rank #31) Denmark - 309 B$

(Worldwide rank #32) Greece - 301 B$

(Worldwide rank #35) Finland - 239 B$

(Worldwide rank #37) Portugal - 229 B$

(Worldwide rank #42) Ireland - 207 B$

(Worldwide rank #45) Czech Republic - 198 B$

(Worldwide rank #48) Romania - 162 B$

(Worldwide rank #53) Ukraine - 138 B$

(Worldwide rank #54) Hungary - 127 B$

[plusbrilliantsexploits]

The difference is, these are projects that are economic drivers and pay for themselves eventually by opening up more economic links. The Games, by contrast, are a frippery and a luxury.

What is so essential about the Games that small countries NEED to host them?

I don't put it beyond Copenhagen and Vienna to host - but only in an "off-year" election where there is no obvious favourite or group of favourites. London has certainly started the move away from the gigantism of the 2008 Summer Olympics. Nonetheless, hosting is a challenge in the best of times. Hence, if Denmark and Austria wish to host the Summer Olympics one day, they need to be very clear about the following truths:

1) The Olympic Games rarely, nay, never make a profit - unless the building of spectacular new venues is eschewed (like in Los Angeles). Well, by definition, these medium-sized nations do not have extensive Olympic-standard facilities - so an entirely new Olympic Park will need to be built. They will represent a big minus for the public coffers, since the IOC always expects guarantees from the national government to balance any financial shortfalls made by the OCOG.

2) In order to win, the bid plan will need to be brilliant to the naked eye - consequently, a gradual approach like that of the Netherlands seems more suitable. Let's not kid ourselves - at least in terms of a Danish bid, Copenhagen Airport would definitely need to be upgraded to handle more passengers. The message will have to be powerful - and the national government will have to marshal its resources to secure the support of the public and secure the staging of the Games.

3) Security-wise, well...I don't exactly see the Austrian or the Danish security forces as being undermanned or incompetent. If these countries were ever awarded the Games, be sure that the country would mobilize accordingly (100,000+ personnel are available to the Danes, including Home Guard personnel).

4.) The question is not whether Copenhagen or Vienna could do it - in terms of infrastructure, they have the potential to pull this off. For me, the main question is whether the populace of these nations would enthusiastically back a bid which, if successful, would certainly upend their nations' fiscal stability, not contribute much to their economic prosperity (mind you, Vienna and Copenhagen are fairly popular tourist destinations already) and put them under the strain of an overly detailed Host City contract - including Games Lanes (how are you gonna sell this to the notoriously egalitarian Danes?), draconian enforcement of the Olympic Movement's protected intellectual property (national sovereignty issues) and the necessary security blanket that would be needed (imagine NATO fighter jets and AWACS aircraft patrolling the skies over Copenhagen - in a nation half the size of Greece). The Danes are fairly pragmatic, which is why they decided against the strains an Olympic bid necessarily imposes.

5.) So, you will require a fortuitous set of circumstances: enthusiastic backing by the population, an excellent bid plan, consistent and wholehearted backing by governments across party lines and gradual development of (sports) infrastructure. I think it might be a good idea for nations like Denmark and Austria to test the waters by applying for European and World Championships, and maybe consider building an athletics stadium. In all honesty, though, I think a bid from a medium-sized country is unlikely to succeed until well into the 2040s or 2050s. There are simply too many big nations ready/planning/aspiring to host...

[Sir Rols]

agree with pretty much everything in your post plusbrilliants.

I wouldn't put it past the odd smaller candidate to win through. I'd probably be enthused to see it. But ultimately the Games are a Vanity for any aspiring city and country. We're all obviously fans of the splurge here. But it can only happen with a lot of sober consideration and support, first by governments, then by national citizens and then by the IOC. That's a lot of hoops, especially for smaller countries who take their fiscal prudence seriously.

[hektor]

If you are talking of the 2040s or the 2050s, another factor which could weigh in the equation would be a further integration of the European Union as a political and economic power. In that case although a city would bid from a country, it could do so with the full support of an integrated EU behing itself. There would be no "small country", only the absolute size of the city would matter.

[Crusader]

The difference is, these are projects that are economic drivers and pay for themselves eventually by opening up more economic links. The Games, by contrast, are a frippery and a luxury.

What is so essential about the Games that small countries NEED to host them? Apart from the fact that nerds like us like a bit of variety in their speculations, and the ones who make public commitments to go for the Games tend to be the usual suspects.

Sorry I disagree.

You look at places like London and Sydney and think ... well what can a games add. And then you think of Atlanta and whatever its faults it massively increased the international profile, made a small profit, intelligently left a legacy with its facilities even though they didn't quite pull it off. Move on 30years and the technical ability to create temporary facilities has risen considerable. Now if you consider that part of London where the Olympic Park is .... it was a dump so something had to be done anyway. Infrastructure like the Javelin train were going to be done anyway.

Now if you think of a city which is off the beaten track, the Olympics will massively raise the profile of the city, increasing tourism significantly and being a catalyst to improve infrastructure which will then prove the bedrock for further economic expansion. And if the Olympic Park, is built on abandoned wasteland, not only do you have a legacy of facilities but also infrastructure and access roads which then allows the surrounding area to more readily developed.

I read somewhere in the English press that if 1% of kids actively take up sport have been inspired by the Olympics, the savings the NHS will make will more than cover the cost of holding the 2012 Olympics

Denmark and the Netherlands are not the same size as an economy. The GDP of the Netherlands is more than twice the one of Denmark. Indeed the Netherlands are more comparable with Turkey in terms of size of the economy.

