2030 Olympic Winter Games Bids

[AustralianFan]

42 minutes ago, cfm Jeremie said:

Why on earth would you think the Swiss sport parliament would reject the bid? The people carrying the bid are more of less issued from the Swiss Sport Parliament (NOC, sports federations…).

What would have been stunning is the Swiss Sport Parliament rejecting the bid,,,

I’m pleased that the Switzerland Bid is going forward anyway.   Things are heading for a juicy two-way or three-way tussle for the 2030 Games.  

[Sigh]

Even if (to paraphrase a very widely spread book):

How unsearchable IOC's judgments,
    and its paths beyond tracing out!

my guess is that they will only go ahead with one candidate because the other two bids are unsatisfactory in IOC's mind. Mind you, this is only a guess.

[Quaker2001]

15 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

I’m pleased that the Switzerland Bid is going forward anyway.   Things are heading for a juicy two-way or three-way tussle for the 2030 Games.  

It's amazing there are 3 candidates here and all of them seem like they might have a legitimate shot of being selected.  I know we have varying opinions on the New Norm here and how the IOC got to this point.  So it's debatable whether or not how this is playing out is praiseworthy or a harbinger of bad things to come.

That said, there are 3 countries interested in the 2030 Olympics that most of us would never have guessed could have possibly materialized.  2034 is looking like more and more of a formality at this point.  I just hope for the sake of the future of this event that we all hold dear that the IOC knows what they're doing here - because that's not always the case - and that whatever decision they wind up making is the right one

[AustralianFan]

11 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

It's amazing there are 3 candidates here and all of them seem like they might have a legitimate shot of being selected.  I know we have varying opinions on the New Norm here and how the IOC got to this point.  So it's debatable whether or not how this is playing out is praiseworthy or a harbinger of bad things to come.

That said, there are 3 countries interested in the 2030 Olympics that most of us would never have guessed could have possibly materialized.  2034 is looking like more and more of a formality at this point.  I just hope for the sake of the future of this event that we all hold dear that the IOC knows what they're doing here - because that's not always the case - and that whatever decision they wind up making is the right one

Absolutely.

This whole New Norm bidding process is new to everyone and as far as 2030 goes, I am inclined to think the IOC FHC will recommend that more than candidature is elevated to Targeted Dialogue.  

This is only the second time in history that an elevation to Targeted Dialogue has occurred:

1. Targeted Dialogue 1.0:  Feb, 2021 - Brisbane
2. Targered Dialogue 2.0:  Nov 2023 - Sweden? France? and/or Switerzerland?

 

[yoshi]

I wasn't expecting Switzerland to get to this stage tbh. More by luck than judgement the IOC has somehow turned having no bids for a Games 7 years away to sorting the next three out in one go - the only question is which of the European ones they dump. I sadly suspect it'll be Sweden because they'll think the risk of a second Denver is too high, but it might be Switzerland for the same reason. Probably depends on any polls that might come out this week. 

[TorchbearerSydney]

Looks like the IOC has pulled something out of thin air!

I would invite the 'losers' to go straight into a dialogue for 2038.....they are safe choices and the IOC doesn't want a repeat of this mess again...

The 2036 race is looking healthy.

[yoshi]

I mean there's actually no reason why they shouldn't have it sorted for longer still - 2042 would probably be about time to go back to Pyeongchang so the third European bid - climate change permitting - could get 46. They can literally sort themselves out for the next 20 years with nothing controversial. I admit, nobody would've seen that coming this time last year. 

[FYI]

"The 2036 race is looking healthy".

Ummmm, I'd hardly describe the likes of Indonesia, India, Egypt, Qatar, Hungary, Poland, Turkey, China, Chile & Mexico as a "healthy" lot.

With the exception of Germany & South Korea, the vast majority of the 2036 list (which not to mention, some are still in just the beginning "talks" at this stage) are deficient at best & quite anemic at worst. So not quite the robust cast.

[Guilga]

12 minutes ago, yoshi said:

I mean there's actually no reason why they shouldn't have it sorted for longer still - 2042 would probably be about time to go back to Pyeongchang so the third European bid - climate change permitting - could get 46. They can literally sort themselves out for the next 20 years with nothing controversial. I admit, nobody would've seen that coming this time last year. 

