los angeles 2024

[FYI]

^Why only the notion that "there is always the chance that things can go 'very wrong' in Paris at any time" & not L.A. Granted the former could be possible but so could the latter.

Like Beijing 2022, though, I view L.A. as the IOC's insurance policy in case something does go wrong with their apparent, preferred choice, & why they were so adamant (almost demanding) to still have a U.S. 2024 candidate after Boston 2024 imploded.

Did you ask them why they feel that way? Even the most supported Olympic bids will have their detractors and given the feelings towards the Olympics, especially in Europe these days (not to mention how looking at Brazil might be influencing their opinions). Just curious if there's a reason behind it, in part like you gave for Rome. I'm betting if you looked hard enough, you'd find more than a couple of people in LA that think LA is foolish for pursuing an Olympic bid.

Exactly. Like the ones that say L.A. can't even fix the potholes on the roads, or they have to cut back on city pensions. yet they're thinking "Olympic Gamee". Such foolishness.

[Quaker2001]

^Why only the notion that "there is always the chance that things can go 'very wrong' in Paris at any time" & not L.A. Granted the former could be possible but so could the latter.

I think he means that he thinks Paris will win it, if they stay in the race. However if they somehow screw things up and figure out a way to drop out of the race, that could hand it to LA, which is the opposite of what he wants to see happen

Like Beijing 2022, though, I view L.A. as the IOC's insurance policy in case something does go wrong with their apparent, preferred choice, & why they were so adamant (almost demanding) to still have a U.S. 2024 candidate after Boston 2024 imploded.

How would that have been different from the usual chorus of "we want to see country X bid"? Not like they haven't been adamant about getting a country/city to bid before. LA is not an insurance policy, IMO. I know you and I differ slightly on this, but I don't see it as something the IOC wants to have just to have in case their primary candidate in Paris isn't the choice. And obviously unlike 2022, Beijing wound up being the winner.

Exactly. Like the ones that say L.A. can't even fix the potholes on the roads, or they have to cut back on city pensions. yet they're thinking "Olympic Gamee". Such foolishness.

Beyond that though.. as much as LA can offer itself as a well-equipped city to host an Olympics (which they are, but they are far from ready-to-go and will likely need most of the 7 year lead-up to ensure they are successful), it's still a risky endeavor to host an Olympics. The narrative where they did it successfully before I feel like still might cloud the judgment who think it's a safe bet that things will go well. LA certainly isn't going to have a bloated budget like Beijing or Sochi, nor are they likely to be the other extreme like Athens or Rio where economic and political strife will be their legacy. LA has a better chance of pulling off a successful games than most cities. And if they don't get 2024, there's 2028 right behind it. The question is how much or little risk is there. And at the end of it all, what does LA stand to benefit from hosting the Olympics that they wouldn't get if they didn't host the Olympics.

[Nacre]

I wish LA had sat this one out.....I'm pretty confident we won't be hosting 24 but there is always the chance that things can go very wrong in Paris at any time and LA could get stuck with this.

If the European bids drop out Los Angeles would be a similar position it was in 1984. Then the federation for swimming and diving would be forced to accept a temporary retrofit of a football stadium instead of a new aquatics center, the money men in the IOC would have to accept a temporary broadcast center instead of a new convention center, the former athletes in the IOC would have to accept dorm rooms instead of a new Olympic Village, etc. Winning a solo race is precisely how Los Angeles has done well in the past.

It is the bidding process that leads to lavish venues that gets cities into trouble. The city should break even on the cost of hosting the actual sporting event itself.

[Sir Rols]

I would also think the members of the IOC and top performing athletes would bypass the Olympic Village for other accommodations, and LA doesn't lack in accommodations.

Of course. Rogge made a point of saying in the Athletes village, but otherwise the IOC members require a 5-star hotel designated as their official hotel base. I don't doubt all the 2024 contenders are well stocked for that. As for the other athletes - it depends on how big headed or accustomed to luxury they are - if they want a hotel, they arrange their own bookings.

