USOC reaching out to US cities for potential 2024 bid

[FYI]

Antonio Villaraigosa says Los Angeles wants to host 2024 Olympics

So the USOC has their first official bid candidate. Too soon to tell at this point, but I have a feeling that if this is the only interested bidder the USOC has, then they WILL put them forth to the IOC as their official bid. .

I agree. But even in the event that the USOC also gets Dallas in the mix, I'm willing to be that they'd still choose L.A.

*willing to bet, that was suppose to read.

[PyroKinesis]

Good news. Los Angeles can easily beat any city out there.

[runningrings]

I'm just glad there is something to offset Dallas. While not ideal, LA24 could be quite an event.

(and as if it won't be marketed as that, "LA24" has quite an exciting ring to it)

[intoronto]

I would pass on LA gives the been there done that vibe

[Sir Rols]

Hmmm. I know it would be "different" to '32 and '84. But, no, I couldn't really get excited about it myself. And, yeah, that's totally subjective - I just instinctively favour "new" hosts if possible, and as I've probably overstated in posts before, it's not exactly my favourite US city anyway.

My other concern, too, is that an LA three-peat may not excite th IOC either. And what would that do to the US's will to bid again if they lose another race with one of their top contenders?

[baron-pierreIV]

Am not excited about a 3rd LA show either. There's no doubt they can do it; but what will it also add to Olympic history--other than a 2nd (or 3rd) 3-peat host?

[agreatolympicfanforlife]

I would not be surprised if LA won in 2024 but the IOC desperately want to get the games to Africa so I believe that Durban will bid and host the 2024 Games

[Barcelona_'92]

Hmmm. I know it would be "different" to '32 and '84. But, no, I couldn't really get excited about it myself. And, yeah, that's totally subjective - I just instinctively favour "new" hosts if possible, and as I've probably overstated in posts before, it's not exactly my favourite US city anyway.

My other concern, too, is that an LA three-peat may not excite th IOC either. And what would that do to the US's will to bid again if they lose another race with one of their top contenders?

IMO, LA is much more likely to want to bid again even if they were to lose in the same way that Chicago did. LA already lost an expensive domestic race against Chicago for the 2016 bid, and they've always been one of the first cities to show interest in bidding.

I would prefer if LA were not the USA's next host city, but it's a much better option than bidding with a city like Dallas. Since I doubt Chicago and probably New York will be seriously interested in the next few decades, LA might be the USA's only real hope of getting the Summer Games in the 20s or 30s.

[Athensfan]

Hmmm. I know it would be "different" to '32 and '84. But, no, I couldn't really get excited about it myself. And, yeah, that's totally subjective - I just instinctively favour "new" hosts if possible, and as I've probably overstated in posts before, it's not exactly my favourite US city anyway.

My other concern, too, is that an LA three-peat may not excite th IOC either. And what would that do to the US's will to bid again if they lose another race with one of their top contenders?

Rols, I can appreciate your personal feelings and tastes where LA is concerned. I live here and there are parts I love and parts I ... don't.

I hope you'll forgive me if I use your post as an opportunity to respond to an idea that seems to pop up periodically amongst a variety of posters on these boards. I'm perplexed that LA could be described as both a "top contender" and a been-there-done-that-worst-case-scenario bid.

Which is it? My personal belief is that LA deserves the top contender status because it is a world class city with many unique and iconic qualities. LA can organize fantastic Games and has proved it.

The been-there-done-that aspect, I believe, is a very subjective, but understandable attitude. I doubt, however, that the ultimate experience of LAs third Games would confirm that view. The city has changed dramatically and will change even more in the next eleven years.

[jk92boy]

I do hope the next mayor supports this - and that this bid will be conceived well. I feel that they need to work on just a strong focused bid, rather then throwing gimmicks around. (Which may just be a misinterpretation on my side of previous bids.)

On a side note, where has time gone? We had these little bidding competitions on the forums a while ago, and now we're talking for the 2020 and 2024 Olympics in real time!

[runningrings]

It is probably important to note that while Los Angeles has twice hosted the Olympic Games, it has come up unchallenged on both occasions as the sole bid city, and default host. The IOC has never actually ever elected LA over any other city, and when it has failed as a candidate, 1976, 1980 and 2016 come to mind here, it was actually rejected by the IOC and USOC, respectively. This begs the question: if given the choice, would the IOC elect to stage its event in Los Angeles out of choice over other options. More still, would it elect to go there for a third time over other potential (new) host cities?

Many could compare this LA predicament with London (which before 2012 had never actually won a bid for it's two other Olympiads), both being cities that can respectively claim to have selflessly saved the Olympic movement in times of crisis, but I have a gut feeling that the choice the US offers may well handicap LA. London was the only way to celebrate a British Olympics; Los Angeles is not the only way to have an American Olympics.

[intoronto]

This sums it up:

London was the only way to celebrate a British Olympics; Los Angeles is not the only way to have an American Olympics.

LA was lucky to host in 84 due to having private sector backing.

