Salt Lake City To Bid For Winter Olympic Games - Report

[Athensfan]

I'm not looking for perfect. I agree that no such thing exists.

Of the Winter options, I think Denver is by far the best. Great town. Great natural setting. Good airport and existing venues. The problem is that they are the only city to ever throw the Games back in the IOC's face and they have a big transportation challenge ahead of them where the mountain venues are concerned.

I think the next best option is SLC, which I can't see happening. They've got everything they need to stage great Games. The problem is that they just did so 10 years ago.

As for Reno, the mountains are lovely, but that's all I can say for it. The city itself is devoid of charm or cultural appeal. The airport is totally inadequate and there is next to nothing in the way of existing venues. What few venues do exist pale in comparison to Sochi to such an extent that it's painful. The idea of spreading events as far as Sacramento would make Reno's bid the most scattered and far-flung in modern memory. As we have heard on these boards, members of the aspiring Reno group have said Reno would offer ultra low-budget Games with minimal investment, saying, "it is what it is." In my opinion this is light years away from becoming a successful bid.

[Quaker2001]

Geopolitics are one part of the equation. The success of any future bid (Summer or Winter) is contingent on the identities and capabilities of the potential candidate cities. In my opinion, this is an even more important consideration than geopolitics.

Exactly. This is what we leave out of the debate too often. The question isn't whether a generic US SOC candidate city has a better chance than a generic WOC canidate city. It's whether the actual WOC candidate city the USOC would put forth has a better chance that the actual SOC candite city the USOC would put forth.

Sometimes that's true, other times not so much. Obviously the quality of a candidate city is a factor in them winning or losing, but a lot of times it's not what makes the difference. It's all about circumstance and who you're up against. Ask Atlanta how that worked out for them. Rio didn't win 2016 because they were the most capable bid. In hindsight, all they had to be in that field was acceptable and it was a done deal. Can't imagine it would ever be that easy again for a U.S. candidate, even on the Winter side, but I could more easily see a Winter field where certain flaws from a U.S. candidate get overlooked (not that every other bid wouldn't have their own flaws as well) than the same thing happening on the summer side.

I personally am not impressed by any of the potential Winter candidates. All have serious drawbacks.

As for Summer candidates, there have been murmurs, but it's been fairly quiet. Some argue this proves no qualified city wants to host Summer Games. I don't think that the absence of information proves much one way or the other. We have to wait and see.

But the key fact is that right now, there are zero cities itching to put forth a SOC bid, especially not world class cities ready to put forth world-class bids. No committiees, no organization, no key leaders, no theoritical plans. Zip. Nada. Nothing.

Are the odds better that the USOC will put forth a great WOC bid that will win vs the odds that the USOC will put forth a great SOC that will win.

I've long said that the IOC isn't going to give Denver a games. But right now I think Denver has a better shot at getting a games than NYC or Chicago simply because Denver is in the game, and the other cities are not.

And therein lies the thought process the USOC is likely going through right now. Not so much a case of "do we prefer Summer Games or Winter Games" but more which candidate(s) on either side give them a better chance of winning. We know who the Winter candidates are. The USOC clearly knows who they are, so it's much easier to assess that half of the equation. We don't know what's going on in terms of Summer candidates. 2 of their biggest stars got smacked down in pretty spectacular fashion and still seem like they're gunshy. Plus, there's nothing that says that can't look into both and potentially bid for both. I'm with zeke on this one though.. as much as we know what Denver's issues are, there are people there who have spent years taking the temperature of the city and know what they're dealing with. Doesn't mean they'll be able to produce a winnable bid, but that's more than the murmurs from cities interested in Summer Games which usually come in the form of a newspaper columnist writing a "should our city bid for the Olympics" type article. That does give something of an indication of the interest level in hosting a Summer Olympics, and a bid from 1 of the big cities (or any city for that matter) isn't going to be consummated until someone steps up and takes charge. And if there's nothing there, the USOC isn't going to be able to do much about it.

