Jump to content
stryker

The Olympics after COVID19

Recommended Posts

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1093623/pandemic-opportunity-to-reinvent-games

I saw an article yesterday where Guy Drut commented about the Olympics needing to be "reinvented" in the post-COVID19 world and insidethegames picked up on it today. I was rather surprised at how he directly called out Paris 2024 as being "obsolete and outdated." The more I think about though, I think he's directly referencing the economic fallout that is sure to come that will likely have serious ramifications for the Olympics going forward especially in the bidding process. I've touched on the economic implications for Milan given that Italy is broke and still has to find a way to pay for the WOGs. Drut hints at Agenda 2020 but goes even further even as far suggesting permanent venues for certain sports though I think a permanent home for surfing isn't exactly necessary (I still think Paris was ridiculous for choosing Tahiti or Biarritz). However, his comments on venues like the slalom canoe course are spot on. Does Paris really need a slalom canoe course? Would it get much use after the Olympics or more importantly would it be profitable? A far cheaper option would be the course at Pau-Pyrenees which is already the home of France's slalom canoe team anyway. I think there will be further changes for Paris (I could see Paris dropping the temporary venue for volleyball and using an existing facility somewhere else). Milan would be best served by getting Torino back in to the fold. Even Los Angeles could afford cost cutting (does LA really need a slalom canoe course at Sepulveda Basin when the U.S. National Whitewater Center in Charlotte could serve the same purpose?) Sure the sports federations would groan but the financial losses many of them are facing due to COVID19 will sap much of their influence at least in the short term. Of course there's still the problematic Olympic Village and the biggest white elephant of them all- the athletics stadium. Much like after the Great Recession, citizens in western democracies suddenly became much more aware of how their tax dollars were spent hence giving rise to No Olympics movements that were successful in places like Munich, Boston, and Calgary. Post COVID19 could very well be a second great depression which means you are going to see even more scrutiny given the government spending.

Agenda 2020 and the New Norm are not going to be enough for the IOC. They will have to go even further given the economic crisis the world is now entering and one that will likely not be the V shaped recovery hoped for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with a permanent host is that it is a large burden on the host city to host a single time much less dozens of times. The issue with a spread out plan is transportation.

For soccer/association football in North America, I've heard a number of fans calling the coronavirus shutdown an "opportunity to move to the European calendar" which plays through the winter and breaks for the summer. Yet when asked point blank if they would sit out in 13F/-10 C temperatures for a January game in Montreal or Minneapolis the answer is "hell no". It's easy to campaign for sacrifices to be made by other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A permanent host is a problem for the reason you've mentioned but I don't see why existing venues in a region couldn't be used. For example, Brisbane uses the Penrith Lakes course for slalom canoeing for a future U.S. summer bid uses the velodrome in Los Angeles. In terms of being spread and, yes, I agree about the transportation issues, but IMO this is something that the IOC and the respective IFs are going to just have to deal with. Drut also suggested the Games have too many sports (agreed but how do you reduce that number?) and I'd even add maybe it's time to consider smaller capacity venues especially for some of the indoor sports or consider possibilities such as open air speed skating ovals or having boxing outside (how many matches have been done in casino parking lots?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, stryker said:

In terms of being spread and, yes, I agree about the transportation issues, but IMO this is something that the IOC and the respective IFs are going to just have to deal with.

I am thinking of the organizers and the volunteers rather than the IOC and federations.

Volunteers have to shuttle and escort the officials around during the games and usually have to make arrangements for their own travel and lodging. And the organizers have to provide the transportation. So for example by putting the rowing in Charlotte the LA organizing committee would need to provide private jets to move people between LA and Charlotte, volunteers would be on the hook for lots of extra hotel and travel expenses plus even longer working hours than normal, and so on.

Spreading things out also adds significantly to costs. I can't imagine that hiring a fleet of charter jets to move people between LA and North Carolina would end up being cheaper than spending the money to create a natural whitewater course in a river in the Sierra Nevada mountains near Los Angeles.

