Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sportsjapan

USOC gets Olympic bid wrong again

Recommended Posts

They might be right about it being the wrong choice but I think the assumption that USOC chose Boston in the hope of a sympathy vote from the marathon bombing is very wide of the mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They might be right about it being the wrong choice but I think the assumption that USOC chose Boston in the hope of a sympathy vote from the marathon bombing is very wide of the mark.

Definitely, they chose Boston because it was our most unique and most stable plan. I was very shocked and surprised at first, but I have come to realize that Bostons bid will be fantastic and even if they loose it will have been a great representative for the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this in the comments section, I think it sums up all you need to know about this article..

Helen Bedd

armchair psychology, civic boosterism and sour grapes from jack gallagher, a native of san jose....

Seems like this guy knows what he's talking about, but he's from the Bay Area. So this sounds like a case of a little butthurtitis. I get the idea that someone looks at this and blames sentiment from the Boston Marathon on this choice and I agree if that were the case (which I don't think it is), it would be stupid. But, and I'll say this as an arrogant New Yorker, don't downplay 9/11 as if it's on the same level as these other incidents we've seen from around the world. It was a watermark event in the history of the war on terror that claimed the lives of thousands, not hundreds. And considering it did play into the narrative of the 2002 Opening Ceremony in Salt Lake City, it's obviously a bigger deal than this guy gives it credit for. Did it mean anything in the grand scheme of things towards NYC's chances at winning? Probably not, but they were never going to get it done anyway for a whole host of other reasons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the other 'douche' that wrote about L.A. in the article I posted the other day. The only thing 'predictable' here is the amateurish & bias tone of this 'piece'. How in the world could San Francisco "showcased" all of it's iconic settings in the 2012 bid when virtually everything was proposed all the way down the Bay near San Jose. Could it had been that New York actually proposed something more cohesive than "San Francisco" 2012 did. What a novel idea from the USOC.

Looks like the main reason San Francisco keeps getting bypassed is bcuz they can't seem to get a solid game plan together. Or at the very least, something that is workable. A half-a$sed San Francicso bid wouldn't have done any better than any other U.S. city in a 2024 field that could include the strong likes of Paris, Berlin, Rome, South Africa, Istanbul. If it hadn't been Boston, it would've been L.A. But San Francisco wasn't going to be it. Even the USOC stated at one point that in "ideal" circumstances, San Francisco would be their pick. Well, obviously the circumstances weren't ideal for the city by the bay (yet again). And any other far-fetched excuses like the ones here are only made in denail of the real issues that kept San Fran away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the other 'douche' that wrote about L.A. in the article I posted the other day. The only thing 'predictable' here is the amateurish & bias tone of this 'piece'. How in the world could San Francisco "showcased" all of it's iconic settings in the 2012 bid when virtually everything was proposed all the way down the Bay near San Jose. Could it had been that New York actually proposed something more cohesive than "San Francisco" 2012 did. What a novel idea from the USOC.

Looks like the main reason San Francisco keeps getting bypassed is bcuz they can't seem to get a solid game plan together. Or at the very least, something that is workable. A half-a$sed San Francicso bid wouldn't have done any better than any other U.S. city in a 2024 field that could include the strong likes of Paris, Berlin, Rome, South Africa, Istanbul. If it hadn't been Boston, it would've been L.A. But San Francisco wasn't going to be it. Even the USOC stated at one point that in "ideal" circumstances, San Francisco would be their pick. Well, obviously the circumstances weren't ideal for the city by the bay (yet again). And any other far-fetched excuses like the ones here are only made in denail of the real issues that kept San Fran away.

But really, the thing about a SF bid is actually its geography. The core of an Olympic bid is a tight little city bounded by water on 3 sides and then limited access only to the outlying sites/cities. If anything goes wrong on BART, the Bay Bridge, San Mateo Bridge-- there are really very few alternatives to move people, athletes around an about those conduits. I also fear that things like the Swim Venue for this 2024 plan (on one of the old piers) was just too hemmed in, i.e., you could only approach it from the land side. So unlike other bids in which the various major venues are all accessible from several points of access/egress, the SF venues had approaches which were a little too limited.

