Do you think the IOC should choose both Los Angeles and Paris to host the 2024 and 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games when it convenes in September 2017?

[Athensfan]

Like so many, I've always believed Paris would host 2024. I still do. 

However, I think the IOC really needs the Games in LA ASAP -- even if they don't realize that.

I think it's a bit much to suggest that LA will "save" the Games. But I do think that LA can put forth a dramatically different model and generate much more youth interest and energy than Paris. 

The IOC has dug itself into a huge hole with three consecutive Games in Asia. Western audience share will decline -- especially among youth. LA, IMO, would do more to rebuild than Paris. 

Generally speaking, the French are so dramatic about these sorts of things that I fully expect the IOC to give them the Games just because they don't want to deal with the fallout of a Paris loss. Although I have no doubt that Paris Games would be a success, AT THIS TIME I don't think they offer as much benefit to the Olympic Movement (or should I say Olympic Paralysis?) as LA does. 

But Paris will still get 2024.

I don't think it's a sure think that the LA crew will regroup for 2028. These bids take so much energy and drive. Eric Garcetti, Gene Sykes, Casey Wasserstein all have careers and lives. Do they really want to wait 11 years more? 

Would the USOC even be smart enough to offer LA again? Or would they have another stupid domestic bid? I think the latter is highly plausible. Dallas anyone?

There's also a question of Olympic fatigue. Can the people of LA sustain enthusiasm that long? The corporate sponsors? 

It would be great if the IOC could get both Paris and LA, but I think it's a long-shot. And now that both cities have said they only want 2024, it would be difficult to say, "Surprise! We're giving you 2028 anyway!" The cities would have to be in agreement. 

And no matter what intimations the IOC might make about 2028, there are no guarantees until that 2028 vote is done -- assuming it gets to a vote.

I think it's Paris 2024 no matter what -- even though LA would be better right now for the Olympic Movement. 

If the IOC is smart, they'll enter into talks about 2028 with the USOC and LA after the Paris victory. Assuming that all parties agree on LA 2028, then the IOC should just ratify this at their next general session. Then they overhaul the whole bid process. 

But I suspect it won't go down that way. I think there's a good chance that 2028 could be a total mess with only the likes of Doha bidding. 

I think the majority of the IOC is still in denial about just how untenable the current system actually is.

[baron-pierreIV]

Surprise!  Good to see you back.

My take on this? History repeats itself.  Amsterdam, LA and Paris each faced off for 1924.  Paris and Amsterdam colluded to give Paris 1924 and the French supported the Dutch for Amsterdam 1928.  With LA's persistence, the IOC finally gave them 1932.  Sort of similar situation for 1976-1984, except that one was played against the Cold War backdrop and Montreal was a convenient "neutral" 3rd party option.

Fast-forward a century later, and it's almost the same thing.  Of course, LA will pout and do some strange posturing, but they've had lots of practice.  They will be stupid NOT to settle for 2028.  As for Wasserman and crew, there will be others there ready to take the mantle.  Nothing to worry about.  There are always others ready to step in; that's why they have deputies and surrogates.  It's just the nature of the beast -- but the IOC would like to swing the Games back into Europe's backyard first; then back to the West Coast.    

Edited March 26, 2017 by baron-pierreIV

[FYI]

2 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

As for Wasserman and crew, there will be others there ready to take the mantle.  Nothing to worry about.  There are always others ready to step in; that's why they have deputies and surrogates.  

Exactly - & even if the same ones remain, it'll only be an extra four years 'til 2028 anyway, not eleven more years for them to wait. 

2 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

It's just the nature of the beast -- but the IOC would like to swing the Games back into Europe's backyard first; then back to the West Coast.    

Yep - & this is what gets overlooked by the people who argue L.A.'s points. Which while many are sound, others are also a bit much or exaggerated. Like the whole youth angle & loss of interest. Beijing & London showcased how successful a non-U.S. Olympics can be with U.S. viewers & Paris 2024 would be no different in that regard. I think even Tokyo 2020 will do well. PyeongChang 2018, & especially Beijing 2022, might be a different story, though.

