Jump to content

2022: A troubling scenario


stryker
 Share

Recommended Posts

Where's our Annecy booster, Tulsa?????? We haven't heard from Tulsa yet??????????/

Well, I mean, an Annecy bid would look mighty good right about now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there USOC has a clue (not a given) they are glad they passed on 2022. For the same reasons all the governments in Europe are rejecting the games, it would be near impossible to get a US bid through government approval. The USOC dodged a bullet by not trying. If there isn't some major change in the IOC, the US has no chance at a 2024 bid either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there USOC has a clue (not a given) they are glad they passed on 2022. For the same reasons all the governments in Europe are rejecting the games, it would be near impossible to get a US bid through government approval. The USOC dodged a bullet by not trying. If there isn't some major change in the IOC, the US has no chance at a 2024 bid either.

That's not quite true. Yes, the IOC's requirements for government guarantees pose challenges in the US, but Chicago 2016 did (eventually) meet those demands. The USOC has never cited government guarantees as an insurmountable stumbling block or as a primary reason for the defeats of the last two bids. If they felt it was a major worry, I seriously doubt they would be working so hard on preparing a 2024 bid.

Anyone with a modicum of common sense is going to know that of course the US is going to be able to successfully finance the games without guarantees that the federal government will cover any shortfall. I hope the IOC does revise their policy. For some bidders, government guarantees are essential. For others, they are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's important to note, though, that the US has not been forced to pay for a new age Olympics yet. Atlanta '96 and Salt Lake City 2002 happened right before the massive increase in security and media costs.

In talking to people in Los Angeles, they believe that a 2024 Olympics would be funded the same way that the 1984 Olympics were funded. I don't know if that's really possible anymore: costs have increased and there is less sponsorship money available now that the USA is bleeding capital in a globalized economy. The American public might very well change its view once it sees the possibility of having to shell out billions in taxpayer money.

I do wonder how the 2022 race will affect the 2024 race, though. Maybe the bad press from Oslo dropping out will affect public opinion in the 2024 bid cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's important to note, though, that the US has not been forced to pay for a new age Olympics yet. Atlanta '96 and Salt Lake City 2002 happened right before the massive increase in security and media costs.

In talking to people in Los Angeles, they believe that a 2024 Olympics would be funded the same way that the 1984 Olympics were funded. I don't know if that's really possible anymore: costs have increased and there is less sponsorship money available now that the USA is bleeding capital in a globalized economy. The American public might very well change its view once it sees the possibility of having to shell out billions in taxpayer money.

I do wonder how the 2022 race will affect the 2024 race, though. Maybe the bad press from Oslo dropping out will affect public opinion in the 2024 bid cities.

This.

And While SLC happened in the shadow of 9/11 and Atlanta had its own incident - I think the next American Olympics will truly be unprecedented in terms of security costs, etc. There is only so far the LA84 model can still be relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dick Pound: IOC needs to review bidding process

Dick Pound doesn't want to take too much credit for predicting a situation which has left the IOC with only two choices for the 2022 Winter Olympics.

"Yes and no," Pound, the former IOC vice president, said from his Montreal law office on Thursday.

But he saw it coming more than a decade ago sort of.

In 2003, Canada's long-time IOC member chaired the Olympic Games Study Commission. Its purpose was to examine the growing size of the Olympic Games and suggest ways to control them.

In a conclusion that seems prescient in the wake Oslo’s withdrawal from bidding for the 2022 Winter Games leaving only Beijing and Almaty, Kazakhstan as viable candidates Pound wrote:

"The Games have reached a critical size, which may put their future success at risk if the size continues to increase. Steps must be undertaken and serious consideration given to manage future growth, while at the same time preserve the attractiveness of the Games. If unchecked, the current growth of the Games could discourage many cities from bidding to host the Games."

On Wednesday, Oslo, Norway, considered the front runner to win the 2022 Games, abandoned its pursuit of the Games citing cost — estimated at around $5 billion — for its withdrawal.

"A big project like this, which is so expensive, requires broad popular support and there isn't enough support for it," said Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg.

"I'm disappointed about Oslo," says Pound.

But Pound won't gloat about his 2003 findings.

Here's why.

His commission was just looking at the Games; the events, the number of athletes, the venues, the things that made up the sports program.