Treasure Island was going to be another problem venue -- pretty much only one road to and from for the Tennis and Sailing venues. Just by a quick look, I don't think Boston's major venue projections are in places where there will be limited access and egress.

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not, but they were never going to get it done anyway for a whole host of other reasons

you're right, but it's disappointing that they gave up after one try. where were they this time, when they could have gone toe-to-toe with paris given a halfway decent stadium?

i wish they had never bid at all. i wish they had been the one city in the world to think themselves above the IOC. "the olympics? that's more a london gimmick. we've got enough tourists." it doesn't work when they've lost to london.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I don't think it really matters what city the USOC put forward. I don't see how the IOC doesn't go back to Europe after they gave 2020 to Tokyo. The IOC is still Eurocentric enough they are not going to go three summer games cycles without going back to Europe. While it's still early, indications are the European heavyweights are going to come out with Rome and a bid from Germany and probably more to come. Say the USOC chose LA or SF. Would the IOC really neglect Europe for a third consecutive summer games cycle over Rome or Berlin? The only bid that could potentially derail the IOC going back to Europe is a bid from South Africa and who knows what there intentions are.

This is one cycle where the USOC should've taken a cue from Canada. Canada elected to sit out 2024 due to the fact that the climate for the IOC returning to the Americas just isn't there. The USOC is wasting time and money on a bid that is likely to fair no better than New York or Chicago. It reminds me a lot of when Madrid came up just short for 2012 and took a shot at 2016 even though it was highly unlikely the IOC would award back to back summer games to Europe. The smart plan would've been to wait until 2028 with the understanding that if the 2028 bid was unsuccessful, the same city would be in line for a 2032 bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Boston Marathon bombing did play some role in the selection of Boston, as well as 9/11 for NYC, and also Obama helped give Chicago a bit of world recognition since he was a senator from there.

But in all 3 cases the other choices also fell short for various reasons of being able to be the US bid for the Olympics, especially San Francisco. They've tried numerous times and have never been picked to be the US bid ever. Maybe they need to just accept it that they will never be a suitable candidate to host the world.

The article is rather stupid in putting down Boston by comparing it to other worldly cities. San Francisco would not have fared any better against Paris, Rome, Berlin/Hamburg or even an African city. And he mentions London as an exotic city? lol no. Nothing exotic about it, nor any of the European cities interested in bidding for the Olympics. At least Boston is a new and refreshing choice compared to cities who have already hosted and bid multiple times. And Boston is historically more significant than San Francisco, and that's where I think we can benefit in a race against Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Boston is historically more significant than San Francisco, and that's where I think we can benefit in a race against Europe.

Atlanta won w/ only a history of 150 years or so? What has history got to do with it? Boston was picked because as the writer said, and as I have concurred a few times in the past -- it's the dorm rooms, the universities, the fact that the NE has never had a Summer Olympics, and it's in the Eastern time zone. But it's still a stupid Board to have gone this year after the SOGs have been away from Europe 2x in a row already by 2020. Really dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And he mentions London as an exotic city? lol no. Nothing exotic about it

Except it didn't really say that did it?

Look at the last four cities to host the Summer Games — London (2012), Beijing (2008), Athens (2004), Sydney (2000) — and the next two up, Rio de Janeiro (2016) and Tokyo (2020). All of them are either places of great history, or the sites of emerging markets.

That's one thing this article does get right, and it is a problem (or perhaps an opportunity) for Boston. It needs to go out and prove you can win the technical argument in the 21st century without being a mega-city, and it also needs to prove you can win the emotional argument without being a new frontier. Whilst the wording is slightly odd, I think this author does (maybe inadvertantly) get this right.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be so confident that Europe has a lock on 2024. It could very well be the North America's turn in many IOC members' minds. Potential 2026 bidders will start coming to the fore in the next year (remember, the 2024 US candidate cities have been making their intentions known since 2012-2013). Only North America, Asia and Europe can host the Winter Games. I don't see a US city making too much noise about going for 2026 right now and, if the USOC *really* wants 2024, it may discourage a place like Denver from putting too much effort forward for 2026. Canada would be the wild card here, but would they expect to win having just hosted in 2010? After the 2018-2022 cycle, I see a moratorium on Asia for a few cycles. It would seem (from this far out), that Europe will be almost unbeatable for the 2026 Winter Games.