Which then brings the point of why the IOC needs to head back to Europe sooner rather than later. The IOC INdirectly dug themselves into a hole with three-consecutive (East) Asian Olympics. In the case of 2022, all of Europe bailed out, so beggars can't be choosers when all you're left with are the two bids that were at the bottom of the barrel from the get go. In the case of 2020, the IOC merely selected the bid that was most sound in their view. And in the case of 2018, it was just a matter of finally rewarding a perisistant & compelling bid. So the only one that I could really fault the IOC on is 2022 (& 2014, which really started the whole snowball effect of where the IOC is at now). That's where Paris 2024 brings much more benefit to the Olympic Movement than L.A. does. It needs to repair all the fallout the IOC is facing virtually all over Europe. All L.A. can demonstrate at this time is how it could host a cost-effective Games "in" L.A. 

With that said though, if there IS a double-award, L.A. would be totally stupid to outright reject the 2028 Games. I mean how dumb would that be? Turning down a Games that would be virtually handed to you on a silver platter (which an Olympic Games is the ultimate goal anyway)? And if there is no double-award & Paris gets 2024, L.A. & the USOC would be just as foolish not to come back when geopolitically speaking, 2028 would be theirs all the way around.

And the USOC should know better by now that their best bet *at this time* is L.A. & no else. Dallas would just be foolhardy, & I'm sure that Bach & Co. would push for L.A. if it was a choice between those two anyway. As far as L.A. going into Olympic fatigue, I don't buy that one too much. For all the rhetoric of how "the Olympics are in L.A.'s DNA", etc, etc, I don't see that changing anytime soon. And if Olympic fatigue is an argument, it's all the more reason why the IOC NEEDS Paris 2024 (& Europe) ASAP.

[Quaker2001]

15 hours ago, Athensfan said:

Like so many, I've always believed Paris would host 2024. I still do. 

However, I think the IOC really needs the Games in LA ASAP -- even if they don't realize that.

I think it's a bit much to suggest that LA will "save" the Games. But I do think that LA can put forth a dramatically different model and generate much more youth interest and energy than Paris. 

The IOC has dug itself into a huge hole with three consecutive Games in Asia. Western audience share will decline -- especially among youth. LA, IMO, would do more to rebuild than Paris. 

Generally speaking, the French are so dramatic about these sorts of things that I fully expect the IOC to give them the Games just because they don't want to deal with the fallout of a Paris loss. Although I have no doubt that Paris Games would be a success, AT THIS TIME I don't think they offer as much benefit to the Olympic Movement (or should I say Olympic Paralysis?) as LA does. 

But Paris will still get 2024.

I don't think it's a sure think that the LA crew will regroup for 2028. These bids take so much energy and drive. Eric Garcetti, Gene Sykes, Casey Wasserstein all have careers and lives. Do they really want to wait 11 years more? 

Would the USOC even be smart enough to offer LA again? Or would they have another stupid domestic bid? I think the latter is highly plausible. Dallas anyone?

There's also a question of Olympic fatigue. Can the people of LA sustain enthusiasm that long? The corporate sponsors? 

It would be great if the IOC could get both Paris and LA, but I think it's a long-shot. And now that both cities have said they only want 2024, it would be difficult to say, "Surprise! We're giving you 2028 anyway!" The cities would have to be in agreement. 

And no matter what intimations the IOC might make about 2028, there are no guarantees until that 2028 vote is done -- assuming it gets to a vote.

I think it's Paris 2024 no matter what -- even though LA would be better right now for the Olympic Movement. 

If the IOC is smart, they'll enter into talks about 2028 with the USOC and LA after the Paris victory. Assuming that all parties agree on LA 2028, then the IOC should just ratify this at their next general session. Then they overhaul the whole bid process. 

But I suspect it won't go down that way. I think there's a good chance that 2028 could be a total mess with only the likes of Doha bidding. 

I think the majority of the IOC is still in denial about just how untenable the current system actually is.

Good to see you back, if ever so briefly.  Some thoughts in response..

The IOC definitely seems to be their own worst enemy these days and they haven't really come to that realization yet.  Until they do, problems will persist.