[FYI]

How would that have been different from the usual chorus of "we want to see country X bid"? Not like they haven't been adamant about getting a country/city to bid before.

I think there's a key difference between the IOC being *adamant* of wanting someone to bid (i.e. the U.S., South Africa & Norway) VS the "usual chorus" of saying (& usually when asked at some sort of press conference) that certain countries/cities are welcome to bid or could place a bid (i.e. the Havana's, the Almaty's & Baku-koo's of the world).

LA is not an insurance policy, IMO. I know you and I differ slightly on this, but I don't see it as something the IOC wants to have just to have in case their primary candidate in Paris isn't the choice. And obviously unlike 2022, Beijing wound up being the winner.

I'm not necessarily comparing L.A. with Beijing (bcuz that is apples & oranges), but the circumstances are a bit similar IMHO, (but for bit of a different reason) after all things considered. Europe totally bailed for 2022, & now you seemingly have Europe getting shaky feet with 2024, as we saw with Hamburg's withdrawal last November & now we have Rome as the next possible European casualty. So that would leave Paris as the only sole, solid Euro option (& as you also pointed out earlier, you can't be too sure in their case either the way things are looking in Europe as far as the Olympics are concerned). But the majority of the French are still gung-ho about the Olympics up until this point. But could they also pull a Norway in the end? Maybe, but maybe not. But I'm sure that the IOC doesn't want to take that chance, so that's why I think that the IOC was still so (eagerly) expecting a bid from the USOC after Boston's debacle bcuz they wanted another strong option just in case, in order to avoid another 2022 piss show.

Beyond that though.. as much as LA can offer itself as a well-equipped city to host an Olympics (which they are, but they are far from ready-to-go and will likely need most of the 7 year lead-up to ensure they are successful), it's still a risky endeavor to host an Olympics. The narrative where they did it successfully before I feel like still might cloud the judgment who think it's a safe bet that things will go well. LA certainly isn't going to have a bloated budget like Beijing or Sochi, nor are they likely to be the other extreme like Athens or Rio where economic and political strife will be their legacy. LA has a better chance of pulling off a successful games than most cities. And if they don't get 2024, there's 2028 right behind it. The question is how much or little risk is there. And at the end of it all, what does LA stand to benefit from hosting the Olympics that they wouldn't get if they didn't host the Olympics.

This story is from six months - an interesting read considering your post.

http://www.outsideonline.com/2031911/why-nobody-wants-host-olympics-america-least-all

[Quaker2001]

I think there's a key difference between the IOC being *adamant* of wanting someone to bid (i.e. the U.S., South Africa & Norway) VS the "usual chorus" of saying (& usually when asked at some sort of press conference) that certain countries/cities are welcome to bid or could place a bid (i.e. the Havana's, the Almaty's & Baku-koo's of the world).

I'm not necessarily comparing L.A. with Beijing (bcuz that is apples & oranges), but the circumstances are a bit similar IMHO, (but for bit of a different reason) after all things considered. Europe totally bailed for 2022, & now you seemingly have Europe getting shaky feet with 2024, as we saw with Hamburg's withdrawal last November & now we have Rome as the next possible European casualty. So that would leave Paris as the only sole, solid Euro option (& as you also pointed out earlier, you can't be too sure in their case either the way things are looking in Europe as far as the Olympics are concerned). But the majority of the French are still gung-ho about the Olympics up until this point. But could they also pull a Norway in the end? Maybe, but maybe not. But I'm sure that the IOC doesn't want to take that chance, so that's why I think that the IOC was still so (eagerly) expecting a bid from the USOC after Boston's debacle bcuz they wanted another strong option just in case, in order to avoid another 2022 piss show.