While appealing from a continental perspective, I think the delays and issues around Rio's prep, I honestly don't think the IOC will be looking to put the Games in an emerging economy like South Africa for at least a couple more cycles.

I should stress that I don't think the IOC would take an inferior US bid over a technically superior European one. But if two bids had similar technical merit, geography may be the deciding factor. Assuming only European locations will be the bidding for 2026, North America may have the edge on 2024.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is still the Eurocentric IOC we're dealing with here. I'm sure that they would have no qualms about putting both 2024 & 2026 in Europe, especially after both the Summer & Winter Olympics would have been away from traditional Europe for 12/20 years respectively, by that point, & especially after dealing with three unprecented Asian Olympics in a row. It's not like it hasn't happened betore either; both 1992 winter & Summer, & 1994 all in Europe.

The only way Boston would stand a good, decent chance, is if both Paris & South Africa don't bid (Rio 2016 would have been a year in history by the time the 2024 votes comes around in 2017. Anything barring a total disaster, I don't think the IOC would shy away from a credible South African bid, especially with the aid of Agenda 2020). And if Germany picks Hamburg & Rome struggles with their issues. Anything other than that is wishful thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're right, but it's disappointing that they gave up after one try. where were they this time, when they could have gone toe-to-toe with paris given a halfway decent stadium?

i wish they had never bid at all. i wish they had been the one city in the world to think themselves above the IOC. "the olympics? that's more a london gimmick. we've got enough tourists." it doesn't work when they've lost to london.

But isn't that what they're thinking now? They took their 1 shot, didn't get it done, and said "whatever, there are more important concerns to worry about." For NYC, that bid in that time and place was the 1 to go with. That's how urban planning often tends to work.. you can't sit on plans for the city and put other things on hold as a result in the event you land an Olympics a decade down the line. At least for New York, a lot of projects spurred on by the Olympics got done anyway. That's what I'm curious about with Boston, especially since they're talking about a lot of temporary infrastructure. Is this something they may be able to come back with in 2028 or are there things here that will push forward and hamper a future bid. It's not an either/or situation, but it's also why I want to see more of what they're offering.

Frankly, I don't think it really matters what city the USOC put forward. I don't see how the IOC doesn't go back to Europe after they gave 2020 to Tokyo. The IOC is still Eurocentric enough they are not going to go three summer games cycles without going back to Europe. While it's still early, indications are the European heavyweights are going to come out with Rome and a bid from Germany and probably more to come. Say the USOC chose LA or SF. Would the IOC really neglect Europe for a third consecutive summer games cycle over Rome or Berlin? The only bid that could potentially derail the IOC going back to Europe is a bid from South Africa and who knows what there intentions are.

This is one cycle where the USOC should've taken a cue from Canada. Canada elected to sit out 2024 due to the fact that the climate for the IOC returning to the Americas just isn't there. The USOC is wasting time and money on a bid that is likely to fair no better than New York or Chicago. It reminds me a lot of when Madrid came up just short for 2012 and took a shot at 2016 even though it was highly unlikely the IOC would award back to back summer games to Europe. The smart plan would've been to wait until 2028 with the understanding that if the 2028 bid was unsuccessful, the same city would be in line for a 2032 bid.

I don't see how the IOC goes back to Asia in 2022. Oh wait.. that's going to happen anyway.

We all know the USOC will have trouble competing against European competition. I'm sure they know that, but let's not make proclamations as to what the IOC will or won't do after what they're dealing with in 2022. And as has been noted, at this point in the 2022 bid process, a lot of cities were in the running and how did that turn out? You can't wait for circumstances to be ideal. There's certainly the old rhetoric that the United States has hosted too many times and how dare they think they'll get another one, but there is something to be said for being persistent. It's certainly possible Boston will finish badly in the voting and they might get scared off. But then again, maybe getting back in the game and not waiting for 2028 helps the cause in the long run.