[Athensfan]

As I wrote earlier, absence of information is not proof. We do not know what cities are or are not interested in hosting Summer Games.

[Quaker2001]

As I wrote earlier, absence of information is not proof. We do not know what cities are or are not interested in hosting Summer Games.

That continues to be one of the lamest statements and gigantic cop-out. This is not a court case where your build up evidence in order to convince a jury your side is correct. Nor is it some sort of math problem where you're using a set of steps to reach a logical conclusion. For the 871st time.. of course we don't KNOW what cities are or are not interested. But we can make some well-based assumptions, and please don't give us this BS that we don't know enough yet to talk about these things. That absence of information you speak of can be somewhat revealing as well. If there's an article written about New York's prospects or hopes of landing an Olympics and doesn't include some sort of statement saying "person X or corporation Y is working towards bringing an Olympics to New York," then that's a pretty good indication that little to nothing is going on. And if the response to that is "well, they may not want to go public" or "the writer is just trying to protect someone from having their plans revealed," well that just smells like bad journalism to me.

And since I have a feeling you might bring it up, I'll do it for you.. it's October 2012. We don't know when the USOC might make any sort of pronouncement regarding theirs plans. Could be months or years before that happens. Plenty of times for things to change. A city could become interested down the road. Doesn't mean that city was interested all along. Doesn't mean it's wrong to think a city (or many cities) is not interested now just because I can't provide proof to the forum here of that.

I really don't want to get into another argument over semantics here and I know you don't either. 1 more time for you, baron-style in nice big bold letters..

(in case Athensfan missed it)[/b]' timestamp='1350783493' post='377770']We don't know what's going on in terms of Summer candidates.

I get how sometimes posting here can leave us all feeling a little jaded, but stop making it seem like no one is encouraged to post their opinions here unless they have hard facts to back it up. Except for that statement right there, which I think we can all agree is true and apparently you're not disagreeing with.

[zekekelso]

As for Reno, the mountains are lovely, but that's all I can say for it. The city itself is devoid of charm or cultural appeal

Reno may lack charm, but it's a virtually paradise compared to Adler or Gangneung. If the organizers can ever see their way to ditch the name and go with something like Tahoe (one of the most beautiful spots on Earth) they are going to be in much better shape. (And before anyone claims they can't do that, ask yourself exactly which part of the 2014 games are in the city of Sochi.)

As I wrote earlier, absence of information is not proof. We do not know what cities are or are not interested in hosting Summer Games.

"Cities" don't have interest in games. Organizing committees do. Orgainizing committees and their precursures aren't secret societies. Publicity and drumming up support are their primary functions in the early stages. Nobody is planning NYC 2024 behind closed doors.

[Quaker2001]

"Cities" don't have interest in games. Organizing committees do. Orgainizing committees and their precursures aren't secret societies. Publicity and drumming up support are their primary functions in the early stages. Nobody is planning NYC 2024 behind closed doors.

Amazing.. that might be the most sensible statement I've ever seen posted in this forum and I couldn't agree more.

1 of the pitfalls of this new "don't call us, we'll call you" strategy of the USOC is who exactly will they be soliciting? It's not like they can look up "New York City" in the phone book or send them an e-mail. Yes, there are government or corporate entities they can get in touch with, but what if none of them are interested and the right person doesn't get contacted? Remains to be seen how this whole process will work, but as opposed to the Winter candidates where it's like a bunch of over-eager school kids with their hands raised going "ooh, pick me, pick me!" the summer side of things is more the teacher calling on a random student to see if they know the answer.

More than that though with regards to the whole "absence of information" line.. we've seen a couple of articles trying to gauge Olympic interest. I remember 1 in particular from the Daily News where they had 3 or 4 different people mentioned (all either corporate or government folk within the city) and all of them gave off the vibe they weren't interested. If someone was working towards an Olympic bid, even if it was so simple as making a few phone calls, we'd probably know about it. So when news stories like that get printed, it can be a telling sign of whether there is interest or not. In this day and age of social media, if something is in the works, someone is probably going to know about it and report on it.