"But we never tackled the issue if a country wants to invest in infrastructure that it will use or it thinks it will use in the future that they're not allowed to do that," said Pound.

Problems in the making

Maybe they should have, according to Kevin Wamsley, a Western University professor who has been studying the IOC for almost two decades.

He said the IOC has done nothing but convince cities to spend more money — above the cost of the Games themselves — in order to win the right at becoming Olympic host.

"The problem is the level of expectations," said Wamsley. "They created a massive infrastructural problem for host cities and really did nothing to scale it back. They said that is the city's problem and we have nothing to do with that."

It's not just Oslo that bailed on the 2022 Olympics. Stockholm, Krakow and Lviv, Ukraine all abandoned bids after adding up all the costs. Although in Lviv's case, when you're at war with Russia, you might want to re-think that bid anyway. St. Moritz and Munich also briefly considered bidding, but decided against it amid public opposition.

"What it represents," said Wamsley, "is a shifting public opinion and the appetite of the usual Olympic boosters is waning, and that's a big problem."

Ed Hula, editor of the popular Olympic online magazine Around the Rings since 1990, agrees.

"It's a reflection of the critical need of the IOC to change the way it approaches cities to bid for the Olympic Games," Hula said from Atlanta.

Pound adds that the optics are not good, and the IOC needs to change.

"It's the kind of thing that is going to dog us for a while unless there is a major shift in how we organize bids and communicate what the real requirements are.”

So far, it does not appear Lausanne — IOC headquarters — is getting the message. The IOC admonished Oslo on Thursday, saying its decision to withdrawal is a "missed opportunity" and "a pity.”

"It's a big disappointment for them," said Hula. "For them to express it in the way they did today in their statement, [it’s] very unusual in the change of style for the IOC."

However, the IOC will no doubt take a look at this problem at a special meeting in December when the bidding process will be reviewed.

"This is an opportunity to get something right that we don't have right now," said Pound. "Because if we had it right, we would not be in this situation."

Source:http://www.cbc.ca/sports/dick-pound-ioc-needs-to-review-bidding-process-1.2785875

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish Dick Pound was IOC President, instead of Bach.

Me too, and not just cause he's Canadian. Pound's a smart guy who's been around the block and knows what he's talking about. Bach's an incompetent sleazebag. Richard Carrion was the best choice in the last election.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IOC should push back the schedule for the 2022 bidding. Re-open it and see if any other cities are interested. Almaty or Beijng? Really????? I'd decline to vote if I were an IOC member. If the US or even Canada bid they would win this hands down. Usually we say its impossible for a nation who hosted a recent Olympics to win another so close to the last. But if Canada were in this race it would be a piece of cake due to the lack of competition.

Edited by dave199
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's important to note, though, that the US has not been forced to pay for a new age Olympics yet. Atlanta '96 and Salt Lake City 2002 happened right before the massive increase in security and media costs.

In talking to people in Los Angeles, they believe that a 2024 Olympics would be funded the same way that the 1984 Olympics were funded. I don't know if that's really possible anymore: costs have increased and there is less sponsorship money available now that the USA is bleeding capital in a globalized economy. The American public might very well change its view once it sees the possibility of having to shell out billions in taxpayer money.

I do wonder how the 2022 race will affect the 2024 race, though. Maybe the bad press from Oslo dropping out will affect public opinion in the 2024 bid cities.

But aren't security measures covered by the feds and fall into the operating costs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IOC should push back the schedule for the 2022 bidding. Re-open it and see if any other cities are interested. Almaty or Beijng? Really????? I'd decline to vote if I were an IOC member. If the US or even Canada bid they would win this hands down. Usually we say its impossible for a nation who hosted a recent Olympics to win another so close to the last. But if Canada were in this race it would be a piece of cake due to the lack of competition.

The trouble is that both the US and Canada would prefer a Summer Games. Hosting the Winter Games would put both nations ambitions at risk unless 2024 turns out to be a weak field as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the world watches events unfold in Hong Kong and how the government in Beijing responds to the massive protests, it is difficult to imagine how the IOC, if it has any integrity at all, could even consider giving another games to China if there is some form of crack down. I have no idea how Almaty might perform as a host, but after watching Russia host the 2014 games and then invade Crimea two weeks after the closing ceremony, there is no way the IOC should give any repressive and/or oppressive regime an Olympic showcase. On the other hand, I cannot recall a single instance when the IOC has put principle and the true meaning of the Olympic Spirit above profits and power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But aren't security measures covered by the feds and fall into the operating costs?