Atlanta won w/ only a history of 150 years or so? What has history got to do with it? Boston was picked because as the writer said, and as I have concurred a few times in the past -- it's the dorm rooms, the universities, the fact that the NE has never had a Summer Olympics, and it's in the Eastern time zone. But it's still a stupid Board to have gone this year after the SOGs have been away from Europe 2x in a row already by 2020. Really dumb.

As has been noted, the members of the IOC who are voting are not college students. Yes, some are former athletes, but I don't think universities and dorms will necessarily sway them. It does help give Boston a narrative (and their history does play into that as well), although who knows how much that is worth. And you say the USOC is stupid and dumb for bidding.. weren't we saying the same thing about China a couple of years ago with their pursuit of the 2022 Olympics? We were all wondering what they were doing? Well, look at them now. I'm not saying we're going to see history repeat itself here, but again, you have to walk a fine line between being cautious of the competition and being brave enough to take a shot even though the odds may not be in your favor. The issues surrounding the revenue deal aside, what happens if the USOC puts a candidate in the 2020 race? Or the 2022 race. You never know who you're up against, so sometimes you just have to put yourself out there and take a chance. Can't win it if you're not in it.

That's one thing this article does get right, and it is a problem (or perhaps an opportunity) for Boston. It needs to go out and prove you can win the technical argument in the 21st century without being a mega-city, and it also needs to prove you can win the emotional argument without being a new frontier. Whilst the wording is slightly odd, I think this author does (maybe inadvertantly) get this right.

I think that's going to speak to what the IOC is looking for. We keep saying Agenda 2020 this or Agenda 2020 that as if we can make presumptions, when in reality, the results will dictate what they're looking for. And the results will be based on their options. There is certainly an argument to be made for Boston going in that sort of non-traditional route, but they still could get burned in that regard. Either way, you're running a risk. Let's hope the USOC has a good gameplan in place, particularly if the competition is on the stronger side rather than the weaker side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you can compare the 2022 race to 2024. The IOC is going to Asia three times in a row because they have no choice. The only way 2024 resembles 2022 is if the likes of Rome, Germany, Paris decide to sit it out, and that's not likely to happen. Of course it's not a foregone conclusion, but has the IOC ever gone three consecutive summer games cycles without going to Europe? No and it's why Europe's in the driver's seat for 2024. The only way a U.S. bid is going to have a legitimate shot is if Europe puts up the likes of Budapest, Prague, or Baku. As I mentioned earlier, the Canadians have already figured this out. If you have bids from Rome, Germany, and possibly Paris, the Boston. bid is dead on arrival. The other bid that could upset the apple cart is South Africa, though it remains to be seen what exactly their intentions are. I agree you cannot always wait for the ideal circumstances to bid, unfortunately, there's also a time when a country has to realize bidding and winning is a real longshot. As for ideal circumstances, one could make the argument 2024 is the most ideal time for a European bid since perhaps 2012. I'd go even further and say the likes of a Rome, Berlin, or Paris would be as heavily favored as Beijing was in 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's not a foregone conclusion, but has the IOC ever gone three consecutive summer games cycles without going to Europe? No and it's why Europe's in the driver's seat for 2024. The only way a U.S. bid is going to have a legitimate shot is if Europe puts up the likes of Budapest, Prague, or Baku. As I mentioned earlier, the Canadians have already figured this out. If you have bids from Rome, Germany, and possibly Paris, the Boston. bid is dead on arrival. The other bid that could upset the apple cart is South Africa, though it remains to be seen what exactly their intentions are.

Of course this is true, but it is also true that the IOC has not gone 3 cycles without a summer Games in Europe because it was not technically possible to host many summer Games outside Europe until recently.

Asia: Until the 1980's, only Japan was capable of hosting. Korea was able by the end of that decade. China only rejoined the movement in 1984 and was only deemed capable in with 2008. No other Asian countries are truly viable hosts (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, India, etc., are extremely unlikely hosts, ever).

Australia: aside from Japan, it was the only viable host in the far east time zone. Two-time host for a country with a population smaller than California's.

Africa: has never been able. Only RSA is even remotely possible. I'd contend they won't be truly on par with others until some time in the 2030s.

South America: only became viable with 2016.