It'll forever be an interesting hypothetical of what would have happened had Boston dropped out after the deadline to submit a bid for 2024. Would the IOC have allowed the USOC to substitute another city knowing how shaky the other cities may have been? Again though.. when has the IOC ever not been so eager to get a bid from the United States? Obviously here it was maybe a little more pressing than normal, but I think they're at the point where they would take any and all comers in order to have some legitimate options, especially after the shitshow that was the 2022 bid. The only thing I'd add here is that where we talked about Europe having bailed for 2022 (and already at least 1 city for 2024), those are still individual circumstances rather than a whole. And as the USOC learned the hard way, they had a city bail as well, albeit more from a poor decision on their part where they never should have been an option in the first place.

This story is from six months - an interesting read considering your post.

http://www.outsideonline.com/2031911/why-nobody-wants-host-olympics-america-least-all

Definitely interesting. And it does go to LA's candidacy of whether or not the money they'll be spending on the Olympics (and there's going to be a lot of it) might be better served spent elsewhere. I think the ancillary effects of hosting an Olympics - intangibles that can't be quantified - can make the Olympics a worthwhile endeavor for certain cities. Not sure what the financials were for Barcelona, but obviously there's an example of a city that benefited greatly from an Olympics, even if the direct financial impact tells a different story. It goes without saying though, as we've all brought up here before, that they're the exception and it would be nearly impossible to emulate their success, let alone in a well established city like a Paris or LA.

I don't know if we're past the point where big cities and countries should collectively balk at hosting the Olympics. The IOC has weathered through some storms before, so this doesn't have to be a permanent trend, but this is a mess of their own making and they need to fix it. If a city like LA wants to pursue their Olympic dreams, who are we to say to stop them. But again, I think everyone involved there does need to take a really long look at the risks they're taking and weigh what they stand to gain versus what they stand to lose. And most importantly to not simply rely on happy memories of 1984 and assume they can make history repeat itself. Maybe they can. But maybe they won't.

[Quaker2001]

For reference the LA24 committee proposed the IBC be at NBCUniversal Studios in new facilities developed under NBCUniversal's 1.6 Billion Evolution plan.

http://nbcuniversalevolution.com

So I guess you could call it a temporary broadcast center but it would be at one of the worlds largest production studios in the worlds epicenter for television and film in the movements highest paying broadcaster in the movements largest revenue market. I'm sure it would suck.

From the bid book..

International Broadcast Center (IBC) and Media Press Center (MPC): The IBC and MPC will be a new, purpose-built facility constructed at NBCUniversal’s property in Universal City. Universal Studios is planning a substantial increase in their studio space. The resulting construction will be converted to serve as the IBC/MPC for the Games. LA 2024 will work with NBCUniversal to develop the specific Games-time facility needs and specification, including the temporary overlay and operations. Following the Games, the IBC will be converted to new sound stages, storage and office space. The MPC will be reinstated as NBCUniversal’s administration and postproduction offices.

Here's the rub. and it's the same question you have to ask with Coliseum renovations and the soccer stadium and the new Rams stadium, among other things.. how to you mesh those plans with the needs of the Olympics, a one-time event 8 future that may or may not take place in LA. And if it doesn't, maybe it's in 2028. Having NBC pour money into a big expansion of their studios is a good thing for LA's bid. But how much of that plan is predicated on getting the Olympics and what happens if an LA Olympics is pushed off another 4 years? I know these are issues that every city has to deal with, but it bears repeating that having facilities in place is only part of the picture if those facilities need to be altered to accommodate the Olympics. And LA seems to have a number of such facilities.

[baron-pierreIV]

Needs for a new IBC?

Simple. Lease that closed-down store-front of Blockbuster that "Halloween Costumes" leases every September-November. Can probably get it at bargain terms.

[paul]

I remember that article, at the time I was still debating how i felt about an LA bid but it hit all the right marks for me as to why US cities should stay as far away from the IOC as possible.

