Too Many Olympic Bid Losers, IOC Chief Says; Vows Further Changes To Come

[GBModerator]

The Olympic bid site selection process “produces too many losers” International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Thomas Bach said Thursday at a quarterly Executive Board meeting held in Lausanne, Switzerand. Cities that are interested in hosting the Olympic Games have declined over the past several years but the IOC had hoped to bolster the number of […]

View the full article

[intoronto]

Fifa saw how bad it was to award two World Cups at the same time, the IOC should learn from that mistake.

So what if there are too many losers? That is the point of a contest - 1 winner, and all entrants understand that!

[Rob2012]

16 minutes ago, intoronto said:

Fifa saw how bad it was to award two World Cups at the same time, the IOC should learn from that mistake.

My reaction as well....scary how obvious this is isn't it??!! It beggars belief that they're even considering this after the 2018/22 FIFA debacle. Anyway. the real problem the IOC has is getting bids to stay the course, not "too many losers".

[baron-pierreIV]

Obviously, the Paris and LA bids are leaning heavily on the IOC; and the IOC is indeed listening.  And this situation is exactly like it was a century ago when the French colluded with the Dutch to go for a Paris 1924 / Amsterdam 1928 tandem  (with LA and Rome being squeezed out).  Coubertin got his way with Paris 1924; Amsterdam got 1928; and 1932 fell to LA, when again, there were no more bidders interested in 1932.  What do they say, history repeats itself, except the IOC may indeed just lock in 2028 now, since they already have 2 very strong candidates who may not come back for 2028.

But I see the dynamics and stakes different from the FIFA awarding.  The FIFA awards were to nations (including newcomer nations who had never hosted a World CUp before).  The IOC is faced with 2 veteran cities who have put on the Games and know what they are doing; and when the IOC played in those cities, there were no adverse geo-political effects.  Having said all that, I wouldn't be surprised if the IOC does a one-two 2024/2028 trick in Lima next year.  ANd they would probably give Budapest an IOC Session or a Youth Games as compensation for being the 3rd loser.  

[FYI]

36 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

What do they say, history repeats itself, except the IOC may indeed just lock in 2028 now, since they already have 2 very strong candidates who may not come back for 2028.

But I see the dynamics and stakes different from the FIFA awarding.  The FIFA awards were to nations (including newcomer nations who had never hosted a World CUp before).  The IOC is faced with 2 veteran cities who have put on the Games and know what they are doing; and when the IOC played in those cities, there were no adverse geo-political effects.  Having said all that, I wouldn't be surprised if the IOC does a one-two 2024/2028 trick in Lima next year,

I agree that this isn't quite similar (if at all) to the FIFA debacle. With FIFA, both their 2018 & 2022 hosts were very questionable TBW, especially the latter. With the IOC, it looks like they really want to lock in on two sure Olympics now without the risk that one of those will not come back to bid for 2028, particularly the European choice.

And with cities dropping out, or not even stepping up to the plate to bid to begin with lately, it seems that they're getting antsy & looks like they want to save themselves more "dropping out" or NO candidate or reject candidate headaches, at least for one cycle. 

[Sir Rols]

My initial reaction to the notion was that they should steer clear of it as far as they could - the whole FIFA 2018-22 precedent just sets off too many alarms.

But, on consideration, and after reading some of the other comments here, well, it's not too bad a suggestion. When the IOC has two such solid cities, both in countries and markets it would be great to get starting to feel positive about the Olympics again, both of whom would be a negative, or at least a big pity, to reject or lose, both really with no suggestion of corruption or iffiness about them... well, it would make a lot of sense to reward and lock in both and avoid giving either party bad blood towards the IOC in the future. It's really not quite the FIFA situation, or how the FIFA situation eventually played out. And there is a positive precedent too, with how the RFU eventually awarded its 2015-19 World Cups so as to ensure a "new frontier" like Japan could overcome the rugby power hosting monopoly.

it'd be a disaster for GamesBids, though. No summer bids to discuss till the mid 2020s! RIP GBids.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Sir Rols

[baron-pierreIV]

With the FIFA votes in 2010, they went from the LARGEST Nation on the planet (size-wise), to one of the smallest (and with the harshest climates for the event that was up for grabs), in one afternoon (or was it over 2 days?)  -- the most BIZARRE jump of any major plum-awarding instance.    