Like you, I also agree Paris will likely wind up with 2024, but I don't know that's necessarily a poor decision on the part of the IOC.  People aren't rejecting the Olympics so much as they're rejecting the idea of their city/country hosting.  While LA could certainly offer an Olympics that would be very enticing for the IOC on a number of levels, it would likely be a couple of cycles of bidding before the IOC felt the effects of that.

Consider the flip side where Paris gets 2024.  The IOC finally has a European city on the horizon which means it's not a huge issue if no other Euro cities are in the running for 2028.  By the time they have to declare their intentions for 2032, we'll be close enough to Paris 2024 that perhaps there will have been some lessons to be learned there.  

And then what of LA?  I'd be more concerned about the USOC doing something stupid than I would be about the LA folks lacking interest.  Obviously would help if the IOC would skip the proceedings and do a double-award, but I'm not so confident they'd do that.  Efforts to bring another Olympics to LA have been ongoing since 2001.  More than a couple of people have taken the lead.  Contrast that with NYC's Olympic bid which was largely 1 man's vision, which is 1 of the reasons why it was a one-and-done.  If Garcetti and Wasserman et al. don't want to keep at it, someone else would likely take their place.  Keep in mind that efforts to land the 2024 Olympics began in 2013, so that part of it was going to be an 11 year process anyway.  I'm not concerned in the least about the support of the people of LA.  Corporate sponsors will still be there, and wouldn't it be a boon to them if after a loss for 2024, the IOC was ready to hand them 2028.  And yea, 11 years is a long ways off, but other cities have faced similar situations.  I'm confident LA is in this until they win it and that attitude goes back to 2001 when there were people in LA who thought they were the next logical pick for a US host city.  And for as much as people said here that the only way it would happen is if every other city was given a look first.. well, to an extent that's exactly what happened.  Here we are with LA as the candidate, thank you Boston for falling apart in time for that to happen.

For as much as LA wants 2024 and not 2028 (more on that in a sec), that extra lead-up time might not be the worst thing.  To your point about reaping the benefits of an LA Olympics, having that on board even a decade into the future wouldn't be a terrible thing.  Sponsors could still claim "the Olympics are coming to the United States" and use that time to build up the anticipation.  As noted elsewhere, it gives LA extra time to build up infrastructure and it's not as if the availability of venues would be in question.  It certainly means additional work and some resetting of plans, but they're in a position to absorb that.  My concern with LA 2024 is that as much as it could infuse life into the Olympic movement, then what?  That's why to me I think the smarter play is to go to Paris first, have LA on the calendar, and then work from there.

1 other important thing to keep in mind.. you brought up "now that both cities have said they only want 2024."  The key word there is "now."  Of course they're going to say that.  less they want to give any indication that they're okay with being the 2028 host in a double award and make it that much easier for other city to be awarded 2024.  That both cities have brought it up as a reaction to the IOC forming a group to explore the possibility of a double award.  There can only be 1 winner for 2024.  Ask the 2024 runner-up if they want 2028 after the vote has occurred and maybe it's a different story.  We know Paris has talked about not being able to use the same plans for 2028.  With LA, I think they'd be more than happy to accept what they now call a consolation prize and be saved the trouble of another bid.  And I've said for a while, which you alluded to, that whatever happens, they'll probably settle 2024 first.  But it wouldn't surprise me in the least if a short time after that, there are internal discussions with LA to make 2028 happen.  IMO, that's a win-win for almost everyone involved.

[Barcelona_'92]

I absolutely think the IOC should award 2024 and 2028 this year.  It would be the best decision they've made in a long, long time.

I actually think there are a lot of advantages to awarding 2028 to LA and having over a decade to prepare for the Games.  There would be 10 years to build up excitement and interest, corporate dollars will flow into the USOC, and the USOC would be able to invest in athlete preparation like never before.  If there is a concern about youth interest in the Games, what better way to motivate 10-15 year olds than by knowing there will be an Olympics in the U.S. during their athletic prime?

 

[FYI]

^Excellent point!

[paul]

39 minutes ago, Barcelona_'92 said:

There would be 10 years to build up excitement and interest, corporate dollars will flow into the USOC, and the USOC would be able to invest in athlete preparation like never before.

.....oh with all the extra prep time and $ maybe the US could really have a chance this time to place higher in the overall metal ranking.........oh wait...

