Jump to content
GBModerator

BidWeek: Should The IOC Dispense With Olympic Host City Elections? There May Be No Choice

Recommended Posts

BidWeek, Reporting From Toronto, Canada – Less than two years ago, those who follow the Olympic Movement and take an interest in the Games site selection process were gearing up for a potentially epic battle between Paris and Los Angeles for the right to host the 2024 Summer Games. A hundred-or-so International Olympic Committee (IOC) members […]

The post BidWeek: Should The IOC Dispense With Olympic Host City Elections? There May Be No Choice appeared first on GamesBids.com.

View the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, another possible double-allocation? You don’t say! I know that a certain other poster around here would disagree. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, FYI said:

Oh, another possible double-allocation? You don’t say! I know that a certain other poster around here would disagree. :lol:

He would.  And a certain other poster loves himself a little confirmation bias. :P

Double allocation means 2 things at once.  It's not a double if they decide on a 2026 host and then have a completely separate process to decide on 2030.  Although I'm sure you'll try to pretend that it is so you can say you were right.

Still not buying this.  If both the Italian bid and the Swedish bid fall apart, then all bets are off.  But then that probably means even less of a chance of a double because what are they left with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Still not buying this.  If both the Italian bid and the Swedish bid fall apart, then all bets are off.  But then that probably means even less of a chance of a double because what are they left with?

Salt Lake, Denver, Reno, Minneapolis, Albany, Quebec City, Erzurum, Bursa, Astana, Borjomi, Sochi, St. Petersburg, Beijing, Ushuaia, Lahti, really, the list goes on.

All jokes aside, there was a time with no elections like this. Remember, they didn't do this in the earliest days of the Olympics (Though I'm not sure if I'm entirely right about that..)

Possibly, they could do a system like: "Okay.. What's the best host and who are we interested in?". And then they could go ask the city that they chose if they want to host. And if they say no, find another. I remember they did similar to find a replacement for Denver. Hopefully it dosen't go to that point, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Dezcrafty said:

Salt Lake, Denver, Reno, Minneapolis, Albany, Quebec City, Erzurum, Bursa, Astana, Borjomi, Sochi, St. Petersburg, Beijing, Ushuaia, Lahti, really, the list goes on.

All jokes aside, there was a time with no elections like this. Remember, they didn't do this in the earliest days of the Olympics (Though I'm not sure if I'm entirely right about that..)

Possibly, they could do a system like: "Okay.. What's the best host and who are we interested in?". And then they could go ask the city that they chose if they want to host. And if they say no, find another. I remember they did similar to find a replacement for Denver. Hopefully it dosen't go to that point, however.

Pretty sure we don't want to look for precedent with what the IOC did 100 years ago.  That's not the answer to this conundrum.

The system can't be about who the IOC is interested in.  In some way, shape or form, the cities still need to make a pitch to the IOC and offer up why they are worthy.  They can't completely eliminate the dialog process where they go out and start trying to pick cities as if they're looking for a prom date and who cares how many girls they ask before someone finally says yes.  To say nothing of the amount of leverage they lose in doing it that way if they hope to make any requests/demands of a potential host city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible that this coming June (so, for Winter 2026) might be the 5th (or 6th time, depending on how you view it)  in history when only one is left standing.  Precedents: Athens 1896, St. Moritz and London 1948, Lake Placid 1980 and LA 1984/2028.  So, it's nothing new.  After that, if the early feelers will bear fruition, then there is a slew of candidates on the horizon:

for 2030:  Salt Lake, Sapporo, Oslo-Lillehammer?  Almaty?  

for 2032: the joint Korean bid, Westphalia region of Germany, Jakarta, Delhi?, Brisbane?  Shanghai?  Budapest? 

lurking in the future:  Durban, RSA; Baku, Annecy,  Santiago, St. Petersburg, losers from the above races 

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 8:00 PM, Dezcrafty said:

All jokes aside, there was a time with no elections like this. Remember, they didn't do this in the earliest days of the Olympics (Though I'm not sure if I'm entirely right about that..)

Sort of. Los Angeles was the only bidder for 1984, and the very earliest events were chosen by executives rather than a public vote IIRC.

But the key difference is the need for governments to cover the inevitable capital cost overruns and security costs. That is what is killing the Olympics and wasn't an issue in 1898-1912.

On ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 9:29 PM, Quaker2001 said:

Pretty sure we don't want to look for precedent with what the IOC did 100 years ago.  That's not the answer to this conundrum.

Well, it is somewhat.

1920 Summer Olympic Games: 2,626 athletes, 22 sports, 35,000 seat main stadium, total cost roughly $55 million in 2019 USD

2020 Summer Olympic Games: 11,091 athletes, 33 sports, 80,016 seat main stadium, projected costs of about $15 billion and revenue of only $5 billion

The IOC and the sporting federations have to get it into their heads that they can't allow infinite growth in size and expense. And in fairness the IOC is now genuinely trying to look for solutions.

Edited by Nacre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC will have to do away with the requirement for government guarantees eventually. It might already be happening with how ‘flexible’ they’re being with Stockholm. Out of the ashes of the debacle of the last 10-15 years will come an era where the IOC pay for their own party’s overruns, even if it happens gradually - with talk of flexibility rather than any major announcements - & that will be better for all involved.

For all the criticism (some justified) they’ve got in recent campaigns, I think in 30 years time, we’ll be hailing No Boston Olympics & their European copycats as the saviours of the Olympic Movement - the ones who made the IOC wake up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2019 at 10:35 PM, Quaker2001 said:

He would.  And a certain other poster loves himself a little confirmation bias. :P

Says the pot to the kettle. :rolleyes:

On 3/6/2019 at 10:35 PM, Quaker2001 said:

Double allocation means 2 things at once.  It's not a double if they decide on a 2026 host and then have a completely separate process to decide on 2030.  Although I'm sure you'll try to pretend that it is so you can say you were right.

You mean like the way you try to spin things to say you were right? Let’s remember that SLC is now indirectly involved in the 2026 bid process, that’s why the USOC was in such a rush to name their “future nominee” a couple of months ago. If either Stockholm or Milan falter, that still leaves one of them left & then the IOC could just as easily award the Utah capital 2030 at the same time in June this summer, just like they did with 2024 & 2028. 

On 3/6/2019 at 10:35 PM, Quaker2001 said:

Still not buying this.  If both the Italian bid and the Swedish bid fall apart, then all bets are off.  But then that probably means even less of a chance of a double because what are they left with?

It’s not a matter of you buying into or not, it’s the IOC’s. If both Stockholm or Milan fail, there’s still someone else besides SLC in the mix. We’ve had that convo before, so I won’t delve into it again here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, RuFF said:

There's always going to be someone who wants to make money and for better or for worse the Olympics are a good way for a lot of people to make money. 

It’s not ‘a lot’ of people that make the money, though. At least not the common folk, anyway.

This is where paul’s arguments of graft, corruption & waste with the Olympics come into play. It’s the well-off elite that think the Olympics will make THEM money. And that’s why it’s the average citizens that are now starting to wake up & say - “NIMBY with my tax dollars”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

It's possible that this coming June (so, for Winter 2026) might be the 5th (or 6th time, depending on how you view it)  in history when only one is left standing.  Precedents: Athens 1896, St. Moritz and London 1948, Lake Placid 1980 and LA 1984/2028.  So, it's nothing new.  After that, if the early feelers will bear fruition, then there is a slew of candidates on the horizon:

for 2030:  Salt Lake, Sapporo, Oslo-Lillehammer?  Almaty?  

for 2032: the joint Korean bid, Westphalia region of Germany, Jakarta, Delhi?, Brisbane?  Shanghai?  Budapest? 

lurking in the future:  Durban, RSA; Baku, Annecy,  Santiago, St. Petersburg, losers from the above races 

There were a lot of early feelers for 2026.  And look where we are now.

The IOC needs quality, not quantity.  You mentioned 7 potential bidders for 2032, but how many of those will be taken seriously?  They don't need a large number of cities/countries to offer themselves for a bid.  They need 1 or 2 really good ones to work with and then they can cut off the rest.  After all, isn't one of the IOC's mantras that they want fewer losers?  The days where a city would bid and fall short and then come back for the next cycle may have come to an end.  That's not necessarily a bad thing.  That we have Paris for 2024 and LA for 2028.. does it matter that there wasn't a full field of bid cities like we had for 2012?  Not really.  Yes it would be nice for the IOC to have more interest in hosting the Olympics, but when it comes down to it, 1 good bid is all they need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

  After all, isn't one of the IOC's mantras that they want fewer losers?  The days where a city would bid and fall short and then come back for the next cycle may have come to an end.  That's not necessarily a bad thing.  That we have Paris for 2024 and LA for 2028.. does it matter that there wasn't a full field of bid cities like we had for 2012?  Not really.  Yes it would be nice for the IOC to have more interest in hosting the Olympics, but when it comes down to it, 1 good bid is all they need.