North America: Aside from Europe and Japan, North America was really the only other option the IOC had until 1988. Even then, there were no Summer Games in North America between 1932 and 1968, a 36 year gap. Nine summer Games cycles. North America has only begun to pull even with Europe in terms of hosting in recent decades.

I'm not at all denying that IOC is very Euro-centric - that's demonstrably true - but with the rise of emerging economies and major cities outside Europe, combined with the importance of American TV revenue streams, Europe is no longer the only belle at the ball like it used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think universities and dorms will necessarily sway them.

Just to argue one small point. I don't hold that it will sway them. But it is a very fiscally savvy move for anyone organizing a gargantuan event to NOT ignore this tremendous, cost-saving asset. It is a good legacy point because not only will the host be making use of infrastructure already in place, the benefits will be can-do living facilities for the media (probably they will be housed there) during the 3 weeks party AND refurbished units for incoming students afterwards. This would be a high point for me if I were an IOC voting member.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the USOC got their bid process back to front- instead of asking every big US city to put in a bid, and then work it up to the stage of presenting it to the IOC...it should have worked the other way around, and the USOC should have shortlisted cities that could win a tough international competition (ie NY,Chicago, LA,SF) and then helped the best bid nail an internationally competitive vote. Even fudge the details and change them a bit after winning the Games like everyone does.

Their chosen tactic has produced Boston, that has little chance against Alpha cities. Hamburg would have the same problem.

Australia didn't win with Brisbane or Melbourne, but Alpha city Sydney won on its first bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course this is true, but it is also true that the IOC has not gone 3 cycles without a summer Games in Europe because it was not technically possible to host many summer Games outside Europe until recently.

I'm not at all denying that IOC is very Euro-centric - that's demonstrably true - but with the rise of emerging economies and major cities outside Europe, combined with the importance of American TV revenue streams, Europe is no longer the only belle at the ball like it used to be.

Well, but even by your own outline of continents pretty much demonstrates why Europe would be heavily favored for 2024 if it puts up strong candidates. You listed yourself, that other than Japan, China & South Korea, no other Asian countries are truly viable to host right now. And combine that precisely with those three Asian countries that are about to host the next three Olympics after Rio (Japan, China & South Korea) that virtually shuts Asia out for 2024.

Australia, as well like you said, has hosted relatively recent. And for a relatively smallish nation on the bottom side of the planet, they're not hosting anytime soon, unless Baku & Doha are their only opponents. South America is going to host for the first time next year, so they're out as well for a while. So Africa would be the only wild card here.

Don't read too much into the U.S. revenue deals. Those are already paid & set for 'til the Games of 2032. So it's not like those can be used for leverage. Emerging economies? Well, how would that favor the U.S. then. Seems contraditory to what you're trying to argue, especially when you use that argument against South Africa.

Europe may not be the only game in town anymore, but it'd be foolhardy to discount them simply bcuz new games have come to the market. Especially when those new games have been played at least once already. There's always people up for a good 'ole game of pool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you can compare the 2022 race to 2024. The IOC is going to Asia three times in a row because they have no choice. The only way 2024 resembles 2022 is if the likes of Rome, Germany, Paris decide to sit it out, and that's not likely to happen. Of course it's not a foregone conclusion, but has the IOC ever gone three consecutive summer games cycles without going to Europe? No and it's why Europe's in the driver's seat for 2024. The only way a U.S. bid is going to have a legitimate shot is if Europe puts up the likes of Budapest, Prague, or Baku. As I mentioned earlier, the Canadians have already figured this out. If you have bids from Rome, Germany, and possibly Paris, the Boston. bid is dead on arrival. The other bid that could upset the apple cart is South Africa, though it remains to be seen what exactly their intentions are. I agree you cannot always wait for the ideal circumstances to bid, unfortunately, there's also a time when a country has to realize bidding and winning is a real longshot. As for ideal circumstances, one could make the argument 2024 is the most ideal time for a European bid since perhaps 2012. I'd go even further and say the likes of a Rome, Berlin, or Paris would be as heavily favored as Beijing was in 2008.

I can. And I did. I'm not saying they're necessarily all that similar, but again, at this point in the 2022 bid, we had a lot of bidders in the fold, most of which were from Europe. I wouldn't expect the same to happen for 2024, but it's far from a guarantee all or any of the European cities were talking about bidding actually do bid. Is it really inconceivable to think all of Rome, Paris, and Germany won't bid?