Edited by Nacre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find it weird though that mega cities, like Paris, dont have a world class aquatic centre or velodrome....or a sports mad city like Brisbane not having a decent 60,000 seat stadium. An advanced city should have a these facilities..Ok I agree white water stadiums and bobsled tracks are a bit niche!

Sydney was done on the super cheap, no heroic architecture....(and Sydney needed a decent stadium, indoor venue and pool anyway)...but on TV you could never tell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TorchbearerSydney said:

I do find it weird though that mega cities, like Paris, dont have a world class aquatic centre or velodrome....

The Paris metro area does have a world class velodrome.

The aquatics center is a problem for most cities because competition venues are pretty terrible as community pools. The issue is the roof height: an indoor facility needs a very high roof clearance to fit >15,000 seats into the building. But that adds significantly to the construction and maintenance cost of the aquatics center. Thus the unique inwardly sloping roof used in 2012 in London. Unfortunately while London's solution to the problem helped improve the long term maintenance costs it increased the initial capital costs: the 2012 aquatics center cost roughly $511 million in Australian dollars.

6 hours ago, TorchbearerSydney said:

or a sports mad city like Brisbane not having a decent 60,000 seat stadium. An advanced city should have a these facilities..

Their sports teams would not be able to consistently fill such a stadium.

A quick google search yield the following 2018 average attendance of Brisbane's teams:

  • Brisbane Broncos: 30,297
  • Brisbane Lions: 18,406
  • Queensland Roar: 13,534
  • Queensland Reds: 12,101

It is not commercially sound to burden teams averaging 10,000-30,000 spectators per match with the upkeep of a 60,000 seat stadium.

Edited by Nacre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2020 at 8:38 AM, stryker said:

A permanent host is a problem for the reason you've mentioned but I don't see why existing venues in a region couldn't be used. For example, Brisbane uses the Penrith Lakes course for slalom canoeing for a future U.S. summer bid uses the velodrome in Los Angeles. In terms of being spread and, yes, I agree about the transportation issues, but IMO this is something that the IOC and the respective IFs are going to just have to deal with. Drut also suggested the Games have too many sports (agreed but how do you reduce that number?) and I'd even add maybe it's time to consider smaller capacity venues especially for some of the indoor sports or consider possibilities such as open air speed skating ovals or having boxing outside (how many matches have been done in casino parking lots?)

The way to reduce the number is to evaluate which sports are expandable, both in terms of operational cost and what is required of the host city.  Of course, the way the IOC operates which of course is heavy on politics, we get a situation where they vote to save modern pentathlon and eliminate wrestling (thankfully, wiser heads prevailed on that one).  We're talking a lot about slalom canoeing.  That requires a very specialized venue, so perhaps they need to be on the chopping block.  Surfing is obviously all good when we're talking about Tokyo or LA.  Paris, not so much.

If the IOC is going start to tailor the program for each Olympics which some thoughts towards what makes sense for a particular host city (i.e. baseball/softball make perfect sense to have on the Tokyo program, but not so much for Paris).  And maybe let's not add 5 brand new sports just to bring in younger audiences as a further burden on potential hosts.

Here's what I think needs to happen going forward.  Forget the permanent host idea.  Sounds nice in theory, but it'll never be practical if it's creating transportation issues, unless the IOC is willing to shoulder more of that burden rather than throwing it all on the host city's shoulders.  The IOC needs to create a better working relationship with potential host cities so that if things go south, it's not the city/country that suffers while the IOC reaps the benefits.  Not to mention the IF's who continue to demand the very best, so cities have to offer it up or they won't win it.

Cities bid for the Olympics often in the best of times.  And then host the Olympics in not such good times.  We saw it with Athens after 9/11 where security costs ballooned.  We saw it with Rio where the Brazilian economy wasn't as strong in 2016 as it was in 2009.  We're seeing it here with Tokyo (and soon to be with Milan) in circumstances out of their control.