[Quaker2001]

I said the same thing about the 2022 World Cup and what a missed opportunity it was for FIFA to let interest build up in the United States over such a long period of time.  Same logic follows with the Olympics which is why if they're going to have an Olympics on the calendar so far into the future, they're well served having it in the U.S.  It would be 2 full Summer Olympics to showcase where the USOC could say "hey, this is coming to our country."  Equally noteworthy, they already have the TV deal in place then.  NBC is already heavily invested in the Olympics, but that's a perfect symbiotic relationship for them to aid in the build up to an event they are the rightsholders for.  What Athensfan said about getting an Olympics LA to invigorate the United States and generate interest from a younger audience is absolutely true.  But I think the IOC can still accomplish that awarding 2028 to LA, perhaps even moreso than if they get 2024.

[paul]

...a double also pretty much tells the world that only a few countries/cities on earth can host now, that the ioc make special rules for favorites who already have advantages.

agenda 2020 = YOU can possibly host

 

[Quaker2001]

4 hours ago, paul said:

...a double also pretty much tells the world that only a few countries/cities on earth can host now, that the ioc make special rules for favorites who already have advantages.

agenda 2020 = YOU can possibly host

 

No, that's not what it says at all.  A double says that there are only 2 cities left in the running (fewest since 1981) and with all the other cities out there who have rejected the IOC, here's a chance to reward both of them for staying in the running.  Is there's favoritism towards either or both of these cities, perhaps that's because until Hamburg and Budapest and Rome (not once, but twice), they haven't told the IOC to piss off.  I can see where there's an element of this where it's 2 large cities chosen and maybe that's a turn off for some other cities, but so what?  Tokyo, London, and Sydney are Olympic hosts.  Not Nagoya, Birmingham, Manchester, or Brisbane.  That's not an insult to those cities, it's merely dealing with the reality that the biggest and brightest are the cities that get the Olympics.

More than anything.. a double gives the IOC some much needed time to figure themselves out (whether they have that in them remains to be seen).  Tell the world that we're set for a while, but that we'll welcome bids for 2032 so that you all have that extra lead-up to decide if you really want to bid for the Olympics or not rather than to enter the process only to have your citizens tell you they're not interested.

[Roger87]

On 2017-3-28 at 5:23 AM, paul said:

...a double also pretty much tells the world that only a few countries/cities on earth can host now, that the ioc make special rules for favorites who already have advantages.

agenda 2020 = YOU can possibly host

 

Of  course you'll spin everything.

[Roger87]

Not exactly breaking news, just in case: 

Quote

Key IOC Session for 2024 and 2028 bid processes set for Tuesday afternoon in Lausanne

Members of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) will discuss - and presumably decide - whether to award both the 2024 and 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games together later this year next Tuesday (July 11) at an Extraordinary Session in Lausanne. 

The IOC today circulated details of a key series of meetings in the Swiss city, including the Extraordinary Session, between next Sunday (July 9) and Tuesday (July 12).

By the latter part of next week, the shape of the last two months of the 2024 Host Cities race - which pits Los Angeles against Paris and is due to culminate at the IOC Session in Lima on September 13 - should accordingly be quite a lot clearer.

According to the IOC timetable, next week’s proceedings in Lausanne will begin with an IOC Executive Board meeting at the Palace Hotel on Sunday and Monday (July 9 and 10).

Following this, IOC President Thomas Bach is to "welcome" the two Candidate City delegations at the Olympic Museum.

Los Angeles are scheduled to arrive at 4pm, with rivals Paris due two hours later.

No further details as to the purpose of these “welcomes” is provided and media access will seemingly be limited to an “opportunity” at the end of each visit.

On Tuesday, the scene of the action will switch to Lausanne’s SwissTech Convention Centre, for a two-part Candidate City Briefing that will sandwich, oddly, the Extraordinary Session.

The morning will be devoted to a behind-closed-doors Briefing designed to give Candidate Cities the opportunity to "present their proposals directly to, and have open dialogue with" IOC members and Summer Olympic International Sports Federations in light of the recent IOC Evaluation Commission report.

This had fulsome praise for both bids.