Quite a plot twist, even though i feel adwarding games as far as 2046 all at once is quite excessive, especially with climate change in the case of the winter games. 12 years you can sort out but 20? Will we even have winters at this point? The host country could even stop existing, or more likely, change into a non-favorable government to the IOC with this time frame...

[yoshi]

Well I'm not necessarily talking about awarding them all now, in one go - just that they should now have enough interested parties to be as secure as they can be that they won't have another 2030 (or even 22) for at least 20 years. I can see them awarding the three games in the 30s in one go though, although Switzerland has now left them with one bid too many. 

[Sigh]

3 hours ago, yoshi said:

wasn't expecting Switzerland to get to this stage tbh

The reason the Swiss Olympic bid has got to this stage is that they have carefully avoided any action that could trig a referendum. For example, they are not even attempting to get a "Performance Guarantee" from any government; federal, canton or local.

SOK tried that in their 2026 bid. Had that been acceptable to the IOC we wouldn't have this discussion now since the 2030 games would have been allocated to Sweden already in 2019.

[Quaker2001]

6 hours ago, FYI said:

"The 2036 race is looking healthy".

Ummmm, I'd hardly describe the likes of Indonesia, India, Egypt, Qatar, Hungary, Poland, Turkey, China, Chile & Mexico as a "healthy" lot.

With the exception of Germany & South Korea, the vast majority of the 2036 list (which not to mention, some are still in just the beginning "talks" at this stage) are deficient at best & quite anemic at worst. So not quite the robust cast.

But they have so many "interested parties!!" 

I agree.  The measure of a race is quality, not quantity.  It's nice for the IOC that they have all this interest, but this isn't going to be like the days of yore where they had up to half a dozen worth candidates to choose from.  At the end of the day, all the need is 1 worthy candidate and they'll likely be able to find one.  But there are definitely some bids there that are dubious at best and who are unlikely to get the IOC to engage with them

[Quaker2001]

7 hours ago, yoshi said:

I mean there's actually no reason why they shouldn't have it sorted for longer still - 2042 would probably be about time to go back to Pyeongchang so the third European bid - climate change permitting - could get 46. They can literally sort themselves out for the next 20 years with nothing controversial. I admit, nobody would've seen that coming this time last year. 

(raises hand) I can think of a lot of good reasons.  Sorting out an Olympics 20 years in advance is extremely controversial and serves little purpose.  What's the utility in locking it in so early?  Some sort of largely unnecessary stability?  The only reason 2034 is on the table right now is because there's a city they've been engaging with for some time now and they don't want to keep them waiting any longer once they have figured out 2030.

You and @TorchbearerSydney say whoever don't get 2030 should immediately start engaging with the IOC for 2038.. why?  How many officials and politicians and other bid leaders might not want to wait around another 8 years, let alone longer than that.  And if they weren't good enough for 2030, who is to say they're right for 2038.  The big problem with having a longer lead time for an Olympic host is that it could lead to greater spending and runs the risk of corruption.  There is such a thing as too much time leading into an Olympics because then it means you're trying to project future costs.  Ask Athens 2004 how that worked out for them.  And if the concern is, as folks on this forum - and only this forum - like to pull it is that you don't want to see a city "pull a Denver," that's far more likely the earlier you lock in a city.

Once they have their 2030 host and likely follow shortly thereafter with Salt Lake 2034, step back a take a breath.  For the first time in history, they'll have more than a decade of locked in Olympic hosts.  There is no good reason to rush the process for hosts beyond that.  If the IOC comes across a city/country they really like, then by all means do what the New Norm allows you to do and make an announcement out of the blue.  But make sure you're properly assessing everything before you do that.  This isn't Oprah's show..

[FYI]

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

(raises hand) I can think of a lot of good reasons.  Sorting out an Olympics 20 years in advance is extremely controversial and serves little purpose.  What's the utility in locking it in so early?  Some sort of largely unnecessary stability?  The only reason 2034 is on the table right now is because there's a city they've been engaging with for some time now and they don't want to keep them waiting any longer once they have figured out 2030.

You and @TorchbearerSydney say whoever don't get 2030 should immediately start engaging with the IOC for 2038.. why? This isn't Oprah's show..

They must suffer from Quadruple-'FETISH' syndrome! 

[FYI]

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

But they have so many "interested parties!!" 

It's the "new-norm in action!" 