I've been saying it for years and I'll say it again here.. the problem isn't so much with the Olympics.  A large part of the problem is with the IOC.  Until they recognize that and stop providing that incremental changes like Agenda 2020 are the solution, it will be tough to see any real change going forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  

16 hours ago, TorchbearerSydney said:

I do find it weird though that mega cities, like Paris, dont have a world class aquatic centre or velodrome....or a sports mad city like Brisbane not having a decent 60,000 seat stadium. An advanced city should have a these facilities..Ok I agree white water stadiums and bobsled tracks are a bit niche!

Sydney was done on the super cheap, no heroic architecture....(and Sydney needed a decent stadium, indoor venue and pool anyway)...but on TV you could never tell. 

Los Angeles has almost no permanent Olympic-related construction planned and the infrastructure budget is still over a billion dollars.  I don't think you can necessarily call Sydney "super cheap" when construction of the main stadium alone was over A$700 million, even if it was good to have a new stadium.

The problem with the Olympics is that you don't just need facilities, but for those facilities to be able to accommodate large crowds.  As Nacre noted, it's one thing to have an Olympic-sized pool.  It's another for that venue to be able to hold 10,000-20,000 fans for the 1 time they'll need it for the competition.  To that end...

On 4/27/2020 at 12:38 PM, stryker said:

Of course there's still the problematic Olympic Village and the biggest white elephant of them all- the athletics stadium.

That gets said a lot, but look at the history and it's not necessarily all that true.  LA figured out a solution, albeit an expensive one, without having to build a new stadium.  Paris is using an existing stadium.  Rio, Athens, and Barcelona all used existing stadiums.  Sydney, London and Atlanta built new stadiums, but they're anything but white elephants.  Other sports and venues have been more of the culprits.  I don't think it's fair to point the finger at athletics as being the issue.

Won't argue with the point about the Olympic village though.  That's what will almost always make a permanent host a non-starter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economic analysis has shown LA/Atlanta and Sydney (per event) were super cheap..(I will look for the link)...Sydney's stadium was only USD300million, incredibly cheap for a 115,000 stadium.

The Sydney stadium was downsized to 80,000, the pool to 3,000 as planned, and there were temporary stands for everything else. from rowing, to archery, hockey etc...

Sydney Games cost less than 1percent of state GDP over 7 years...and left no debt.

Share this post


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

Economic analysis has shown LA/Atlanta and Sydney (per event) were super cheap..(I will look for the link)...Sydney's stadium was only USD300million, incredibly cheap for a 115,000 stadium.

The Sydney stadium was downsized to 80,000, the pool to 3,000 as planned, and there were temporary stands for everything else. from rowing, to archery, hockey etc...

Sydney Games cost less than 1percent of state GDP over 7 years...and left no debt.

ANZ STADIUM FAST FACTS

$690 million in Australian dollars.  Based on exchange rates at the time, that was about $380 US dollars.  By comparison, Atlanta's stadium only cost about $209 million.

LA's budget - no analysis needed - shows infrastructure spending at over a billion dollars.  If that's what you consider "super cheap," then imagine a city like Brisbane that has to build more from scratch because they don't already have the required facilities.  Suddenly not so super cheap anymore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it was super cheap- how much do you think a 115,000 seat stadium should cost? How much did the Athens, Beijing and London stadiums cost? When the AUD plunged below AUD50cents,  and the USD denominated TV rights and sponsor money came in, the Olympics cost very little.

You are comparing Sydney to the other 2 cities I noted were super cheap, ignoring the fact that the Sydney Games cost less than 1 percent of state GDP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of volunteers and organizers, well, its certainly not an ideal situation with spread out venues. On the other hand, IMO when you factor in the costs of construction plus annual upkeep, it's hard to see some extra shuttling and accommodations across the country being more expensive than constructing a new slalom canoe complex in L.A. If the IOC is willing to allow Paris to host surfing in Tahiti then I am sure they'd have no problem with L.A. hosting slalom canoe events in Charlotte. As for reducing the number of sports, I'd put slalom canoeing, golf, and modern pentathlon on the chopping block first with track cycling (velodromes are another problematic venue) next.