[baron-pierreIV]

Reno may lack charm, but it's a virtually paradise compared to Adler or Gangneung.

Exactly. And they can 'prettify' things. I mean look at downtown Salt Lake City also. Not exactly Beverly Hills or Gstaad, but they covered some of the uglier buildings with wraps congruent with the Look of the Games and athletic moments, put up more banners ...and all of a sudden, the city looked Olympic. And Grenoble, France is/was a grey and grim, industrial city.

Nah, AF just has this "unnnatural aversion" to his relatives there. I dunno...maybe he's not welcome to stay when the O's come to town...but the way Hollywood does it is throw in some aesthetic looking-arches on the main avenues & intersections (just like cities do at Christmas), maybe a few new parks here and there, new shrubs and flowers galore, the most ingeniously designed banners and flags, do the whole 'building Look wrap' for the uglier buildings, those Olympic rings all over the place, clever lighting at night....and VOILA! you have a properly photogenic, Olympicity!!

[Guardian]

Depends. If Quebec truly solves their Men's Downhill problem, then I see them hosting ahead of another SLC games.

That depends. You see, the only Quebec City bid for the WOG was held at the same time Quebec had a referendum to separate from "English and Communist Canada." I bet the IOC did not appreciate that and voted accordingly back in 1995. Now that the same PQ party is back in power, it may try to pull this stunt again. However, the COC has to decide whether it wants to bid for another Olympic Games again for around this time period, either summer, winter, or both.

I think Calgary should bid if that were to be the case. Quebec City apparently doesn't need a lot to fix the hill issue. If they can fix that Quebec certainly would be Canada's next winter bid. After two in a row in the west its time for the east of the country next time to host be it Toronto or Quebec.

I would love SLC to bid and host again! They were my first games and still remember a lot about it.

Well, I think my city would hold off of bidding for another Winter Olympics, especially if the COC has its short-term sights on Toronto, Quebec City, or both on the Olympic hosting list of the future.

I will say this for SLC, they would be a very, very responsible choice. Personally, I don't have any problem with returning to hosts who have almost everything ready to go.

Unfortunately, I don't think the IOC views things the same way. Not only do they like new locales and new venues, they don't like bribery scandals. The scandal alone isn't enough to sink SLC, but when combined with their 2002 Games, it makes it pretty doubtful.

If the US bid for 2026 and the IOC disliked the American bid, I can imagine them happily returning to Europe. History is full of back-to-back European Winter Olympics.

On that front, some people may want the USA to bid for the World Cup for 2026. I do not know, if that possibility is going to have the same reception as Turkey trying to get potentially the 2020 Olympic Games and the Euro at the same time.

[intoronto]

That depends. You see, the only Quebec City bid for the WOG was held at the same time Quebec had a referendum to separate from "English and Communist Canada." I bet the IOC did not appreciate that and voted accordingly back in 1995. Now that the same PQ party is back in power, it may try to pull this stunt again. However, the COC has to decide whether it wants to bid for another Olympic Games again for around this time period, either summer, winter, or both.

Well, I think my city would hold off of bidding for another Winter Olympics, especially if the COC has its short-term sights on Toronto, Quebec City, or both on the Olympic hosting list of the future.

On that front, some people may want the USA to bid for the World Cup for 2026. I do not know, if that possibility is going to have the same reception as Turkey trying to get potentially the 2020 Olympic Games and the Euro at the same time.

Well if Toronto loses its next bid which is possible with an always strong field a winter bid would be likely. If the hill is deemed not fixable its Calgary for Canada's next up.

[PyroKinesis]

To be quite honest, even though the prospect of a return to SLC excites me, I would much rather have a Summer Olympics.