[AustralianFan]

14 hours ago, TorchbearerSydney said:

Looks like the IOC has pulled something out of thin air!

I would invite the 'losers' to go straight into a dialogue for 2038.....they are safe choices and the IOC doesn't want a repeat of this mess again...

The 2036 race is looking healthy.

All parties remain in Continuous Dialogue until they voluntarily withdraw, ie they’re not invited but just start talking with the IOC Future Host Commission.

So those that miss out on 2030 Winter Games hosting remain in continuous dialogue with the FHC, until if and when they decide to withdraw.

Likewise, those that missed out on 2032 Summer Games hosting remain in continuous dialogue with the FHC, until if and when they decide to withdraw.  

That’s the way New Norm works.

Yes indeed, I agree too that the 2030, 2034 and 2036 races are looking very healthy indeed. 

 

[SportLightning]

I think Stockholm-Åre would be the preferred candidate to host the 2030 games.

[Quaker2001]

Straight from the IOC, I know @AustralianFan will very much appreciate this explainer...

 

Electing Olympic and Paralympic hosts: Targeted Dialogue explained

© IOC

 

The political, environmental, socio-economic, human development and human rights contexts are taken into account
The IOC analyses third-party sources and commissions independent reports in key areas such as public opinion, potential environmental impact and the human rights situation in relation to the Games’ organisation.

Potential hosts must explain the “why”
The vision behind the Games project and the benefits it would bring to local communities should be the starting point of any project.

The Games should adapt to the host, not the host to the Games
The project must be aligned with local long-term socio-economic development plans. Existing venues should be used as much as possible, even if they are outside the main host region. New venues should be built only if there is a solid legacy and business case, in line with the needs of the population.

Any project should have strong public and political support
It is the responsibility of the Interested Party to demonstrate this support, in line with the laws and political culture in its country.

The budget must be balanced
The funding strategy should have realistic revenue projections, taking the local market into account.

Every aspect of Games delivery will be examined
The experience of the athletes, fans and other Games participants are paramount.

© IOC

What happens during Targeted Dialogue?

An “Interested Party” for future Games becomes a “Preferred Host” for a specific year
Once a Targeted Dialogue has been opened, no other city, region or National Olympic Committee can apply to host that edition until the International Olympic Committee (IOC)’s Executive Board has decided whether there should be an election.

The Preferred Host answers the Future Host Questionnaire and provides commitments to deliver the Games
The host provides detailed plans: about its project; the vision, masterplan, experience for athletes and fans; sustainability, legacy; governance; and economic model. These plans are backed up by a number of guarantees from the host country authorities or other relevant third parties, addressing key elements required to successfully deliver the Games.

The IOC examines every aspect of the project
Targeted Dialogue represents a deep dive into a project. The IOC commissions independent reports in key areas such as venue costs, public opinion and potential environmental impact.

There is extensive consultation with stakeholders
The IOC draws on knowledge and experience from across the Olympic Movement, for example from International Sports Federations and other experts, on everything from venues to human rights.

Targeted Dialogue can result in a host election
At the end of a Targeted Dialogue, the Executive Board can put forward one or more Preferred Hosts for election by the IOC Session. If one or both parties feel the time is not right, or the conditions have not been met, the Future Host Commission can recommend the Preferred Host goes back to Continuous Dialogue.

Other potential hosts can continue their projects for future Games
Opening a Targeted Dialogue does not mean saying “no” to other Interested Parties. They can choose to continue working on their Olympic projects in collaboration with the IOC, with a view to staging a future edition of the Olympic Games.

Find out more: Becoming an Olympic Games Host

[AustralianFan]

26 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Straight from the IOC, I know @AustralianFan will very much appreciate this explainer...

 

Electing Olympic and Paralympic hosts: Targeted Dialogue explained

© IOC

 

 

 

 

 

 

The political, environmental, socio-economic, human development and human rights contexts are taken into account
The IOC analyses third-party sources and commissions independent reports in key areas such as public opinion, potential environmental impact and the human rights situation in relation to the Games’ organisation.

 

Potential hosts must explain the “why”
The vision behind the Games project and the benefits it would bring to local communities should be the starting point of any project.