As long as a permanent tenant is lined up after the Olympics, then yes the athletics stadium is not a white elephant. The trouble is, when a city bids and has no tenant lined up afterwards, it is a white elephant, and evidence continues to mount that the so-called temporary stadium or building a large capacity stadium and significantly reducing the seating later is not a cost effective solution. The latest evidence, Budapest and Qatar's WC venues. Budapest originally planned a 50-60,000 seat stadium for the IAAF world championships that could be scaled down to 20,000 afterwards. The capacity was later reduced to 40,000 because of the logistics and costs involved in reducing the seating. Qatar originally proposed most of their WC stadiums would have large amounts of temporary seating that could be donated to less fortunate countries afterwards. Take a look at the new stadiums built already and you'll see this is not the case. Los Angeles and Paris were fortunate in that they had existing stadiums ready to go. Frankly, I'd like to see NYC give a another go at a SOGs in the future but I know it's not likely for multiple reasons, one of which is there's no need for an athletics stadium in the city.

As for the IFs, it's past the time for host cities to tell them no when they demand a shiny new venue whose legacy is listed as a community sports center. Tell them this is the venue you get, take it or leave it. Looking back at Tokyo, Yokohama Arena would've been more than reliable for volleyball but the FIVB strong armed Tokyo into building Ariake Arena as an example. Another mistake for Tokyo, the Gymnastics Arena, which was supposed to be temporary, but is too complicated and too costly to dismantle.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are several things that make surfing easier for Paris to move than rowing or kayaking.

Surfing is not a permanent member of the Olympics, but an optional addition Paris has selected. So surfing will bend over backwards to make it as easy as possible to host. In contrast the sports that are established members of the games tend to make it difficult for the hosts in order to get their way on venues. Just getting them to accept a natural body of water instead of an artificial whitewater center or rowing lake is a hard sell, much less accepting cuts in the number of athletes and officials.

Moreover politics rather than cost was a major motivator as much of the French Pacific wants to become independent. This is a way for the French to show that Tahiti, Bora Bora, New Caledonia, and so on benefit by being a part of France. Tahiti would never have been selected if it were an independent country.

Finally the athletes wanted to surf in Tahiti rather than Metropolitan France. The athletes for the standard Olympic sports probably do not have the same preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2020 at 9:03 AM, Quaker2001 said:

  Los Angeles has almost no permanent Olympic-related construction planned and the infrastructure budget is still over a billion dollars. 

However, I don't think what LA will eventually spend is really far off from that figure.   2028's six biggest items (expanded or raised from scratch; then returned to its former state are: 
- the main 50m swim venue at USC;
- securing UCLA and USC as the main Villages; 
- the upgrade of LA Memorial for Athletics and removal of the platform afterwards; 
- Equestrian (remember, it's not just the competition arena, but paddocks for 120 horses and dorms nearby for 80 grooms and 24/7 veterinary staff); 
- they still haven't settled on a Rowing venue; 
- improvements on other venues; training facilities; adaptations to Paralympic use and restored to previous state.  

All that could still come to $850 mil;  which may leave them with a surplus of est $150 mil from which they can draw on as contingency funds.  And if unused, will certainly look good in the final accounting.  

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/\/\  Also, I forgot that most of the competition will have test events the year before in 2027 (if all goes well).  So, would that mean recreating, say the platform at LA Memorial for Athletics, then tearing it down; and then setting it up again the following year?  The Swim Center at USC -- will that be ready the year before?  Equestrian?  Probably any adjustments for the Para's -- are they going to have a 2027 dress rehearsal and then re-do everything for 2028?  See, the Paralympics are a big drag/drain on the budget -- as are an excessive number of sports.  I think the IOC should just ditch them if they want to save the regular Olympic Games.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/1/2020 at 9:48 PM, Nacre said:

 In contrast the sports that are established members of the games tend to make it difficult for the hosts in order to get their way on venues. Just getting them to accept a natural body of water instead of an artificial whitewater center or rowing lake is a hard sell, much less accepting cuts in the number of athletes and officials.