Why the U.S. Should Never Host Another Olympics

More than 40 years ago, the IOC awarded the 1976 Winter Games to Denver. Organizers graciously offered U.S. taxpayers the chance to pay one-third the cost of the Games, with Colorado taxpayers absorbing much of the rest. But in a 1972 referendum, Colorado voters decided they had better things to do with their money and rejected the overture. The Games were moved to Innsbruck, Austria.

Winter sports in Colorado seem to have survived.

Edited July 10, 2016 by paul

[Quaker2001]

I remember that article, at the time I was still debating how i felt about an LA bid but it hit all the right marks for me as to why US cities should stay as far away from the IOC as possible.

Why the U.S. Should Never Host Another Olympics

More than 40 years ago, the IOC awarded the 1976 Winter Games to Denver. Organizers graciously offered U.S. taxpayers the chance to pay one-third the cost of the Games, with Colorado taxpayers absorbing much of the rest. But in a 1972 referendum, Colorado voters decided they had better things to do with their money and rejected the overture. The Games were moved to Innsbruck, Austria.

Winter sports in Colorado seem to have survived.

Eh, not really. That referendum was over a matter of $5 million. The issues were more environmental than anything. The money issue was just a convenient excuse. At the time, the ski resort industry in Colorado hadn't really been built up yet like it is today. Residents were afraid of the world coming to Colorado and spoiling their winter wonderland, which essentially wound up happening anyway. So there's long been some second-guessing whether or not they should have accepted that infusion of federal money to build themselves up rather than having to do it all on their own. At the time, it was probably the right decision, but in retrospect, perhaps not so much.

[paul]

Are you a skier? I was not skiing in Colorado in the 70s however the ski industry was already a well established lifestyle industry that was in a boom era in both expansion and exposure, it was probably the center of the US ski Universe at the time. It goes without saying the industry has continued to grow, I mean that was 40 years ago.

...If the"money issue" was just a convenient excuse for Denver to dump the IOC then we need to find a similar excuse in LA.

Vail 75-76

[Quaker2001]

I'm not a skier, but if you want a good read on the timeline and history of Denver's Olympic bid..

The Olympics that weren’t

How Colorado won, and lost, the ’76 Winter Games

1 of the key paragraphs..

Colorado’s ski industry was still in its infancy at the time — Vail was only entering its 10th year of operation — and the idea of promoting the largely unsullied Rockies as a winter playground for the world triggered another round of environmental angst, along with a new fear: Once you invite the hordes in, it’s hard to keep them out. The sprawling Olympics seemed to herald the onslaught of unchecked development across the state.

Bad link. Try this one.. www.nbcnews.com/id/35441125/ns/travel-seasonal_travel/t/olympics-werent/

...If the"money issue" was just a convenient excuse for Denver to dump the IOC then we need to find a similar excuse in LA.

Okay, so what's that excuse? Good luck trying to find one. The other part of the issue with Denver - if you read the article, is that the initial plans for it were very ill-conceived. They had to change things around to make things work for the IOC. That's certainly not going to happen here. Short of a major natural disaster (and by that, I don't mean a Donald Trump presidency), LA probably isn't dropping out of this one.

[paul]

...I think Vail opened around 1960, however; there were also many many other historic ski resorts and towns at the time in the Colorado Rockies. Skiing was a lifestyle for locals and a booming industry nationally. Some may have described Vail resort as in it's "infancy" in 75 but if you look at the map above that's a large resort even then for the US, of course now it's monstrous with the back bowls and all. The town of Vail had already boomed in the 70s and been built up extensively around the resort. Gerald Ford had a home in Vail and that brought considerable international attention to the area..everything was booming there in the 70s. Vail was also somewhat more convenient to get to than Aspen which contributed to it's rapid popularity. I prefer Aspen by far due to a preference for terrain on Ajax and the more historic town but there is a special vibe in Vail that is hard to describe, it's a big flashy skiers mountain and they definitely established that mystique in the 70s.