[Lord David]

That depends. You see, the only Quebec City bid for the WOG was held at the same time Quebec had a referendum to separate from "English and Communist Canada." I bet the IOC did not appreciate that and voted accordingly back in 1995. Now that the same PQ party is back in power, it may try to pull this stunt again. However, the COC has to decide whether it wants to bid for another Olympic Games again for around this time period, either summer, winter, or both.

An independent Quebec would spell doom to any Canada-centric bid committee. First of all, should Quebec separate before it bids again for an Olympics, you can count all that federal funding from Canada can easily be thrown out the window. On the other hand, you can easily justify the need to build the Ski Jump and Sliding Track for use by local athletes and so forth.

I don't see any chance of a Quebec Olympics where Quebec has been separated from Canada, they just couldn't possibly afford it on their own.

[Athensfan]

Zeke and Quaker, we see things differently. We disagree. No need to get hot and bothered.

First, the city's level of interest does matter. Olympics require support at every level of government -- including the local level. Governments must be involved and could easily use their influence to keep the planning quiet. I can easily imagine an organizing committee that works closely with the government from the very beginning and chooses to fly quietly under the radar.

Second, committees are notoriously unpredictable. Some want to go public immediately with everything. Some want to keep it quiet. It's no wonder the winter candidates are being noisier. They expected to be going for 2022 and already had their engines revved. When one sounds off publicly, the others feel compelled to follow suit.

You guys appear to be declaring that no viable candidate wants 2024. I'd prefer to hear what the USOC has to say.

I don't think the USOC would've bypassed 2022 or publicly announced they were exploring 2024 if they hadn't seen any signs of interest from capable summer host cities. There must have been something that made them think it was an option.

[baron-pierreIV]

A little birdie from the IOC just told me they're not sure if they want to run Winter 2022, Summer 2024, etc. They haven't heard from anyone and are thinking of cancelling them.

[Quaker2001]

If I ever got hot and bothered by what gets said in a forum like this, I'd almost hope to get banned from here for my own sanity. But I digress..

First, the city's level of interest does matter. Olympics require support at every level of government -- including the local level. Governments must be involved and could easily use their influence to keep the planning quiet. I can easily imagine an organizing committee that works closely with the government from the very beginning and chooses to fly quietly under the radar.

This is 2012. That's not necessarily a choice they can exercise to keep quiet. And I would imagine that governments have things they're more interested in keeping quiet than Olympic planning. You do have journalists out there (you've posted a number of articles, I believe 3 of them related to Chicago a couple of weeks ago) that are investigating these things and if they're doing their jobs and there is some sort of organizing committee out there, they'll find it and report it. When you have an undertaking as big as bidding for an Olympics, that "support at every level of government" probably isn't going to be helping by a campaign that's trying to fly under the radar. Certainly not in this economy.

Second, committees are notoriously unpredictable. Some want to go public immediately with everything. Some want to keep it quiet. It's no wonder the winter candidates are being noisier. They expected to be going for 2022 and already had their engines revved. When one sounds off publicly, the others feel compelled to follow suit.

You guys appear to be declaring that no viable candidate wants 2024. I'd prefer to hear what the USOC has to say.

That's not what I'm declaring and I'm guessing zeke isn't either. What I am declaring is that right now, there doesn't appear to be many signs of interest from any of the major cities. I don't need the USOC to confirm or deny that for me to believe that it's true. Again, we might find out a year from now or a month from now or tomorrow that some sort of organizing committee has been formed that is working towards a bid.

I don't think the USOC would've bypassed 2022 or publicly announced they were exploring 2024 if they hadn't seen any signs of interest from capable summer host cities. There must have been something that made them think it was an option.

If they didn't think like their chances for 2022, that may or may not have anything to do with 2024. It doesn't have to be 1 or the other even so far as 2026 is concerned. And let's be fair about what the USOC announces publicly. When it was announced that the USOC wasn't bidding for 2020 (which wasn't hard to see coming), we saw a number of stories saying there had been interest from, among others, Chicago and New York. That's why I sometimes take these things with a grain of salt because I don't know where they got that from with New York.

