Future Hosts

[TorchbearerSydney]

One thing seems certain, with economic problems in Europe, the rise of Asia, unrest poppping up all over the place (Ukraine, North Africa, ME), popular referendums, new assertive dictatorships (Qatar, UAE, Stans..), gigantism and spiralling costs, Olympic Bid competitions are getting more bizarre and unpredictable than ever- and becoming a war of attrition as much as anything else. Tokyo was selected as the least worst option, rather than the best in many ways.

Makes all our predications very ... unpredictable!

[TorchbearerSydney]

I've felt that Australia with a relatively modest sized population has been very lucky to host twice in half a century and part of the attraction is due to it being an English speaking country. Obviously the geographic location, organizational ability and sports success play a role as well, but I have a feeling that especially Sydney 2000 would not have happened, not so soon and right after Atlanta, if it was a culturally more alien nation with all other aspects like economy etc.remaining more or less equal.

Australia can use language as an advantage, but there are many factors that help it get more Olympics than its population seem to warrant- participation at every Games, fantastic medal record, sporting culture (including as spectators), high price paid for TV rights (was highest per capita in 2008) and most importantly its position as Oceania's only host (Olympics must rotate there every 40 years or so).

Australia also didn't suffer a recession in the GFC and is now about the 4 or 5th highest per capita GDP in the world (going towards double the UK for example). It is wealthy despite how we Australians whinge about how tough life is!!!

[woohooitsme83]

If New York City Hosts, I can't see Toronto Hosting a Summer Olympics and Paralympics for a while, unless only 1-2 Cities Bid.

Going by Your Predictions:

2022 - Beijing, China - Correct. This will happen.

2024 - Boston, United States Of America - Sorry, but 2024 is Europe's Time.

2026 - Munich, Germany - I suppose Munich 2026 is a possibility.

2028 - Cape Town, South Africa - Durban, South Africa will most probably Host.

2030 - Calgary, Canada - I suppose Calgary 2030 is a possibility.

2032 - Istanbul, Turkey - Turkey won't Host a Summer Olympics and Paralympics for a long Time.

2034 - Oslo, Norway - Oslo 2034 is a possibility.

2036 - Melbourne, Australia - I reckon New York City, United States Of America will Host it in 2036.

2038 - Sapporo, Japan - I suppose this is a possibility.

2040 - Shanghai, China - 2040 will also be Europe's Time.

2042 - Sion, Switzerland - A Possibility.

England is wealthy. Fact.

Geopolitics play a big role.

Ooooh! my turn!

When LA hosts, I can see the rest of the century belonging to North America, IMO.

-----

Based on your predictions:

2022 = Beijing, China. - Incorrect. the IOC won't leave Europe for more than 2 cycles. 2022 goes to Oslo, silly.

2024 = Rome, Italy. - Sorry but 2024 is North America's time IMO

2026 = Denver, United States Of America. - I suppose it is a possibility, but how likely is a back to back USA games?

2028 = Durban, South Africa. - No, Cape Town is much more pretty to host the Olympiad!

2030 = Krakow, Poland. - Maybe, I guess

2032 = Berlin, Germany. - Incorrect. Germany will leave the Earth and settle on nearby planet Mars where it will create a Eutopia

for all of it's citizens. Germany is no more.

2034 = Stockholm, Sweden. - Wasn't this spot reserved for Beijing back in your late July predictions. What's with the sudden

change, yo?

2036 = Beijing, China. - Will also be NA's Time IMO

-----

Qatar is wealthy. Fact.

-----

Each race is unique in it's own competitors, advantages, and situation. That plays a VERY big role.

-----

[baron-pierreIV]

There's no such thing as "returning to 'favorites.'" In Samaranch's last years, he was hoping to resurrect Sarajevo...and hopefully bring him that much sought-after Nobel Peace Prize. Didn't happen. The IOC will go back to ex-host cities if they are the best of the lot bidding; and the geo-politix are right. Those 2 have to go hand-in-hand in the process.

[woohooitsme83]

I'm not saying geopolitics aren't important, but Tony just makes it seem like nothing else, besides that, is important.

[Nacre]

I've felt that Australia with a relatively modest sized population has been very lucky to host twice in half a century and part of the attraction is due to it being an English speaking country. Obviously the geographic location, organizational ability and sports success play a role as well, but I have a feeling that especially Sydney 2000 would not have happened, not so soon and right after Atlanta, if it was a culturally more alien nation with all other aspects like economy etc.remaining more or less equal.