[paul]

For reference the LA24 committee proposed the IBC be at NBCUniversal Studios in new facilities developed under NBCUniversal's 1.6 Billion Evolution plan.

http://nbcuniversalevolution.com

So I guess you could call it a temporary broadcast center but it would be at one of the worlds largest production studios in the worlds epicenter for television and film in the movements highest paying broadcaster in the movements largest revenue market. I'm sure it would suck.

I'm not sure why these guys keep acting like these are not enormously effective and impressive proposals that rival anything any other bid has put together, like the soccer stadium as aquatic center would probably be a spectacular setting unlike any before with spectator capacity no other city ever came close to, in a vibrant historic Olympic park setting with a real Stadium steps away. I have no doubt that LA can deliver anything they want to but it's gonna cost a frikkin fortune and be a huge disruption, and I just don't think you can trust anything the IOC is involved in. The Games are an Entertainment Venture-Boondoggle parading as something more meaningful that has run dramatically over budget 100% of the time for decades.

The US governments financial contribution to secure a games is reason alone not to bid. Why should a country be exposed to such extreme risk of violence and terrorism that requires the entire country to be taxed in the billions to take on the risk?

Edited July 10, 2016 by paul

[Nacre]

I just have a difference of opinion on a new athletes village vs UCLA dorms. Any other college and it would be a new athletes village winning all the way, but UCLA on LA's westside in new dorms at a university that basically serves a premium class (as crazy as that sounds), easily gives any newly built athletes village a good and solid run for its money.

The issue is not comfort but control. I have a hard time believing that either UCLA or USC are going to shut down their entire administration for the summer to hand over control over the campus to the IOC/LA organizing committee. So a university campus would have to be shared, whereas a new Olympic village gives the IOC a zone it can isolate for security, athlete privacy, etc.

It should work OK, but I think it is also obvious that the IOC would prefer to not have to share the athletes village with USC, the aquatics center with LAFC, the broadcasting center with NBC, etc.

[Sir Rols]

The issue is not comfort but control. I have a hard time believing that either UCLA or USC are going to shut down their entire administration for the summer to hand over control over the campus to the IOC/LA organizing committee. So a university campus would have to be shared, whereas a new Olympic village gives the IOC a zone it can isolate for security, athlete privacy, etc.

It should work OK, but I think it is also obvious that the IOC would prefer to not have to share the athletes village with USC, the aquatics center with LAFC, the broadcasting center with NBC, etc.

My thoughts exactly. I'm sure it's workable, I'm sure it probably work best for LA, but I'm not convinced it's optimum for the IOC.

[Jesse Saenz]

Did you ask them why they feel that way? Even the most supported Olympic bids will have their detractors and given the feelings towards the Olympics, especially in Europe these days (not to mention how looking at Brazil might be influencing their opinions). Just curious if there's a reason behind it, in part like you gave for Rome. I'm betting if you looked hard enough, you'd find more than a couple of people in LA that think LA is foolish for pursuing an Olympic bid.

And therein lies the rub.. how can a city justify having 70,000 seats for athletics and make that venue work for whatever else the city wants to use it for. Good for LA that they have the Coliseum and the new soccer stadium coming. But these aren't easy retrofits to make those work for athletics and swimming, both in terms of cost and inconvenience to the stadium's primary tenants.

Which, as always, goes back to the question of what a city/country hopes to gain from the Olympics? Even a city like LA which has a lot in place for what is required of an Olympics, but still some major projects (some temporary) that won't necessarily have lasting benefits.

I seriously didn't even ask any of the questions. I was busy trying to get some cutie's attention but was sitting in the same table as them.

However, I know that there are plenty of Angenos who don't want the games because of 1 of 2 reasons. 1, traffic or 2, hopelessness. Both pretty easily addressable if you ask me.

The couple from Paris saw the riots and told me how annoyed and embarrassed they were. They also were out the night of the attacks and said that "France is just too much of a target" I told them any Olympic city would be to which they said "yeah, this happened without the Olympics"

The man from Rome said that he hated the Metro system and was glad their new Mayor was openly against them.