I know you don't like it when I or zeke or baron or whomever else indicates there's no interest from a city without "proof" or some statement that gives us that indication. I'm going to continue to work off my gut feelings and read between the lines when I see journalists report on potential Olympic bidding. There may be a viable candidate out there for 2024 and as the 2015 submission deadline (or whenever it is) draws nearer, those candidates will become clearer. But from what I'm looking at right now, that candidate hasn't even begun to emerge yet and I have my doubts that they're hiding in the wings somewhere, out of view where no one is going to know about it.

[Athensfan]

Quaker, I agree there are no signs of serious interest in 2024 at this point, but when I previously said that absence of public information is not proof of a lack of interest, you challenged the point. That left me with the impression that you feel a lack of public information indicates a lack of candidate cities. When I expressed that point, you challenged it as well.

As for this being 2012, does that mean that the notion of keeping things quiet is now extinct? Do you believe there are no secrets or surprises anymore?

There are two choices:

A.) the absence of information about 2024 bidders is simply an absence of information. We cannot know for certain who is or isn't interested until such time as the candidates or the USOC make such information public. (This is the point I originally made and you took issue with it.)

B.) the absence of information proves no American cities are interested in hosting 2024. (When I said this appeared to be your view, you took issue with this as well.)

[Quaker2001]

Quaker, I agree there are no signs of serious interest in 2024 at this point, but when I previously said that absence of public information is not proof of a lack of interest, you challenged the point. That left me with the impression that you feel a lack of public information indicates a lack of candidate cities. When I expressed that point, you challenged it as well.

Again, why does it have to come down to proof though? In that regard, your first statement is somewhat contradictory. I keep saying.. we don't know for sure what's going on, but we can make some pretty educated guesses. See, here's where we're getting lost in translation. You tend focus on what we don't know (i.e. we haven't heard anything, so we really don't know much of anything). You did that a lot in the lead up to the 2020 candidate submission deadline. I'm taking that same lack of information and using that as an indication of what we do know, even if we can't know for sure. Either way, lack of interest isn't exactly something that can be proven. That would be like asking an atheist to prove that there is no G-d. But your 2nd impression where you think I feel the lack of information is an indication there's no interest, that's exactly how I feel. And that's worlds apart from, to use your words "declaring that no viable candidate wants 2024." An indication or a hunch of my part is not a definitive statement, and like I keep saying, it's not like this has to be decided in the short term. There's lots more time (although 2015 can get here pretty quickly) for this all to play out.

As for this being 2012, does that mean that the notion of keeping things quiet is now extinct? Do you believe there are no secrets or surprises anymore?

It's not extinct, it's just harder to keep quiet. I just think that if there are reporters asking around, someone will uncover something if it's there. And in order to drum up all the support you need, I don't see the advantage of keeping things on the down low. At the same time, there is plenty of middle ground between that and making a big public declaration like Salt Lake has just done.

There are two choices:

A.) the absence of information about 2024 bidders is simply an absence of information. We cannot know for certain who is or isn't interested until such time as the candidates or the USOC make such information public. (This is the point I originally made and you took issue with it.)

B.) the absence of information proves no American cities are interested in hosting 2024. (When I said this appeared to be your view, you took issue with this as well.)

There are a lot more than 2 choices. I'll say it again.. if we're only going to talk her about what we're certain of, this place is going to get boring real quick. How about I propose choice C, an offshoot of your choice B.) the absence of information is an indication no American cities may currently be interested in hosting 2024

This isn't about certainty or proof. Again, if that's what you're looking for, you're not going to find it and I'm not pretending to offer it up. But there are certainly assumptions and hunches I'm willing to make. 1 of them is that there is no sign of serious interest in 2024 at this point. So remind me again what we're arguing about?