If the IOC parcels out Paris and LA for 2024 and 2028, these are NOT the extremes that Russia and Qatar presented in FIFA's very complex categorization; and by giving it to France and the USA, they will be soothing two major Olympic players who have felt shut out of hosting duties for awhile.  And with Budapest being the 3rd bidder and only possible loser, the IOC would inflict the less damage on its constituents unlike in a situation where they may have 3 other losing cities, therefore, more bad blood afterward.  This way, only Hungary will feel aggrieved; but Budapest knows they are not in the same league as their rivals.  

With the problems in Tokyo (an ex-host in a rich nation) 4 years out, and the way Durban is NOT shaping up for its CWG debut, I am sure the IOC is getting plenty nervous for its next 2 or 3 rounds.  And then the IOC would have a less antsy field for 2026 as well, especially as it looks like they make want to make peace with their host country, Switzerland and get that off the list.   

Edited December 9, 2016 by baron-pierreIV

[Sir Rols]

Well, yeah. They can afford to disappoint Budapest - I'm sure even the Hungarians realise they're a long shot and are just counting on luck. But there'd even be sighs of relief by many if/when Hungary loses - their politics don't sit well with many. But so many times in this race, so many of the arguments here have come down to: Who between France/Western Europe and the USA can they afford to offend the least? I think this suggestion - and Bach's way of putting it - "there's too manu bid losers" - shows this is a dilemma playing on their minds.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Sir Rols

[FYI]

And also by doing so, it would cut out the usual extensive & expensive routine of a bid campaign, & make it seem like the IOC's "agenda 2020" is also "cutting costs" in that arena as well, even if it's just for one cycle.

[thatsnotmypuppy]

I'm erring on the side of this being actually a solid idea.  In this case at least why not confirm Paris and LA as the next 2 hosts if they are open to that option? Yes - poor Budapest... but whatevs.  The 'prospective bids' for 2028 according to Wikipedia seem to be either 2024 bidders/almost bidders (Germany, France, Italy etc) and longer shots - Russia, South Korea, Qatar etc.  There is still very little chance of an Aussie or South African bid so why not trial this plan now?

 

I wonder how this could have played out retrospectively if they go this way.. would we have seen Beijing get 2000 and Sydney 2004 back in 1993 or vice versa?  How would have that affected 2008/2012?  Athens or London may have missed out for Paris or Toronto?  What a thing to ponder...

Edited December 9, 2016 by thatsnotmypuppy

[Sir Rols]

13 minutes ago, thatsnotmypuppy said:

I'm erring on the side of this being actually a solid idea.

That's the rub, though, isn't it? For all the sense it might make, as discussed above, isn't the bid process already too far gone to change the rules at this stage? I notice that the GamesBids story has Bach not ruling out the possibility, but over on Insidethegames, it mention's Bach's statement, but then also quotes: 

IOC Presidential spokesperson Mark Adams attempted to downplay the likelihood of this happening when speaking to insidethegames afterwards."There will be a normal bidding process leading up to the 2024 election in Lima," he said.

It also reminds that both Paris and LA have stated in the past that 2024 is a one-shot bid for them (though, of course we'd all take that with a grain of salt).

It just seems to me the process is already a bit too far advanced to start changing the rules now. And then you'd have to lock in whether Paris or LA would be prepared and accept to have their plans altered to factor in four more years (yes, we'd think that wouldn't be a problem, but there could be hitches - availability of funds, locations, existing timetables for certain projects etc). Maybe they could say that they will vote on 2024 as normal, but automatically the losers are put into a vote for 2028, but then again there may well be lots of, or at least some (Baku, Doha, Brisbane etc)  other cities with en eye on 2028 that might call foul. In all, after thinking, the idea may sound good in theory, but there would be a lot of inevitable problems and drawbacks to changing the rules midstream now. 

Like I said earlier, I think it indicates the dilemma they have and that whoever they now choose, someone next year is gonna be mighty pissed. And that with the image problems they're facing now, it would be fantastic for them if they had a Paris-LA 24-28 pairing in the bag.

The other interesting takeaway from the GamesBids story is the mention that Toronto dropped out of 2024 on advice, or after talks, with the IOC. WTF was that reasoning?