I was the only LA person in the group and I said "I have nothing to add"

The Italian said, "the weather in California is so much better, the US should take them.

That cutie by the way.... taken.

^^^^Homelessness, not hopelessness!!!

Lol. Omg. Such a good typo. Hahahaha

[Nacre]

^^^^Homelessness, not hopelessness!!!

Lol. Omg. Such a good typo. Hahahaha

For the benefit of those people outside of the USA, American cities on the Pacific coast have been forced to accommodate much of the homeless population of the entire country. The Eastern cities have tried to push out their homeless populations, which frequently end up in the Pacific cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle and Portland) with better social welfare programs for them and easier winters.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/mayor-defends-one-way-tickets-for-homeless/

Los Angeles has the largest homeless population in the USA. That is why homelessness is such a major political issue in Los Angeles and California as a whole.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Nacre

[Quaker2001]

I think that's a question the IOC is faced with. Continue to have the demands that make the cost of hosting the games a hard pill for potential bid cities, or lose a little control. Losing control is a tough deal for anybody for sure, but I think the world at large, outside of the IOC wants to see that.

No doubt the rest of the world would be happy to see the IOC loosen up their demands. Unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn't decide on the host city, the IOC does.

That said, this is an interesting dilemma as it relates to Agenda 2020. The idea behind those reforms (assuming the IOC is serious about them) is about what's best for the host city. So you have this dichotomy between Paris and LA where 1 isn't necessarily better than the other. They're both doing what works for them. It's not a question of which is the better strategy. Agenda 2020 is not a one size fits all narrative.

[Rob2012]

You're right to an extent RuFF but the world at large doesn't notice things like athlete accommodation (unless there's excrement on the walls like in Delhi). It takes notice when Sochi spends $50bn dollars but smart strategies won't get reported or noticed by many. In terms of perception the IOC needs a successful Games ideally without a blowout budget and I think both Paris and LA would deliver on that. The intricacies as to how that's done won't matter to anyone except for weirdos like us on this forum!

And Quaker is right. Agenda 2020 isn't about cutting costs, it's about fitting a plan around what's best for a city. Paris' new-build and LA's student digs can both be Agenda 2020 compliant if they meet the needs of the city and the IOC.

[baron-pierreIV]

The issue is not comfort but control. I have a hard time believing that either UCLA or USC are going to shut down their entire administration for the summer to hand over control over the campus to the IOC/LA organizing committee. So a university campus would have to be shared, whereas a new Olympic village gives the IOC a zone it can isolate for security, athlete privacy, etc.

It should work OK, but I think it is also obvious that the IOC would prefer to not have to share the athletes village with USC, the aquatics center with LAFC, the broadcasting center with NBC, etc.

It's not the "entire" campus shutting down when it's used as a Village. The University only leases the dorms, auxiliary areas and access, sporting faciltiies, to the Org. Committee but it doesn't surrender control of the campus to the OrgCom. The arrangements are worked out years in advance; and a Univ. regent or 2 are usually on the LAOOC's Board, so there has always been harmonious working relationships between the LAOOC and the various schools from the start. They complement each other's goals. The colleges are only too glad to have their facilities be given a whole new coat of paint, updated plumbing, etc., AND some historic value for the Olympic summer. Then many of the students (other than perhaps the Master's and PhD students) who are displaced for the 1 month lease, are given first dibs for positions in the Games' staffs. So it's a win-win situation for all parties concerned.

[TeamBlakeUSA]

Lest Than 450 Days Away.