[Quaker2001]

1 thing to spin this back to Salt Lake and it goes back to what Athens and I have been talking about.. the USOC has to assess their options on whether to pursue a 2024 bid, a 2026 bid, or possibly both. Imagine a teacher with a classroom full of kids and you're trying to decide who to call on to answer the question. On 1 side you have the girls (in this case, the Winter candidates), all of them with their hands raised looking like they want to jump out of their seats because they think they know the answer even though you're not sure they do. Then on the other side you have the boys (Summer candidates) who you think are smart enough to know the answer, but you're not so sure because they're just sitting there like they don't know if they want the teacher to call on them.

I know that's a gross over-simplification of the situation for the USOC, but that's what they're looking at. I know Athens likes to talk about candidates "making noise" and how it doesn't necessarily make their bids any better, which is true. But there is still an element of this where it could be a popularity contest and if the Winter candidates are showing their enthusiasm while the Summer candidates are showing nothing, that's something the USOC is probably going to have to take into consideration. They can solicit cities all they want, but it would help the cause for an American Summer Olympics if 1 of those cities (and a good one, not Tulsa) gave off a similar impression (which certainly doesn't have to be a big public declaration) that says "if you go for 2024, we're interested."

[Athensfan]

How about I propose choice C, an offshoot of your choice B.) the absence of information is an indication no American cities may currently be interested in hosting 2024

This isn't about certainty or proof.

Your doublespeak is mind-numbing.

You're basically saying you're unwilling to go on record and say your view is factual, yet you jump down my throat for holding the opposing opinion.

You say that lack of information MAY suggest no bid cities for 2024. The use of the word "MAY" automatically acknowledges there MAY also be some cities interested in 2024. Yet when I say "lack of information proves nothing; we need more information," you repeatedly rejected this.

That takes me back to the understanding that you feel the that lack of information may not prove anything conclusively, but anyone with two brain cells to rub together should just concede that no one wants 2024.

I have two brain cells to rub together and I disagree with you. For some reason, you take me to task because I'm not willing to rush to judgment the way you are. I want to see what the USOC has to say. As I said, the USOC wouldn't have passed on 2022 and announced they would explore 2024 unless they had SOME indication of interest from a viable candidate.

This is tiresome Quaker. Take your long-winded last word. You always do...

[runningrings]

And Grenoble, France is/was a grey and grim, industrial city.

You mean Albertville?

Grenoble is a stunning city. It's really a shame France didn't put it forward again for 1992.

[baron-pierreIV]

You mean Albertville?

Grenoble is a stunning city. It's really a shame France didn't put it forward again for 1992.

No, Albertville is really almost a non-descript village. (I've been there in the summer.) The description I have of Grenoble is from something I read...and that might've been the case in 1968 when it was the first time a Winter Games was about to be exposed in full color TV.

[zekekelso]

Governments must be involved and could easily use their influence to keep the planning quiet.

Two problems with this theory. First, government are generally bound by open-government laws. They can't opperate in secret. And even if they could, there's simply no reason to operate in secret. The whole point is to drum up support.

You guys appear to be declaring that no viable candidate wants 2024. I'd prefer to hear what the USOC has to say.

A nitpick, but language is important: I'm saying that right now there is no viable candidate working on the 2024 games.

I don't think the USOC would've bypassed 2022 or publicly announced they were exploring 2024 if they hadn't seen any signs of interest from capable summer host cities. There must have been something that made them think it was an option.

I reject any theory based on knowing the USOC isn't full of corrupt idiots.

[zekekelso]

A.) the absence of information about 2024 bidders is simply an absence of information.

Absence of information can provide strong evidence of things. If I look up and down my street and don't see a fire truck parked, that doesn't prove there's ins't a firetuck on the block, but it's a pretty good indication.

The lack of any visable viable organizations working on 2024 games doesn't prove there isn't an organization out there working on it. But it's a pretty good indiciation.

[Quaker2001]

Your doublespeak is mind-numbing.