Federal taxes are still taxes, and the rest of the USA is going to be pretty mad if California expects the rest of the states to pay massive security cost overruns. And I think the security costs for LA 2024 would almost certainly outpace everything that came before it given the fear of terrorism and the complexity and size of security and intelligence in this country. The FBI, homeland security, local police, military, etc are all going to want overlapping and competing personnel and budgets.

Greece spent $1.5 billion 2014 inflation adjusted USD on security in 2004. I can't imagine LA 2024 would cost any less than $2 billion, and more likely $2.5-3 billion. Is Los Angeles really going to be able to find $2.5 billion in sponsorship money to offset that on top of the other expenses? When you consider that the fee to be a main Olympic sponsor is only about $100 million then Los Angeles would need roughly 25 additional main sponsors just to pay the security costs. Even if the security costs are "only" 1.5 billion that's still another 15 sponsors.

It's just hard for me to believe that the '84 and '96 models are going to work in 2024. I don't see how the current model can work without substantial tax dollars being invested. Sochi was simply an abomination, but it's not as if Vancouver and London were free for the taxpayer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's important to note, though, that the US has not been forced to pay for a new age Olympics yet. Atlanta '96 and Salt Lake City 2002 happened right before the massive increase in security and media costs.

In talking to people in Los Angeles, they believe that a 2024 Olympics would be funded the same way that the 1984 Olympics were funded. I don't know if that's really possible anymore: costs have increased and there is less sponsorship money available now that the USA is bleeding capital in a globalized economy. The American public might very well change its view once it sees the possibility of having to shell out billions in taxpayer money.

I do wonder how the 2022 race will affect the 2024 race, though. Maybe the bad press from Oslo dropping out will affect public opinion in the 2024 bid cities.

"New age" Olympics? Does that involve crystal worship?

Seriously, this is the whole problem. The bloated glamour Games approach is exactly what got the IOC into this mess. The pattern needs to change. Neither LA nor any other city who might host 2024 should attempt to produce extravagant Olympic parks, etc. Far from being "forced" (your word) to follow the pattern of Beijing, the next host MUST find another less expensive way. It's their JOB to do it differently because that's what the Olympic movement needs.

Keep in mind that LA84 followed Montreal and Moscow -- both of which were very expensive and grandiose. LA did not follow suit. They did something different that proved far more profitable and successful.

It is a gross misrepresentation to say that because of Athens, Beijing and London, LA would be "forced" to spend vast sums. Not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"New age" Olympics? Does that involve crystal worship?

Seriously, this is the whole problem. The bloated glamour Games approach is exactly what got the IOC into this mess. The pattern needs to change. Neither LA nor any other city who might host 2024 should attempt to produce extravagant Olympic parks, etc. Far from being "forced" (your word) to follow the pattern of Beijing, the next host MUST find another less expensive way. It's their JOB to do it differently because that's what the Olympic movement needs.

Keep in mind that LA84 followed Montreal and Moscow -- both of which were very expensive and grandiose. LA did not follow suit. They did something different that proved far more profitable and successful.

It is a gross misrepresentation to say that because of Athens, Beijing and London, LA would be "forced" to spend vast sums. Not true.

I also think it's a gross misrepresentation to say LA would be forced to spend vast amounts. If many of the venues are there they could certainlty keep a cap on costs better than many other cities.

That said, I do think though it'd be naive to push the "LA84 was a profitable Games and 2024 will be again" mantra (not saying you are, but I've heard it said).

I think any host would struggle with short-term profitability these days.

Security is an enormous black hole (Google what London spent on it; you'd have to think the figure for a huge city like LA would be about the same). And the money sponsors/ticketing/broadcasting brings in all goes towards the OCOG budget, not infrastructure.

LA could (and shoud) be relatively inexpensive compared with many recent Games. But profitable, as LA84 was? I'll believe it when I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The irony is Lillehammer is 1 venue short of being able to host 2022.

The games have grown since 1994 but so have the infrastructure links ... weren't these touted as why Kvitfjell and Hatfjell could be used by Oslo ... how about the other way around??