I don't think speaking English got Sydney the games. I think being a relatively wealthy country, with a large city and a plan that meets the IOC's desires is what matters.

Stockholm: Rather small for the modern summer games.

Rome and Madrid: Economically difficult.

Istanbul: Not much room for new clusters of venues and poor mass transportation.

Berlin: Only bid once since 1936, when it lost to Athens for 2000.

Paris is really the outlier. They've simply had terrible luck in choosing when to bid. They would likely have won if they bid for 1984, 1996 or even 2000. Instead they lost out to Athens, Beijing and London.

[reindeer]

Ok, I may have emphasized the importance of English language a bit too much but I still maintain the idea that being culturally very familiar to the IOC may have been the deciding factor in winning the games for Sydney and very narrowly beating China. Of course this is very hypothetical, but I guess that all things being equal, speaking French or Spanish could also have been enough for Australia on that occasion but that's about it.

[Quaker2001]

There's no such thing as "returning to 'favorites.'" In Samaranch's last years, he was hoping to resurrect Sarajevo...and hopefully bring him that much sought-after Nobel Peace Prize. Didn't happen. The IOC will go back to ex-host cities if they are the best of the lot bidding; and the geo-politix are right. Those 2 have to go hand-in-hand in the process.

This is the IOC we're talking about. They'll award the Olympics to whichever of the bidder they damn well feel like giving it to. It's almost pointless to get caught up in historical narratives or future predictions, because in reality, that stuff is meaningless. Next July, the voters of the IOC will have a decision in front of them.. Beijing or Almaty, pick one. None of these histrionics we tend to obsess over. It's that simple.

I'm not saying geopolitics aren't important, but Tony just makes it seem like nothing else, besides that, is important.

Not just that.. Tony sees 3 straight Olympics in Asia and then proclaims 2024 is "Europe's time." Therefore, any decent bid from Europe is automatically better any other bid from any other continent because the IOC is looking for a bid from Europe. Thus, it has to be Rome or Paris or Berlin. We've seen the IOC go off script before (i.e. 2020) and pick a continent they might not otherwise have given who the bidders are. No reason to assume that 2024 is destined to land somewhere, especially that we don't know the field of bidders yet. Eventually someone might emerge that we say is destined to win. But we aren't even close to that point yet.

[runningrings]

As for the discussion of the Tokyo decision being a sign of more repeat hosts to come - this is obvious - as more cities host, and time goes by, more and more hosts this century will be repeat hosts (doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that one out).

This century has already seen three former hosts (Athens, London and Tokyo) and I'd say over the next 50 years we'll very likely see the likes of Seoul, Los Angeles, Moscow, Rome, Melbourne and Paris have a good chance of doing it again.

[aquaman617]

England is wealthy. Fact.

Of course it is. It appears to me that what was being said was that of the two European "mother countries," England and France, only England produced advanced, wealthy, western economies with a wealth of capable host cities. France has not.

[runningrings]

I'd argue that the rise of the US has had more to do with the global eminence of the English language, and rise over French language, than anything to do with Britain itself. The British Empire set up the foundations but Pan-Americanism capitalised on this.

As for the relative differences between the post- French and British empires, it's more that the British had a stronger footing in less contested regions - and left in different ways. Still, both have produced some shocking legacies beyond North America and Australia/NZ

(Not to diminish the genocide that the British systemically engaged in here in Australia against the Indigenous people- which set the scene for centuries of Australian racial policy failure)

[Luffy]

Well naturally

[Luffy]

Well of course it has everything to do with the emergence of the US as the world first nation and not so much with England.

I think the US prefers, for logistic purposes, for easier travel for its fans and maybe for just having more cultural aspects in comon, to see the game awarded to Australia or England and that helped them get the few votes more they needed to win the games.

Thinking that isn't taking away the greatness of London 2012 and Sydney 2000 off, nor diminishing the extreme quality of the bids.

[Rob.]

I don't think the IOC inherently prefers English speaking hosts. They've had a few in recent years, but the circumstances in those races determined that, not the language of the nations. Coincidence, nothing more. I certainly haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

[baron-pierreIV]

to add to this discussion, well, English is one of the organization's 2 working languages; and there are probably MORE English-speaking-first IOC members than there are French-speaking-1st/only members. That's just a guess. I'll leave the actual counting to someone else, as they probably would.

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

Not being biased. but England helped the English Language spread.

[woohooitsme83]

Well hit my knackers and slap that Joe! I never knew of such a concept!