Both Los Angeles and Paris' bids for the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games were praised in the IOC Evaluation Commission report by chairman Patrick Baumann ©IOC

Commission chair Patrick Baumann said, "it truly is a tale of two great Olympic cities".

He added: "The two projects are different in nature, but each city presents a proposal which is genuinely authentic and reflects the best of what each has to offer."

The Briefing will resume on July 12, with each city allotted a room where it can display models, show videos and "interact"with IOC members and media representatives.

IOC members are scheduled to visit over two hours from 9.30am, with the media allowed in from 11.30am.

In the middle of this, on the afternoon of July 11, the Extraordinary Session of the IOC will discuss this question of whether to award two editions of the Summer Games at once, as well as "other items within its remit".

This meeting will be followed by a press conference by Bach.

As things stand, it seems highly likely that the next two Summer Olympics after Tokyo 2020 will indeed be held in Paris and Los Angeles, with both indeed awarded later this year.

It seems a little less likely, but probable, that Paris will go first, followed by its Californian rival.

What is not clear at all is whether IOC members will have a meaningful vote in Peru on which city does go first.

Next week’s deliberations should clear some of the fog over this last question.

 

 

[yoshi]

I thought they'd already decided to do the double award - does that mean the Extraordinary Session will decide which city gets which Games? Is it all gonna be signed, sealed, delivered on Tuesday?

(And if so, does the Lima session become pointless?)

[Roger87]

7 hours ago, yoshi said:

I thought they'd already decided to do the double award - does that mean the Extraordinary Session will decide which city gets which Games? Is it all gonna be signed, sealed, delivered on Tuesday?

(And if so, does the Lima session become pointless?)

They need to choose yet the YOG (I know, noc1rrent) but also it may use Lima as a sole presentation meeting.

[yoshi]

The question has its answer - according to BBC radio, the deal has been done & will be confirmed later today. 

[arwebb]

Los Angeles appear to have announced they are hosting 2028. Paris will probably be seen as the big winners from this, but I suspect the biggest winners of all in this are the IOC as this gives the breathing space they need to work out exactly how to make the Olympics attractive to cities again.

[Quaker2001]

10 minutes ago, arwebb said:

Los Angeles appear to have announced they are hosting 2028. Paris will probably be seen as the big winners from this, but I suspect the biggest winners of all in this are the IOC as this gives the breathing space they need to work out exactly how to make the Olympics attractive to cities again.

Everyone wins.  Paris gets their Olympics.  LA gets theirs.  The IOC gets peace of mind for the next 5-6 years.  I think the big winner in this though is LA.  They likely were not going to beat Paris in a head to head vote, so they now have an Olympics locked up without having to go through the process again.

[Shadowriver]

Peace of mind for the next 5-6 years? They only gained 2-3 year window of free time after 2019 (not counting YOG), next they need to select 2026 winter host which are more problematic as 2024 shown, yes there is Calgary, but 2024 also had Oslo you know ;p

As said before in some thread, this double host selection of old big fish hosts kind of making Agenda 2020 not as effective for summer games for next decade, no new host for 3 games summer games. Also it's little unfair with potential 2028 bidders that will need to wait for 2032 selection. 

[Shadowriver]

Sorry 2022 not 2024

[Barcelona_'92]

3 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Everyone wins.  Paris gets their Olympics.  LA gets theirs.  The IOC gets peace of mind for the next 5-6 years.  I think the big winner in this though is LA.  They likely were not going to beat Paris in a head to head vote, so they now have an Olympics locked up without having to go through the process again.

The other big winners are the USOC and NBC, who now have 11 years to hype the Olympics coming to the U.S.  While 2024 would have been nice, I really think 2028 is best for the long-term vitality of the Olympics in the U.S.

[Quaker2001]

4 hours ago, Barcelona_'92 said:

The other big winners are the USOC and NBC, who now have 11 years to hype the Olympics coming to the U.S.  While 2024 would have been nice, I really think 2028 is best for the long-term vitality of the Olympics in the U.S.

Darn straight.  They now have 5 full Olympics to promote that the Games are coming to the United States.  So the NBC-IOC partnership, knowing that they'll be the broadcaster, works for everyone involved.  In that regard, 2028 is much better than 2024.