Yeah, but you need a few starters to arrive, even at one.  And I'm sure the IOC isn't crazy about the optics of having only ONE city to deal with.  It leaves them with NO leverage whatsoever; which they weren't used to before.  Perhaps there is less waste in the new process, but doggone it, it just makes things too sensible and responsible.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Yeah, but you need a few starters to arrive, even at one.  And I'm sure the IOC isn't crazy about the optics of having only ONE city to deal with.  It leaves them with NO leverage whatsoever; which they weren't used to before.  Perhaps there is less waste in the new process, but doggone it, it just makes things too sensible and responsible.  

All fair points.  I don't think the IOC needs (or wants) garbage bids just for the sake of having them.  They will usually be out there, but let's say the 2030 field includes Salt Lake and Sapporo.. anyone else in the field is potentially somewhat superfluous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2019 at 6:24 PM, Nacre said:

Well, it is somewhat.

1920 Summer Olympic Games: 2,626 athletes, 22 sports, 35,000 seat main stadium, total cost roughly $55 million in 2019 USD

2020 Summer Olympic Games: 11,091 athletes, 33 sports, 80,016 seat main stadium, projected costs of about $15 billion and revenue of only $5 billion

The IOC and the sporting federations have to get it into their heads that they can't allow infinite growth in size and expense. And in fairness the IOC is now genuinely trying to look for solutions.

1920 Summer Olympics: television revenues of $0

2020 Summer Olympics: television revenues of.. well, a whole lot more than zero

Here's what else I'll counter that with..

1996 Summer Olympics: 10,318 athletes, cost around $1.8 billion (which included construction of a brand new main stadium)

2004 Summer Olympics: 10,625 athletes, cost around $9 billion (which did NOT include construction of a stadium)

Yes, costs have spiraled out of control, but a lot of it is based on fixed costs that aren't directly proportional to the number of athletes.  Look at how much the Pan Ams cost Toronto for 2015 with fewer athletes and smaller facilities.  The interesting thing is that the number of sports/events has been pretty consistent since Sydney, until next summer when 5 sports are added and the number of events is jumping by more than 10%.  And in terms of the number of athletes, the record for most male athletes at an Olympics is still held by Atlanta `96.  That number has been gradually dropping, largely to allow for the number of female athletes to increase.

We all know the sporting federations and everyone involved need to reel in costs, but a lot of times, it's on the cities and their host committees for promising bigger and better.  Reducing the number of sports and athletes will likely only have a marginal effect on total costs, so to point to that as the issue isn't necessarily being honest about why the cost of hosting the Olympics has skyrocketed by such a degree in recent history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand why the IOC hasn't swung around to the successful CWG formula of allowing like 3 new sports that are popular or germane to the hosting region; and just making dormant those that aren't already "venue'ed" in that new city... and let them come back when the opportune moment returns.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

I still don't understand why the IOC hasn't swung around to the successful CWG formula of allowing like 3 new sports that are popular or germane to the hosting region; and just making dormant those that aren't already "venue'ed" in that new city... and let them come back when the opportune moment returns.  

And here I am thinking that the CWG should have a fixed number of sports which don't change every 4 years which are popular with most Commonwealth Nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

I still don't understand why the IOC hasn't swung around to the successful CWG formula of allowing like 3 new sports that are popular or germane to the hosting region; and just making dormant those that aren't already "venue'ed" in that new city... and let them come back when the opportune moment returns.  

Isn't that somewhat what we have with 2020?  Baseball and softball wouldn't be on the program if the Olympics weren't in Japan.  The sports federations will always fight for themselves.  That's why wrestling was nearly dropped in order to keep modern pentathlon.  If the IOC went in that direction, what gets dropped?  I don't trust everyone involved to make the correct decision on those

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that makes me sad there are people who dedicate their lives to that frankenstein monstrosity of a sport. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×