[baron-pierreIV]

Because 2024 will be Paris' centennial, and of course, gran-gran-grandpere Pierre de C will feature prominently in those Games, perhaps in a pre-vote, the was the IOC would present this to Paris and LA, is that -- like the Miss Universe contest -- if Paris flubs along the way, like Rio and Tokyo are doing, LA, the First Runner-up, stands ready in the wings to host 2024; but at the same time, LA is in a lock for 2028.  And only then would then open up 2028 in the normal way.  

As a parting shot, I found this mahvelous clip on Utube on the last Bastile Day (2016) military ceremonies.  I can see a lot of that on the Stade de France in 2024.    See that's the way an Opening Ceremony March should be -- N delegations bigger than 36 or 40 athletes.  It runs so much faster and more efficiently.  Stragglers should just be left at the Village.

 

Edited December 9, 2016 by baron-pierreIV

[thatsnotmypuppy]

2 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

That's the rub, though, isn't it? For all the sense it might make, as discussed above, isn't the bid process already too far gone to change the rules at this stage? I notice that the GamesBids story has Bach not ruling out the possibility, but over on Insidethegames, it mention's Bach's statement, but then also quotes: 

IOC Presidential spokesperson Mark Adams attempted to downplay the likelihood of this happening when speaking to insidethegames afterwards."There will be a normal bidding process leading up to the 2024 election in Lima," he said.

It also reminds that both Paris and LA have stated in the past that 2024 is a one-shot bid for them (though, of course we'd all take that with a grain of salt).

It just seems to me the process is already a bit too far advanced to start changing the rules now. And then you'd have to lock in whether Paris or LA would be prepared and accept to have their plans altered to factor in four more years (yes, we'd think that wouldn't be a problem, but there could be hitches - availability of funds, locations, existing timetables for certain projects etc). Maybe they could say that they will vote on 2024 as normal, but automatically the losers are put into a vote for 2028, but then again there may well be lots of, or at least some (Baku, Doha, Brisbane etc)  other cities with en eye on 2028 that might call foul. In all, after thinking, the idea may sound good in theory, but there would be a lot of inevitable problems and drawbacks to changing the rules midstream now. 

Like I said earlier, I think it indicates the dilemma they have and that whoever they now choose, someone next year is gonna be mighty pissed. And that with the image problems they're facing now, it would be fantastic for them if they had a Paris-LA 24-28 pairing in the bag.

The other interesting takeaway from the GamesBids story is the mention that Toronto dropped out of 2024 on advice, or after talks, with the IOC. WTF was that reasoning?

All of this I get - however it is entirely the IOC's call - and if they sweeten the deal by - say - upping the revenue sharing for 2024/26/28/30/32 it will be well received.

Of course we are assuming that this hasn't already been put to the 2024 bidders (unofficially).  The infrastructure/fundiong will probably not be an issue with LA - their Games are practically pre-paid at this point.  I think it would be prudent to allow Paris to go first.

[Athan]

I don't think it would be fair for cities that may be interested in 2028 but didn't want (or were encouraged not) to bid for 2024 to award 2024 and 2028 together next year. Imagine, for example, if it had been decided to award 2020 and 2024 among the 2020 bidders once it was no longer possible for other cities to submit a bid: Paris and LA wanted 2024, not 2020, and therefore they didn't bid for 2020, but had Istanbul or Madrid been awarded 2024, neither Paris nor LA would have had the chance to try to get 2024.

I agree, however, that it's a possiblity that could be studied for the future. It could be a good way to ensure strong bids aren't thrown away.

[FYI]

^The IOC didn't ponder that idea then bcuz the lot of the 2020 bidders were not all that solid TBW to have one the losers of 2020 automatically be awarded 2024, Plus, "agenda 2020" had just been rolled out & the IOC thought that would make for more bidders in the future, but that's not necessarily panning out now, 

This time, the IOC has two, extremely ROCK-solid bids on the table for 2024, & with the likelyhood of one of those not coming back for 2028, especially Paris (L.A. I call bluff), & with potential bid cities still dropping out (i.e. Hamburg, Rome), the IOC seems antsy (& nervous) to lock in some very strong candidates now, rather than risk having subpar choices for 2028 (i.e. 2022 anyone), especially if L.A. were to somehow snag 2024. I think that's where this may be all coming from really.