 

The Games should adapt to the host, not the host to the Games
The project must be aligned with local long-term socio-economic development plans. Existing venues should be used as much as possible, even if they are outside the main host region. New venues should be built only if there is a solid legacy and business case, in line with the needs of the population.

 

Any project should have strong public and political support
It is the responsibility of the Interested Party to demonstrate this support, in line with the laws and political culture in its country.

 

The budget must be balanced
The funding strategy should have realistic revenue projections, taking the local market into account.

 

Every aspect of Games delivery will be examined
The experience of the athletes, fans and other Games participants are paramount.

© IOC

What happens during Targeted Dialogue?

 

An “Interested Party” for future Games becomes a “Preferred Host” for a specific year
Once a Targeted Dialogue has been opened, no other city, region or National Olympic Committee can apply to host that edition until the International Olympic Committee (IOC)’s Executive Board has decided whether there should be an election.

 

The Preferred Host answers the Future Host Questionnaire and provides commitments to deliver the Games
The host provides detailed plans: about its project; the vision, masterplan, experience for athletes and fans; sustainability, legacy; governance; and economic model. These plans are backed up by a number of guarantees from the host country authorities or other relevant third parties, addressing key elements required to successfully deliver the Games.

 

The IOC examines every aspect of the project
Targeted Dialogue represents a deep dive into a project. The IOC commissions independent reports in key areas such as venue costs, public opinion and potential environmental impact.

 

There is extensive consultation with stakeholders
The IOC draws on knowledge and experience from across the Olympic Movement, for example from International Sports Federations and other experts, on everything from venues to human rights.

 

Targeted Dialogue can result in a host election
At the end of a Targeted Dialogue, the Executive Board can put forward one or more Preferred Hosts for election by the IOC Session. If one or both parties feel the time is not right, or the conditions have not been met, the Future Host Commission can recommend the Preferred Host goes back to Continuous Dialogue.

 

Other potential hosts can continue their projects for future Games
Opening a Targeted Dialogue does not mean saying “no” to other Interested Parties. They can choose to continue working on their Olympic projects in collaboration with the IOC, with a view to staging a future edition of the Olympic Games.

 

Find out more: Becoming an Olympic Games Host

 

Thanks @Quaker2001, for posting this very good explanation of Targeted Dialogue.

[baron-pierreIV]

3 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Straight from the IOC, I know @AustralianFan will very much appreciate this explainer...

 

Electing Olympic and Paralympic hosts: Targeted Dialogue explained

© IOC

 

 

 

 

 

 

The political, environmental, socio-economic, human development and human rights contexts are taken into account
The IOC analyses third-party sources and commissions independent reports in key areas such as public opinion, potential environmental impact and the human rights situation in relation to the Games’ organisation.

 

Potential hosts must explain the “why”
The vision behind the Games project and the benefits it would bring to local communities should be the starting point of any project.

 

The Games should adapt to the host, not the host to the Games
The project must be aligned with local long-term socio-economic development plans. Existing venues should be used as much as possible, even if they are outside the main host region. New venues should be built only if there is a solid legacy and business case, in line with the needs of the population.

 

Any project should have strong public and political support
It is the responsibility of the Interested Party to demonstrate this support, in line with the laws and political culture in its country.

 

The budget must be balanced
The funding strategy should have realistic revenue projections, taking the local market into account.

 

Every aspect of Games delivery will be examined
The experience of the athletes, fans and other Games participants are paramount.

© IOC

What happens during Targeted Dialogue?

 

An “Interested Party” for future Games becomes a “Preferred Host” for a specific year
Once a Targeted Dialogue has been opened, no other city, region or National Olympic Committee can apply to host that edition until the International Olympic Committee (IOC)’s Executive Board has decided whether there should be an election.

 

The Preferred Host answers the Future Host Questionnaire and provides commitments to deliver the Games
The host provides detailed plans: about its project; the vision, masterplan, experience for athletes and fans; sustainability, legacy; governance; and economic model. These plans are backed up by a number of guarantees from the host country authorities or other relevant third parties, addressing key elements required to successfully deliver the Games.

 

The IOC examines every aspect of the project
Targeted Dialogue represents a deep dive into a project. The IOC commissions independent reports in key areas such as venue costs, public opinion and potential environmental impact.

 

There is extensive consultation with stakeholders
The IOC draws on knowledge and experience from across the Olympic Movement, for example from International Sports Federations and other experts, on everything from venues to human rights.