[dave199]

I just don't see a 3-peat for Los Angeles especially since the city last hosted in '84. Even at 40 years, it's way too soon for a repeat host city.

[runningrings]

Just a visualisation summary of how the US is going with boiling down a 2024 candidate city. I'll update and repost as news comes in. It will simply based on positive/negative news reports relating to each possibility.. the easiest way to gauge this is the response of the respective mayor. Just a bit of a fun way to take in the info. Red for a declined bid; Yellow for no response; Blue for positive response; and Green for official announcement of bid.

Los Angeles

Dallas

San Diego

San Francisco

Phoenix

Sacramento

Denver

Washington

Jacksonville

Orlando

Miami

Atlanta

Baltimore

St. Louis

Las Vegas

New York City

Boston

Charlotte

Columbus

Tulsa

Portland

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

Memphis

Nashville

Austin

Houston

San Antonio

Seattle

Rochester

Minneapolis

Detroit

Chicago

San Jose

Indianapolis

[Sir Rols]

I'm perplexed that LA could be described as both a "top contender" and a been-there-done-that-worst-case-scenario bid.

Which is it? My personal belief is that LA deserves the top contender status because it is a world class city with many unique and iconic qualities. LA can organize fantastic Games and has proved it.

The been-there-done-that aspect, I believe, is a very subjective, but understandable attitude. I doubt, however, that the ultimate experience of LAs third Games would confirm that view. The city has changed dramatically and will change even more in the next eleven years.

I don't see why it can't be both. I mean, yes, it would have to be a strong contender. It's indisputedly one of the USA's alpha cities, and ticks so many of the boxes in terms of existing infrastructure and political support that hamper most other US potentials to a greater or lesser degree.

But, while my view on its threepeatability is entirely subjective (like others here who have posted similar opinions), and none of us know what goes through IOCers minds really, I'd be surprised if such views weren't reflected in at least some sections of the IOC.

I didn't realise you were an Angeleno. I just assumed you were from Chicago. I hope you don't take my dissing of LA too much to heart. It's my taste, and I will concede there's parts I do indeed like - I've probably have been a bit too exaggerated and dismissive in some of my past comments.

[runningrings]

All the Angeleno's I've met don't really give a damn what people think of their city, often they tend to agree.

Personally, I love LA. I think it can be an absolutely terrible place in some ways, but it has an incredible understated beauty, it's exciting, its culturally diverse, it influences the world.... its polarising. Personally, I think it is one of the most interesting cities in North America, up there with NYC, DC Mexico City and Montreal.

[intoronto]

@runningrings is that smile face inadvertently put in?

[Quaker2001]

It is probably important to note that while Los Angeles has twice hosted the Olympic Games, it has come up unchallenged on both occasions as the sole bid city, and default host. The IOC has never actually ever elected LA over any other city, and when it has failed as a candidate, 1976, 1980 and 2016 come to mind here, it was actually rejected by the IOC and USOC, respectively. This begs the question: if given the choice, would the IOC elect to stage its event in Los Angeles out of choice over other options. More still, would it elect to go there for a third time over other potential (new) host cities?

Well, as much as that's a notable part of history, let's remember.. the city they chose over Los Angeles in 1976 left a trail of debt that followed them for 3 decades. The 1984 Olympics that were essentially given to the USOC to the city of their choice wound up making money.

I don't see why it can't be both. I mean, yes, it would have to be a strong contender. It's indisputedly one of the USA's alpha cities, and ticks so many of the boxes in terms of existing infrastructure and political support that hamper most other US potentials to a greater or lesser degree.

But, while my view on its threepeatability is entirely subjective (like others here who have posted similar opinions), and none of us know what goes through IOCers minds really, I'd be surprised if such views weren't reflected in at least some sections of the IOC.

IMO, it can be both. The IOC is made up of 100+ members, each with their own thoughts and opinions (and certainly political leanings, of course). Some might think that L.A. is the ideal spot for an Olympics and would love to go back there. Others might see it as a less-than-desirable choice if they want to go somewhere else in the United States. To Athens' point, I don't think anyone has painted as a worst case scenario, just more a less-than-ideal option that's unlikely to get selected.

I'm sure there are many in the IOC that would probably like to see a return to the Untied States sometime in the 20s. But they have the luxury of turning down L.A. if they think the next round of bidding might produce the candidate they're looking for. To that end..

All the Angeleno's I've met don't really give a damn what people think of their city, often they tend to agree.

Personally, I love LA. I think it can be an absolutely terrible place in some ways, but it has an incredible understated beauty, it's exciting, its culturally diverse, it influences the world.... its polarising. Personally, I think it is one of the most interesting cities in North America, up there with NYC, DC Mexico City and Montreal.

For the occasion talk that the Olympics should be permanently placed in 1 location (obviously that's a ridiculous concept, but I get the idea behind it), Los Angeles is that city. Great weather, diverse terrain (that's why the movie industry popped up where it did), a grand sports tradition, and a number of venues, including many that weren't around in 1984. It's an ideal location to host an Olympics. But that's easy for me to say as an American. Again, to a member of the IOC who only will come here for a Summer Olympics once every few decades, they might not want to return to a city they've been to before. Not when there are other options out there. That's why I could see a scenario where the IOC votes against Los Angeles 2024 and hopes for a different city to be put up in 2028 or beyond.