You say the IOC is unlikely to go more than 3 consecutive summer cycles without going to Europe. It's going to happen at some point. I agree this probably won't be it and if they get a big European city, then indeed that city is in the drivers seat. But from the USOC's standpoint, their options to sit out and hope their odds are better in 4 years or to take a shot, full well knowing what the odds look like, and hope to cash in. Ask how Atlanta worked out for them. I know that's a unique circumstance that we shouldn't expect to see repeated, but still, I don't fault the USOC for at least trying.

Don't read too much into the U.S. revenue deals. Those are already paid & set for 'til the Games of 2032. So it's not like those can be used for leverage. Emerging economies? Well, how would that favor the U.S. then. Seems contraditory to what you're trying to argue, especially when you use that argument against South Africa.

This. I've said for awhile that if the TV money coming from the United States ever dried up that the IOC would be begging to come back here. For better or worse, that's no longer the case. We're at least a decade before the next time the IOC even has to think about TV rights here again. So it's not like they can increase their rights fees from NBC or whomever from the United Stated by offering up an Olympics here.

Just to argue one small point. I don't hold that it will sway them. But it is a very fiscally savvy move for anyone organizing a gargantuan event to NOT ignore this tremendous, cost-saving asset. It is a good legacy point because not only will the host be making use of infrastructure already in place, the benefits will be can-do living facilities for the media (probably they will be housed there) during the 3 weeks party AND refurbished units for incoming students afterwards. This would be a high point for me if I were an IOC voting member.

It's an interesting scenario because Boston is theoretically offering up this smart new cost-saving plan. But is it what the IOC is looking for? The answer is probably no if someone else is offering something more grand. The IOC can talk all they want about reforms and cost saving measures, but let's see what happens when the choices are actualy put in front of them. This is why I brought up that the IOC voters are not college students. I could see them wanting what is best for them and their place at that Olympics rather than being concerned with a legacy plan. It shouldn't be that way, but again, let's see them make a vote that shows that before we buy into the concept

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be so confident that Europe has a lock on 2024. It could very well be the North America's turn in many IOC members' minds. Potential 2026 bidders will start coming to the fore in the next year (remember, the 2024 US candidate cities have been making their intentions known since 2012-2013). Only North America, Asia and Europe can host the Winter Games. I don't see a US city making too much noise about going for 2026 right now and, if the USOC *really* wants 2024, it may discourage a place like Denver from putting too much effort forward for 2026. Canada would be the wild card here, but would they expect to win having just hosted in 2010? After the 2018-2022 cycle, I see a moratorium on Asia for a few cycles. It would seem (from this far out), that Europe will be almost unbeatable for the 2026 Winter Games.

While appealing from a continental perspective, I think the delays and issues around Rio's prep, I honestly don't think the IOC will be looking to put the Games in an emerging economy like South Africa for at least a couple more cycles.

I should stress that I don't think the IOC would take an inferior US bid over a technically superior European one. But if two bids had similar technical merit, geography may be the deciding factor. Assuming only European locations will be the bidding for 2026, North America may have the edge on 2024.

This is why I'm never a fan of what continent's turn/time it is. Although I agree with FYI that 2026 will have zero bearing on the 2024 decision. More than a few times we've seen Europe go back to back Summer than Winter. No reason to think it can't happen here. And it's not a matter of discouraging Denver from making the effort.. all the USOC has to say is no and that's the end of that.

Look through your history though. Take 2012. Some will say it was Europe's time. But does that have more to do with the fact that 4 of the 5 bidders were European than anything? We anointed 2016 as South America's time. Why? Because they won.

That said, I do think the sentiment is towards Europe for 2024. Not because it's their time (and again, the field of bidders will go a long way towards determining that), but because of what's happened the last few cycles. A grand total of 2 European cities have even been out there the past 2 Summer bids. Ditto for Winter. You can say that was a lack of desire after 2012-2014, but they still need to restore their reputation and good faith in Europe. To me, that's what makes them the continent most likely to land 2024, moreso than simply because it's their turn.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...