 

Targeted Dialogue can result in a host election
At the end of a Targeted Dialogue, the Executive Board can put forward one or more Preferred Hosts for election by the IOC Session. If one or both parties feel the time is not right, or the conditions have not been met, the Future Host Commission can recommend the Preferred Host goes back to Continuous Dialogue.

 

Other potential hosts can continue their projects for future Games
Opening a Targeted Dialogue does not mean saying “no” to other Interested Parties. They can choose to continue working on their Olympic projects in collaboration with the IOC, with a view to staging a future edition of the Olympic Games.

 

Find out more: Becoming an Olympic Games Host

 

Actually, one thing I would tweak there is if there no super-extravagant facility like a sliding track anywhere 10mi within the host country's borders and in a friendly zone, then FUGGEDABOUT that sport.  Find another sport that the would-be host already has, or will have an appropriate, adaptable venue to replace the friggin's sliding events.  Having sports in another jurisdiction is really quite stupid and, IMHO, goes against the OG's very raison d'etre.  

Start considering more indoor /esports:  Chess, Ballroom Dancing, Cake Decorating, Debates, etc., etc.  

[AustralianFan]

Yep, agree with that.

Tomorrow, 29 November, all three to go to Targeted Dialogue for 2030 with Sweden clearly the front-runner.

 

[AustralianFan]

PRESS BRIEFING

Watch this critical  IOC Press Briefing on the Olympic Winter Games for 2030 and 2034:

Time:  7pm C.E.T.

Date:   Wednesday 29 November 2023

Place:  IOC Executive Board Meeting, Salon Hoche, 9 Avenue Hoche, 75008 Paris

Live Streamed:  IOC MediaYouTube 

• questions will be taken from the journalists present as well as those connected on Zoom.
• there will also be a Press Briefing on Thursday 30 November at 6pm C.E.T.
• details of a media event on Friday 1 December will be made available closer to the date.

Credit:  IOC Media

[AustralianFan]

 

37 minutes ago, Sigh said:

I believe the situation is even more complicated than outlined above.

The crucial point could be the financial Performance Guarantee. Or rather the likelyhood of getting such.

I remember reading an interview with the vice president of Swiss Olympic where she stated that they would go ahead without seeking a government defizitgarantie. Presumably such a guarantee could trigger a referendum with dubious chances of success. Have they changed their mind since?

As for Sweden Stockholm city has ruled out signing a performance guarantee stating that it's up to the government (actually, at present Stockholm has yet to commit to as much as they did in 2019). The government has been very careful not to commit itself. On the day when the "viewing positively" statement was published the sports minister clearly said that the government would not participate in financing the games. Would that mean that they still could issue a performance guarantee?

The pressure on the Swedish government is not overwhelming since if one avarages the opinion poll SOK commissioned (that was even more slanted than the French ones) with the two other opinion polls made, the support comes in just under 50%.

Of course the personal influence of Gunilla Lindberg and Sweden being the most successful WOG nation never having had the WOGs (though Finland has won more WOG medals) are strong points in SOKs favour.

@Sigh i think though that these details will be thrashed out ine way or the other through the intensive Targeted Dialogue process, which is exactly what that the targeted dialogue process is for.

I agree that Sweden is clearly the front-runner with the same intensive scrutiny and targeted dialogue to occur with Switzerland and France who I think will also be elevated.

[yoshi]

Will there be these elevations to targeted dialogue or could they go further this week - a host announcement or even two? The way Rob puts it makes it sound like Sweden is a long way ahead for 30 and Salt Lake will definitely be awarded 34. Presumably France and Switzerland will get put against each other for 38 (or maybe hook up together for a binational bid... Geneva anyone?)

[Sir Rols]

5 minutes ago, yoshi said:

Will there be these elevations to targeted dialogue or could they go further this week - a host announcement or even two? The way Rob puts it makes it sound like Sweden is a long way ahead for 30 and Salt Lake will definitely be awarded 34. Presumably France and Switzerland will get put against each other for 38 (or maybe hook up together for a binational bid... Geneva anyone?)

A host announcement requires a vote at a full IOC session - hence everything being viewed in terms of laying the groundwork towards a vote at Paris next year (or even another session, if the French bid is still standing). 

Edited November 27, 2023 by Sir Rols