ENGland

ENGlish

[baron-pierreIV]

/\/\ So ENG Bunker, one of the two original Siamese twins, must've been English!! How come his conjoined twin, Chang, wasn't??

http://www2.lib.unc.edu/dc/bunkers/

Edited October 26, 2014 by baron-pierreIV

[mr.bernham]

/\/\ So ENG Bunker, one of the two original Siamese twins, must've been English!! How come his conjoined twin, Chang, wasn't??

http://www2.lib.unc.edu/dc/bunkers/

What the hell are you talking about?

[baron-pierreIV]

What the hell are you talking about?

If I have to explain it to you, then you OBVIOUSLY don't get it. Didn't you see the "/\/\"? Connect it to the previous post. You're just too young to get it.

[Alexjc]

I don't think the IOC inherently prefers English speaking hosts. They've had a few in recent years, but the circumstances in those races determined that, not the language of the nations. Coincidence, nothing more. I certainly haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

Hmmm...you can still see the convenience of an English speaking host, but not really needed on a cycle especially now with excellent connectivity. Also isn't English, as well as French, compulsory languages spoken at any Olympic host city?

[gromit]

The Winter Games will be a much greater issue for future hosts

Arguably a post games legacy is more difficult for a bid because you have the ski jumping hills and bobsleigh run which either require post games use or to be dismantled.

You then have the physical geographical environment necessitated by the alpine events.

Take 2022 .... we see 6 contenders whittled down to 2, losing the favourites of St Moritz, Munich and Oslo along the way and end up with two unappealing options - Almaty and Beijing.

Like with the 2022 World Cup, I can easily see sporting seasons requiring to be compromised so that the Winter Games can be held in places like Santiago, Bariloche, Christchurch/Queenstown etc

[Quaker2001]

Take 2022 .... we see 6 contenders whittled down to 2, losing the favourites of St Moritz, Munich and Oslo along the way and end up with two unappealing options - Almaty and Beijing.

Like with the 2022 World Cup, I can easily see sporting seasons requiring to be compromised so that the Winter Games can be held in places like Santiago, Bariloche, Christchurch/Queenstown etc

Let's be fair about what FIFA is "required" to do for 2022. They chose to put the World Cup in Qatar knowing what it might mean for the calendar. And here we are with FIFA in a huge quagmire. They had a number of willing candidates for which this wouldn't have been an issue. The question is not about a requirement.. is it worth that compromise to go to Qatar? Sure doesn't seem like it's worth the trouble.

As for the IOC.. think about the circumstances that left us with these 2 candidates. All of these traditional European cities/countries balked at bidding for the Olympics. If they are not willing to enter the race, why would non-traditional places want to bid themselves? You want to jump ahead to where 1 of those cities has been awarded the Olympics, but that doesn't happen in the first place unless they bid. And they're not going to bid unless it makes sense for them to do so because it's more trouble that it's worth to compromise the calendar simply to go to 1 of those locations. You can't put the cart before the horse.

Again, as I brought up in another thread.. a southern hemisphere Olympics means building facilities in a location that's not accessible to a lot of people, convincing people to watch and/or attend a Winter Olympics when it's summer for about 90% of the world's population, and throw off everyone's calendar to where there's a good chance it's going to cost you money. If (that's the key word there) a southern hemisphere city were to bid and could convince a majority of voters that they are the best location for a quadrennial event, then the IOC could make the choice to compromise the calendar. But when you have an organization that is funding by television dollars and sponsorship money and needs to work in harmony with the individual sport federations, that's not something the IOC can do.

You think the IOC is unpopular now? Imagine what happens if they start make demands like what you're suggesting. How's that working out for FIFA?

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

I just hope the IOC doesn't make it's reputation as bad as Fifa's. As long as the IOC doesn't choose Qatar as Hosts, the IOC will be fine.

[Alexjc]

...

Again, as I brought up in another thread.. a southern hemisphere Olympics means building facilities in a location that's not accessible to a lot of people, convincing people to watch and/or attend a Winter Olympics when it's summer for about 90% of the world's population, and throw off everyone's calendar to where there's a good chance it's going to cost you money. If (that's the key word there) a southern hemisphere city were to bid and could convince a majority of voters that they are the best location for a quadrennial event, then the IOC could make the choice to compromise the calendar. But when you have an organization that is funding by television dollars and sponsorship money and needs to work in harmony with the individual sport federations, that's not something the IOC can do.

Re: That Southern Hemisphere venue...Nailed it.

The cost, all round, is simply too great.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Alexjc