You're basically saying you're unwilling to go on record and say your view is factual, yet you jump down my throat for holding the opposing opinion.

You say that lack of information MAY suggest no bid cities for 2024. The use of the word "MAY" automatically acknowledges there MAY also be some cities interested in 2024. Yet when I say "lack of information proves nothing; we need more information," you repeatedly rejected this.

That takes me back to the understanding that you feel the that lack of information may not prove anything conclusively, but anyone with two brain cells to rub together should just concede that no one wants 2024.

I have two brain cells to rub together and I disagree with you. For some reason, you take me to task because I'm not willing to rush to judgment the way you are. I want to see what the USOC has to say. As I said, the USOC wouldn't have passed on 2022 and announced they would explore 2024 unless they had SOME indication of interest from a viable candidate.

This is tiresome Quaker. Take your long-winded last word. You always do...

Ya know what.. no long-winded response here, because clearly at least 2 other people see how you view this whole thing and have seen how you've viewed similar circumstances, so once again, for you to call someone else out for the way they make their points here has long since gotten ridiculous. We are all just a bunch of schmucks in an Internet forum following a topic we find interesting. If you want to debate something I say, please do so. But stop telling me that my assertions are meaningless because I can't *prove* them and therefore I should be at least entertaining your viewpoint. And stop taking everyone else to task because you're holding onto the hope that the United States is going to bid for a Summer Olympics and don't want to entertain the thought that it may not happen until the USOC comes out and says it. In short.. get over yourself because this whole song and dance got old a long time ago.

Absence of information can provide strong evidence of things. If I look up and down my street and don't see a fire truck parked, that doesn't prove there's ins't a firetuck on the block, but it's a pretty good indication.

The lack of any visable viable organizations working on 2024 games doesn't prove there isn't an organization out there working on it. But it's a pretty good indiciation.

One again, this is EXACTLY how I view the situation, Athens. Thank you zeke for once again making a succinct point for me since, as we know, brevity is not 1 of my strong points.

[Athensfan]

I really do see the argument for Winter Games. It's totally possible we'll see an American winter bid for 2026.

However, I do think it's noteworthy that no other countries are talking much about 2024 either. No one has committed to the race. Foreign organizing committees aren't sounding off about 2024 the way the aspiring American groups had been talking about 2022. Since the USOC pulled the plug on 2022, the groups have just changed their target. They're only as loud as they are because they were already geared up to go. Other countries aren't talking about 2026 either.

I do think that after one of the winter contenders went public the others felt they had to keep pace. I don't imagine summer contenders would feel any need to match the winter hopefuls. I suspect they think, "we're talking summer, they're talking winter. It's apples and oranges. We're not competing with them." Of course, on Gamesnids we know that winter bids can impact summer aspirations, but I'm not necessarily sure the summer candidates would recognize that. It seems obvious, but it's amazing the things that can escape the awareness of a committee -- especially when the committee is in early days.

[Quaker2001]

However, I do think it's noteworthy that no other countries are talking much about 2024 either. No one has committed to the race. Foreign organizing committees aren't sounding off about 2024 the way the aspiring American groups had been talking about 2022. Since the USOC pulled the plug on 2022, the groups have just changed their target. They're only as loud as they are because they were already geared up to go. Other countries aren't talking about 2026 either.

I must have missed something in the news recently, did Germany cease to be a country at some point in the past week?..

http://www.gamesbids...1216136360.html

Is Qatar not a country either?...

http://www.qatar-tri...ection=first1_4

And what about another city that failed to make the 2020 shortlist..

http://www.aroundthe...w.aspx?id=41276

Africa has countries too..

http://sports.yahoo....59047--sow.html

As we know, what happens in other countries is always going to work different than it does in the United States. Nevertheless, that's 4 pretty public pronouncements right there from countries talking about 2024, including 2 that seem pretty well committed to pursuing a bid. Looks to me like foreign organizing committees ARE sounding off about 2024.