This is where the host cities have to push back. With the limited number of bidders as it is, IMO the host cities have significant leverage over the IFs right now. Sure they might throw a fit over the use of an existing venue that's not in the host city limits(UCI did this when Tokyo declined to build a new velodrome) but eventually it's still the Olympics and they'd have no choice but to accept it. I can't think of any recourse an IF would have to try to get an Olympic host to build the venue they demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, stryker said:

This is where the host cities have to push back. With the limited number of bidders as it is, IMO the host cities have significant leverage over the IFs right now. Sure they might throw a fit over the use of an existing venue that's not in the host city limits(UCI did this when Tokyo declined to build a new velodrome) but eventually it's still the Olympics and they'd have no choice but to accept it. I can't think of any recourse an IF would have to try to get an Olympic host to build the venue they demand.

Goes as far back as Squaw Valley 1960.  Organizers there said they had no funds to build a luge track.  The IOC didn't balk.  Bobsled and luge were not contested that year.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there is some precedent for saying no to venue construction that would be too expensive.

On the topic of the aquatics venues (problematic for the reasons highlighted in an earlier post) we're seeing some movement in terms of recent world championships and the Olympics away from the expensive permanent venue to existing stadiums/arenas that can be fitted with temporary pools (though I think London's as well as Sydney's have fulfilled their legacies well. I'd add Atlanta's to that as well). Kazan used a football stadium for the world championships. Fukuoka is planning to hold the world championships inside a convention center/arena.  Los Angeles is using Dedeaux Field (I assume they can save costs by using the filtration system for the university pool which is adjacent to the stadium and being used as a warmup pool) to save costs but I expect there will be some pushback from FINA over an open air venue in the LA heat. There's also the issue as was pointed out regarding test events. I would assume the USC baseball team would have to spend a significant portion of their 2028 season on the road then there's the issue of NCAA playoffs with regionals and super regionals which run into June. Wasn't one of the reasons LA moved the aquatics venue from Banc of California Stadium was LAFC would have had to play an extended road schedule and they did not agree to this? My guess would be holding the test events in summer 2027, take the infrastructure down, and reassembling it after the baseball season ends. I don't know what kind of time frame would be needed for this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, stryker said:

So there is some precedent for saying no to venue construction that would be too expensive.

On the topic of the aquatics venues (problematic for the reasons highlighted in an earlier post) we're seeing some movement in terms of recent world championships and the Olympics away from the expensive permanent venue to existing stadiums/arenas that can be fitted with temporary pools (though I think London's as well as Sydney's have fulfilled their legacies well. I'd add Atlanta's to that as well). Kazan used a football stadium for the world championships. Fukuoka is planning to hold the world championships inside a convention center/arena.  Los Angeles is using Dedeaux Field (I assume they can save costs by using the filtration system for the university pool which is adjacent to the stadium and being used as a warmup pool) to save costs but I expect there will be some pushback from FINA over an open air venue in the LA heat. There's also the issue as was pointed out regarding test events. I would assume the USC baseball team would have to spend a significant portion of their 2028 season on the road then there's the issue of NCAA playoffs with regionals and super regionals which run into June. Wasn't one of the reasons LA moved the aquatics venue from Banc of California Stadium was LAFC would have had to play an extended road schedule and they did not agree to this? My guess would be holding the test events in summer 2027, take the infrastructure down, and reassembling it after the baseball season ends. I don't know what kind of time frame would be needed for this.

 

Altho for a summer 2027 test event for Aquatics, I am sure they can use the existing Uytengsu Pool (which was the 1984 venue after all).  It just won't have the added 2 lanes on the side for the water backsplash.  And Test Event 2027 does NOT have to invite the FULL COMPLEMENT of 50 or 60 nations which would compete in 2028.  A dozen invited nations will do to break in the 2028 staff and operations systems.  Plus, that experience could also be gained from a FINA World Championships that year.  