A missed opportunity by both Norway and the IOC to show small games could work

I think 2026 will reveal a new process

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you can call the 2022 race a sort of buffer zone between the old way of bidding and the new 2020 stuff. It's going to be rough throughout, and given the selection these games might be one of those we just forget over time.

Also it's strikingly similar how Beijing and Istanbul both had government-based riots during their bidding periods. Seeing how that turned out for Istanbul, I can already predict that it wont help Beijing win over the IOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you can call the 2022 race a sort of buffer zone between the old way of bidding and the new 2020 stuff. It's going to be rough throughout, and given the selection these games might be one of those we just forget over time.

Also it's strikingly similar how Beijing and Istanbul both had government-based riots during their bidding periods. Seeing how that turned out for Istanbul, I can already predict that it wont help Beijing win over the IOC.

Unless things really escalate my gut feeling is it won't make too much difference. It was a problem for Turkey because, firstly it was happening in the host city, and secondly, it was going on not long before the actual vote.

Hong Kong isn't Beijing, and we've still got 10 months before the decision.

And of course the IOC had Tokyo for 2020. The alternative to Beijing's bid doesn't look anywhere near as appealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A totally black-&-white way of looking at it. For 2000 & 2020, the IOC still had the entirely safe-haven options of Sydney & Tokyo. And even despite that, Beijing almost clenched the 2000 Games.

For 2022, all they have left is Almaty. Hardly a good analogy. It's like comparing a couple of good looking muscle studs with some overgrown scary oaf. No comparison whatsoever.

Better off in going with the very intelligent, but quite geeky nerd again that you went out with before. At least there, you'll know what you're getting yourself into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"New age" Olympics? Does that involve crystal worship?

Seriously, this is the whole problem. The bloated glamour Games approach is exactly what got the IOC into this mess. The pattern needs to change. Neither LA nor any other city who might host 2024 should attempt to produce extravagant Olympic parks, etc. Far from being "forced" (your word) to follow the pattern of Beijing, the next host MUST find another less expensive way. It's their JOB to do it differently because that's what the Olympic movement needs.

Keep in mind that LA84 followed Montreal and Moscow -- both of which were very expensive and grandiose. LA did not follow suit. They did something different that proved far more profitable and successful.

It is a gross misrepresentation to say that because of Athens, Beijing and London, LA would be "forced" to spend vast sums. Not true.

This is still the IOC we're talking about though. They seem completely clueless as to the repercussions of their decisions and they're only sinking deeper into the hole they've dug for themselves. And as long as they still make their 7,000 page long list of demands, that's going to make it difficult for the LA's of the world to work with them.

I hope, like you do, that a host like LA comes along that can re-write the book and change the direction of the IOC for the better. But again, there hasn't been an Olympics on United States soil since the costs of hosting an Olympics rose dramatically. LA (or any future host) wouldn't be forced to spend vast sums because of Athens and Beijing and London, but there are elements like security where the costs are unavoidable and can't be mitigated with a well-thought out plan. No question there are things that can (and should) be done to lower the cost of hosting the Olympics, but even to do those things with a responsible bid would still result in an Olympics that costs significantly more money than prior editions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think it's a gross misrepresentation to say LA would be forced to spend vast amounts. If many of the venues are there they could certainlty keep a cap on costs better than many other cities.

That said, I do think though it'd be naive to push the "LA84 was a profitable Games and 2024 will be again" mantra (not saying you are, but I've heard it said).

I think any host would struggle with short-term profitability these days.

Security is an enormous black hole (Google what London spent on it; you'd have to think the figure for a huge city like LA would be about the same). And the money sponsors/ticketing/broadcasting brings in all goes towards the OCOG budget, not infrastructure.

LA could (and shoud) be relatively inexpensive compared with many recent Games. But profitable, as LA84 was? I'll believe it when I see it.

To me, the key issue is that the Games cannot lose money for the host and the people must be left with some functional post-Games legacy.

I don't think LA2024 can be guaranteed to produce the same surplus that LA84 did, but I do think it's possible to achieve the goals I outlined above. However, it is incumbent on the OC to ensure that all expenditures are kept in check and targeted primarily at major legacy projects rather than Olympic-only budget items.

Until they get a crack at it we're all guessing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...