And as for the "fair" aspect of other cities who may be interested in 2028, again, if the *risk* of choices won't cut the mustard  (bcuz the real credible cities will still stay away due to "costs") why would the IOC really care about those subpar bidders anyway, & is probably why they're pondering this scenario now ITFP.

[baron-pierreIV]

THe thing is, the summer party becomes BIGGER & BIGGER each year, os obviously even 7 years is not long enough to prepare to meet all the demands of a 21st century Summer Olympic & Paralympic Games.  It starts 10 years before -- when you get serious about wanting to go for it.   And the IOC and IPC really has to anoint their Summer choices, say before the close of the current Olympiad, so in the final week before Closing.  That'll give the bid cites 8 years to plan and execute, plus will have boots-on-the-ground to actually observe real-time situation for FOUR Olympic Games.  

[FYI]

 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

The other interesting takeaway from the GamesBids story is the mention that Toronto dropped out of 2024 on advice, or after talks, with the IOC. WTF was that reasoning?

I know, I thought the same thing when I read that. And the only things I could come up with were one, they probably didn't want Doha & Baku to point anykind of accusitory fingers, &/or two, they didn't want a Canadian bid in the midst with an American one. Or it could be totally something else, cuz yeah, I would be VERY interested in that "reasoning" my self, cuz it's not like Toronto couldn't cut the mustard afterall, as far as a bid is concerned. 

[Sir Rols]

5 hours ago, FYI said:

I know, I thought the same thing when I read that. And the only things I could come up with were one, they probably didn't want Doha & Baku to point anykind of accusitory fingers, &/or two, they didn't want a Canadian bid in the midst with an American one. Or it could be totally something else, cuz yeah, I would be VERY interested in that "reasoning" my self, cuz it's not like Toronto couldn't cut the mustard afterall, as far as a bid is concerned. 

The only other thing I could think of is the IOC telling them "you'd be unlikely to win against Paris". But then again, at the same time they were encouraging the US to join.

I can't remember when the Toronto speculation and then decision to bail happened. Was it still Boston as the USOC's bidder at the time, or had they already moved on to LA? If Boston, it makes the IOC discouraging Toronto seem even stranger.

[FYI]

32 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

I can't remember when the Toronto speculation and then decision to bail happened. Was it still Boston as the USOC's bidder at the time, or had they already moved on to LA? If Boston, it makes the IOC discouraging Toronto seem even stranger.

What really sparked Toronto's interest in bidding for 2024, was right after their hosting of the 2015 Pan Am Games. Which by that time, Boston 2024 had just been brushed aside by the USOC & their efforts fully turned to L.A. to try & salvage their 2024 endeavor.  

So I wonder if the IOC really was  looking to save Toronto any grief at that point, & as you say, they'd be unlikely to win against Paris anyway, & then throw in another dominant player like the U.S. (L.A.), & Toronto's realistic chances would get reduced even further. That's why it makes it all the mote strange now why the IOC is still stringing Budapest along. I mean seriously, Tononto no, but Budapest yes?! 

[baron-pierreIV]

22 minutes ago, FYI said:

What really sparked Toronto's interest in bidding for 2024, was right after their hosting of the 2015 Pan Am Games. Which by that time, Boston 2024 had just been brushed aside by the USOC & their efforts fully turned to L.A. to try & salvage their 2024 endeavor.  

So I wonder if the IOC really was  looking to save Toronto any grief at that point, & as you say, they'd be unlikely to win against Paris anyway, & then throw in another dominant player like the U.S. (L.A.), & Toronto's realistic chances would get reduced even further. That's why it makes it all the mote strange now why the IOC is still stringing Budapest along. I mean seriously, Tononto no, but Budapest yes?! 

 

Well, I think Budapest is honest with itself, in that this ia a mere exercise for them.  Toronto was probably going to go whole hog; and I think the IOC would rather see a Calgary bid for 2026 so that if Innsbruck or Suisse fall through, there's another viable town who's done it before. 

[Sir Rols]

The more you think about the implications of the Toronto "advice" the more intriguing it gets.

Okay, we often bemoan that the IOC don't advise some bidders that they're wasting their time, when in fact it does happen - Baku and Doha in this race case in point.