[Quaker2001]

I don't think anything in this particular conversation as it pertains to the athletes village, media village or IBC is cut and dry like it's being sold by some here. I absolutely see the opposite to my argument but it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Your argument is talking about what the world wants to see and what might be in the best interests of the IOC in terms of their perception in the world. Which just happens to align with what LA is selling. Again though, this is the IOC we're talking about. They need to demonstrate they're capable of making such decisions and I'm not sure they have that in them to do that. A lot of people - including your boy Alan Abrahamson - seem to agree with the narrative here that Agenda 2020 is mere lip service in order to try and restore the IOC's reputation. The truth of the matter is that a Paris versus LA discussion doesn't necessarily lend to the idea that 1 of the cities will be better at accomplishing that goal than the other. Just like Agenda 2020 doesn't tell them which is the better candidate. It's more about the cities in question than the IOC.

So in terms of things like the villages and the IBC/MPC, you have potentially 2 distinct plans here. Both seem to be in the best interests of their respective cities. So the question is what is the IOC looking for? There's no easy answer to that question, but at that point, much of what we have to go on is past history to indicate what the IOC might choose.

[FYI]

Lest Than 450 Days Away.

Thanks for that obvious observation! :-P

A lot of people - including your boy Alan Abrahamson -

Lmfao

[JesseSaenz]

Disney CEO, Bob Iger Joins LA2024 group.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1039529/disney-boss-iger-handed-la-2024-vice-chair-role

Disney boss Iger handed LA 2024 vice chair role

AddThis Sharing Buttons

Add comment

• By Dan Palmer
• Tuesday, 12 July 2016

Bob Iger, the chairman and chief executive of the world famous Walt Disney Company, has been appointed by Los Angeles 2024 as a vice chair of its board of directors.

The appointment reaffirms "the bid’s commitment to harnessing California’s creativity, innovation and connectivity to global youth culture for the benefit of the Olympic Movement", according to LA officials.

Disney is an iconic Los Angeles business and the world's largest media company, with the Disneyland theme park and resort based in Anaheim.

Characters such as Mickey Mouse are known all over the world with Disney films and products a part of millions of lives.

Iger has overseen the acquisition of Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm during his time with the company.

"The Olympic Movement celebrates the indomitable human spirit and brings people together across continents and cultures in a powerful, shared experience," said Iger.

"It’s an important endeavor, and I’m proud to support LA 2024’s effort to bring the Games back to Los Angeles and to re-imagine them in ways that engage the global community, elevate the movement, and inspire a new generation.”

Iger does have Olympic experience as he worked with TV pioneer Roone Arledge on the broadcast of five Games.

This included the 1984 Summer Olympics - when Los Angeles was last host - as well as the 1976 Summer Games in Montreal.

Disney is one of the world's most famous companies ©Getty Images

He also covered three Winter Olympics, in Lake Placid in 1980, in Sarajevo in 1984 and Calgary in 1988.

LA 2024 chairman Casey Wasserman said: "Bob’s experience makes him a perfect fit for LA 2024 as we work together with the Olympic Movement to help reimagine a new Games for a new era.

"Bob brings a proven track record on how to reach out to young people and families by engaging them with compelling content delivered through the latest digital technology.

"That is precisely what the Olympic Family is looking for right now under the visionary Olympic Agenda 2020 road-map, and what LA 2024 intends to provide.”

Iger has also served as chairman of the ABC Group and was named as one of Fortune magazine's "25 most powerful people" in 2006-7.

He joins four-time Olympic swimming champion Janet Evans, NBA legend Earvin "Magic Johnson", nine-time Paralympic champion Candace Cable and trade union leader María Elena Durazo as a vice chair.

LA 2024 CEO Gene Sykes said: "Bob’s bold, innovative leadership at the helm of the world’s largest media company is one of the key reasons that Los Angeles speaks to young people all over the world every day.

"Now, we're delighted that he's going to share his expertise with LA 2024 to develop strategies for putting this unparalleled reach at the service of the Olympic Movement.

"Our goal is to reignite the passion for the Games among 100 million young Americans and hundreds of millions more across the globe, and Bob will be a big part of our effort."

Budapest, Paris and Rome are also bidding for the 2024 Olympics and Paralympics.

A decision will be reached at the International Olympic Committee Session in Lima, Peru, next year.