Smaller European countries by nominal GDP

(Worldwide rank #16) The Netherlands - 779 B$

(Worldwide rank #31) Denmark - 309 B$

But you fail to mention debt,or the fact that Denmark is not in the Euro so is not burdoned by its restrictions. It doesn't matter if your GDP is over twice the size if that additional amount has to go towards bail outs and managing a debt burden

[Crusader]

I don't put it beyond Copenhagen and Vienna to host - but only in an "off-year" election where there is no obvious favourite or group of favourites. London has certainly started the move away from the gigantism of the 2008 Summer Olympics. Nonetheless, hosting is a challenge in the best of times. Hence, if Denmark and Austria wish to host the Summer Olympics one day, they need to be very clear about the following truths:

2) In order to win, the bid plan will need to be brilliant to the naked eye - consequently, a gradual approach like that of the Netherlands seems more suitable. Let's not kid ourselves - at least in terms of a Danish bid, Copenhagen Airport would definitely need to be upgraded to handle more passengers. The message will have to be powerful - and the national government will have to marshal its resources to secure the support of the public and secure the staging of the Games.

4.) The question is not whether Copenhagen or Vienna could do it - in terms of infrastructure, they have the potential to pull this off. For me, the main question is whether the populace of these nations would enthusiastically back a bid which, if successful, would certainly upend their nations' fiscal stability, not contribute much to their economic prosperity (mind you, Vienna and Copenhagen are fairly popular tourist destinations already) and put them under the strain of an overly detailed Host City contract - including Games Lanes (how are you gonna sell this to the notoriously egalitarian Danes?), draconian enforcement of the Olympic Movement's protected intellectual property (national sovereignty issues) and the necessary security blanket that would be needed (imagine NATO fighter jets and AWACS aircraft patrolling the skies over Copenhagen - in a nation half the size of Greece). The Danes are fairly pragmatic, which is why they decided against the strains an Olympic bid necessarily imposes.

2) There is already a 4th terminal planned for Karup as well as a new and yet underused CPHGo terminal for low cost carriers. In addition to the West of CPH is Roskilde Airport which is chronically underused as an European Airport. Finally across the Oresund is Malmo where some airlines even advertised as Flights for CPH

4) Of course there are draconian rules regarding protecting IOC image rights. The economic issues are a bit of red herring - the Danes spend billions on infrastructure and often plan to recoup over 25years+

As for games security, London had considerable security because of the geopolitical relations with the USA making 'Little Satan' a possible target. The Danes do not generate such international animosity, can more easily control their borders. Stick one of these in Copenhagen Harbour and you can track anything the size of a football over virtually all of Denmarks airspace. The Danes are about to get 3 of them. For Lisbon it will be more difficult as they don't have this capability.

I am not trying to minimise the issues raised but I do think there is an inclination to take the circumstances of one games, and immediately apply them to the next when in some cases it was political rather than technical reasons behind certain decisions

[markun]

It's easy to be dismissive but imagine if Amsterdam or Copenhagen was in the contest for 2020. Up against Madrid, Tokyo and Istanbul either city could have proved to be a dark horse and a safe bet for the IOC.

[hektor]

2020 is a wasted opportunity for a lot of European cities. Not only in medium sized countries.

[markun]

I also think a multi sport European Games would be a great opportunity for cities like these.

[CanisMinor]

1) The Olympic Games rarely, nay, never make a profit - unless the building of spectacular new venues is eschewed (like in Los Angeles). Well, by definition, these medium-sized nations do not have extensive

Not quite. Every Olympic Games from 1984 to 2004 has been profitable. I don't know about Beijing, and the jury is still out on London, although it will likely turn profitable, too.

[Shrek201]

It's easy to be dismissive but imagine if Amsterdam or Copenhagen was in the contest for 2020. Up against Madrid, Tokyo and Istanbul either city could have proved to be a dark horse and a safe bet for the IOC.

Except they're NOT. Olympic bids have to be based on reality. They may start out as dreams, but when it's time to expose yourself to the Evaluation team, it's time to be stark naked and real. All these medium cities are all, in the words of Ira Gershwin...passing fancies and in time may go...

[Shrek201]

Not quite. Every Olympic Games from 1984 to 2004 has been profitable. I don't know about Beijing, and the jury is still out on London, although it will likely turn profitable, too.

Athens? With Greece on the brink of bankruptcy, made a profit?

Beijing? How do you really and honestly balance the 'Olympic' books of a totalitarian society-Games, using the honest bookkeepping standards of the capitalist west??

The above-mentioned two societies fudged figures (to get into the euro currency), manipulate currencies, etc. And if the IOC does not demand a "surplus" on your books when all is said and done, how can anyone conside Athens 2004 and Beijing 2008 'profitable' Games, is beyond me.

[Crusader]

Except they're NOT. Olympic bids have to be based on reality. They may start out as dreams, but when it's time to expose yourself to the Evaluation team, it's time to be stark naked and real. All these medium cities are all, in the words of Ira Gershwin...passing fancies and in time may go...

2028, 2032, 2036 could all be similar to 2020 in terms of who the contestants might be.

[plusbrilliantsexploits]

I also think a multi sport European Games would be a great opportunity for cities like these.

Now, that's something I'd be interested in!

[Shrek201]

2028, 2032, 2036 could all be similar to 2020 in terms of who the contestants might be.

Well they could be; and it is what it is. What r u saying? That it would be nicer to have more cities in them...just so armchair kibitzers like GB can have more to talk about? Hiding behind a screen and keyboard and pumping for a 'favorite' city to bid is much easier to do than actually committing several million dollars to start out with then a couple of billion afterwards.