[FYI]

Actually, L.A. should really be green by your color scheme, since their mayor has 'officially' sent the USOC a response from their letter last month, the only city thus far to do so.

And I'd switch San Franisco with Boston, since they're more in lines, in terms of talks & committees, with Dallas than San Francisco is. San Francisco is merely considering in forming an 'exploratory committee' (which Miami is also considering), which Boston & Dallas are already past that stage. And San Diego (along with Austin's mayor) are just crack pots.

Blue for positive response; and Green for official announcement of bid.

Los Angeles

Dallas

San Diego

San Francisco

*L.A. being the only city to 'officially' tell the USOC 'yes', we want in, that is.

It is probably important to note that while Los Angeles has twice hosted the Olympic Games, it has come up unchallenged on both occasions as the sole bid city, and default host. The IOC has never actually ever elected LA over any other city, and when it has failed as a candidate, 1976, 1980 and 2016 come to mind here, it was actually rejected by the IOC and USOC, respectively.

It should be noted though, that for the 2016 domestic USOC race, the final between Chicago & Los Angeles "was close". So it seems that the USOC was prepared to make L.A. their 2016 candidate.

That's why I could see a scenario where the IOC votes against Los Angeles 2024 and hopes for a different city to be put up in 2028 or beyond.

But how many times do we here that the USOC should come up with a bid city that's not going to run-away (like New York & Chicago have) on their first loss. That a strategy of at least bidding twice is the best course of action. How do we know that if L.A. runs & losses 2024 that they won't run again for 2028? How do we know that the USOC may not ask L.A. "are you prepared to bid again if we lose 2024"?

[baron-pierreIV]

It is probably important to note that while Los Angeles has twice hosted the Olympic Games, it has come up unchallenged on both occasions as the sole bid city, and default host. The IOC has never actually ever elected LA over any other city, and when it has failed as a candidate, 1976, 1980 and 2016 come to mind here, it was actually rejected by the IOC and USOC, respectively. This begs the question: if given the choice, would the IOC elect to stage its event in Los Angeles out of choice over other options. More still, would it elect to go there for a third time over other potential (new) host cities?

Many could compare this LA predicament with London (which before 2012 had never actually won a bid for it's two other Olympiads), both being cities that can respectively claim to have selflessly saved the Olympic movement in times of crisis, but I have a gut feeling that the choice the US offers may well handicap LA. London was the only way to celebrate a British Olympics; Los Angeles is not the only way to have an American Olympics.

U're over-thinking this!

[runningrings]

But how many times do we here that the USOC should come up with a bid city that's not going to run-away (like New York & Chicago have) on their first loss. That a strategy of at least bidding twice is the best course of action. How do we know that if L.A. runs & losses 2024 that they won't run again for 2028? How do we know that the USOC may not ask L.A. "are you prepared to bid again if we lose 2024"?

Interesting idea- I wonder if the USOC might consider the willingness of a city to be in it for the long haul, as a partner to the USOC, as a positive?

If we get the right city in 2024 - but it fails by a close margin, perhaps it might be better for the USOC to keep on track with them and go again for 2028?

U're over-thinking this!

This is a specific forum. Forums are for discussion. Don't like it, read on.

[Sir Rols]

Interesting idea- I wonder if the USOC might consider the willingness of a city to be in it for the long haul, as a partner to the USOC, as a positive?

If we get the right city in 2024 - but it fails by a close margin, perhaps it might be better for the USOC to keep on track with them and go again for 2028?

I seem to remember when I started following bid races, that it was at least an unofficial policy of the USOC to allow a city to bid twice - or at least have first right of deciding whether to bid again or not if they lost their first try.

[runningrings]

This is why I feel so disappointed at Chciago's apathy. They, of all US cities, are ones who could claim this repeat power. They could be doing what Tokyo is doing.

[Gangwon]

LA would be sexy. I can get behind LA's bid.

[FYI]

This is why I feel so disappointed at Chciago's apathy. They, of all US cities, are ones who could claim this repeat power. They could be doing what Tokyo is doing.

Most of Chicago's apathy, I'm sure, has to do with their first-round, early exit. They gave it their all, & felt like they were shunned (& I can't say that I blame them), especially when it was highly speculated that the 2016 Games were going to the "Americas", whether that was Rio or Chicago.

Like New York, they probably feel like, "whatever, we're moving on now". Had they been in the final with Rio, there probably might've at least been talks about another bid, instead of a flat-out 'no'. Plus I'm sure the new mayor also doesn't want to be seen as 'wreckless', by many of the citizens, like former mayor Daley was in trying for the Olympics, tbw.

And Tokyo didn't come to bid for 2020 so easily, either. It took a lot of convincing to get another bid going. I'm sure that if they lose this one, too, that there won't be a third Tokyo bid.