We also know that it's used some back chatter to this end in the past - Samaranch advised Madrid they were wasting their time and money and they didn't listen him. Paris 2012 were advised they'd be wise to play it more low key (and to their chagrin after the event, they DID listen to them). 

But Toronto - okay, maybe their chances were iffy against Paris and, later, LA. But still, they're hardly also-rans. Between them and the USA, they'd be a good shot for the next gams to come to the Americas. But to discourage them, but allow Budapest, and also express disappointment at Hamburg's withdrawal? Best gloss I could think of is that they, at least then, saw Paris as the 2024 "lock" and were telling them 2028 was better primed for them. But now LA has surprised us all and that 2028 slot may not be so attractive after all if the USA does snatch it out from under paris.

[stryker]

A couple thoughts here. About a week or so ago, the IOC warned Tokyo to keep the budget under $20 billion soaring costs could permanently damage the Olympics reputation (I took this to mean fewer bidders coming forward). Frankly, I highly doubt Tokyo will be able to meet this figure. However, for the first time, it looks as though alarm bells are going off in the halls of the IOC over skyrocketing costs to the point where the Olympics are seen as a too-big-too expensive venture. Now to Bach's comments about possibly awarding the 2024 and 2028 hosts together. Think about it. There's only three cities bidding for 2024 in what is really a two horse race. 2028 lines up perfectly for Los Angeles. A Paris win likely removes Europe, the IOC isn't going back to Asia anytime soon, there's no viable candidate from Africa now that Durban is struggling to even host the CWGs, and after Rio the IOC isn't going to jump back to South America so quickly. Besides North America, where would the IOC go? Australia maybe? There's another possibility and one the IOC would like to avoid. What if Los Angeles was the only city to bid for 2028? It's not out of the question. Sure the likes of Baku and Doha are probably more than willing to throw their hats into the ring but the IOC isn't going to either one of those cities as long as another viable candidate is in the race. With concerns about soaring costs leading to fewer bidders, why not award the 2024 and 2028 Olympics to Paris and Los Angeles respectively? They would restore credibility and confidence to the Olympic movement after the debacle of the 2022 race, the $50 billion WOGs in Sochi, and Tokyo and Pyeongchang who are both likely to go over budget not to mention be saddled with white elephants as is already the case in Rio and will likely be the case in Pyeongchang. The idea isn't without problems. Of course while Los Angeles would be a heavy favorite in 2028, there's no guarantee the city would automatically line up for hosting.

[zekekelso]

Maybe the IOC isn't sure that any credible city will be for 2028 and wants to lock in LA while they can. 

[baron-pierreIV]

All that talk about Tokyo 2020 costing $20 billion I'm sure is playing heavy on the minds of the IOC.  Even if LA will have its finances in check and has at least an 80% support on the ground now, who's to say that figure could go down to 55% in 2020-21 when host 2028 will be picked going by the regular schedule.  So I think it's a wise move for the IOC to lock in Paris and LA for 2024 and 2028.  They'll at least spare LA and the USOC from spending another $75 million for a shot at 2028.  

P.S. And what's LA's projected budget now $5.3 billion?  Who's to say that won't become $8.3 billion four years from now, in which case, the costs would turn away a lot of LA's ground support for now because $5.3 billion looks like a bargain compared to Beijing's $44 billion, Sochi's $50 billion, Rio's God-knows-what-bankrupt-figures they finally crunched; Tokyo's $20 billion.  What is Paris' projected expenditure - $16 billion or something?  

Edited December 10, 2016 by baron-pierreIV

[FYI]

34 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

So I think it's a wise move for the IOC to lock in Paris and LA for 2024 & 2028. They'll at least spare LA and the USOC from spending another $75 million for a shot at 2028.  

Exactly, & I pretty much brought up that aspect just the other day.

On December 8, 2016 at 10:11 PM, FYI said:

And also by doing so, it would cut out the usual extensive & expensive routine of a bid campaign, & make it seem like the IOC's "agenda 2020" is also "cutting costs" in that arena as well, even if it's just for one cycle.

 

44 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

All that talk about Tokyo 2020 costing $20 billion I'm sure is playing heavy on the minds of the IOC.  Even if LA will have its finances in check and has at least an 80% support on the ground now, who's to say that figure could go down to 55% in 2020-21 when host 2028 will be picking going by the regular schedule. 

Yeah, that's another sticky point to consider.