And like Athletics, even if they only build the platform once in 2028, the US Olympic tryouts will serve as test events for that venue.  (To add a little international flavor, they can always tweak the system by inviting one or 2 smaller, poorer countries to hold their Olympic test events along side the US tryouts - as has been done previously.  (They just keep the results of each country separate.) ) 

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF Tokyo is cancelled (hope not of course), I find it sad that 2028 has already been awarded...they could have offered Tokyo 2028, and LA the anniversary Games in 2032....I think they are starting to award the Games a bit early, who knows what the world, or any country will be like in 12 years time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TorchbearerSydney said:

IF Tokyo is cancelled (hope not of course), I find it sad that 2028 has already been awarded...they could have offered Tokyo 2028, and LA the anniversary Games in 2032....I think they are starting to award the Games a bit early, who knows what the world, or any country will be like in 12 years time!

If Tokyo can't host the Olympics in 2021, are they even going to want another one in the near future?  I don't think it would be so automatic to assume they would want the next available Olympics.  It's ironic how next Summer worked out because in a normal cycle, they'd be awarding the 2028 Olympics.  Thankfully that's already taken care of, so the IOC has to be relieved they don't have to worry about that.

When you say "starting to award the Games a bit early," you realize that was a one off, right?  That's not the start of a trend that we should expect to continue.  Remains to be seen how the IOC will be awarding hosting rights in the future, but 2026 was voted on right where it should have been.  7 years out seems like it will still be the standard and I would imagine once they get past next summer, they'll start looking ahead to the 2030 Olympics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2020 at 1:56 PM, stryker said:

This is where the host cities have to push back. With the limited number of bidders as it is, IMO the host cities have significant leverage over the IFs right now. Sure they might throw a fit over the use of an existing venue that's not in the host city limits(UCI did this when Tokyo declined to build a new velodrome) but eventually it's still the Olympics and they'd have no choice but to accept it. I can't think of any recourse an IF would have to try to get an Olympic host to build the venue they demand.

14 hours ago, stryker said:

So there is some precedent for saying no to venue construction that would be too expensive.

On the topic of the aquatics venues (problematic for the reasons highlighted in an earlier post) we're seeing some movement in terms of recent world championships and the Olympics away from the expensive permanent venue to existing stadiums/arenas that can be fitted with temporary pools (though I think London's as well as Sydney's have fulfilled their legacies well. I'd add Atlanta's to that as well). Kazan used a football stadium for the world championships. Fukuoka is planning to hold the world championships inside a convention center/arena.  Los Angeles is using Dedeaux Field (I assume they can save costs by using the filtration system for the university pool which is adjacent to the stadium and being used as a warmup pool) to save costs but I expect there will be some pushback from FINA over an open air venue in the LA heat. There's also the issue as was pointed out regarding test events. I would assume the USC baseball team would have to spend a significant portion of their 2028 season on the road then there's the issue of NCAA playoffs with regionals and super regionals which run into June. Wasn't one of the reasons LA moved the aquatics venue from Banc of California Stadium was LAFC would have had to play an extended road schedule and they did not agree to this? My guess would be holding the test events in summer 2027, take the infrastructure down, and reassembling it after the baseball season ends. I don't know what kind of time frame would be needed for this.

 

I still don't get how they're supposed to make this work with the swimming venue.  I get that the whole point is to have the warm-up pool nearby, but they're not using Dedeaux Field as much as they're using the space for a temporary structure that's going to take awhile to build and make it difficult to restore the original condition of the field.  Yes, that's going to displace USC baseball for at least a year, just like it's probably going to impact the 2028 football season at USC, possibly more depending on how long it takes to construct and then remove the platform.

In terms of your comments about pushing back.. shouldn't Rio have dont that with UCI prior to the 2016 Olympics instead of caving in and building a new one?  It's easy to say in a vacuum that the host cities have leverage, but if there's more than 1 bidder, than a city still has to put their best foot forward or risk losing the support of an IF.  That's their recourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

I Remains to be seen how the IOC will be awarding hosting rights in the future, but 2026 was voted on right where it should have been.  7 years out seems like it will still be the standard and I would imagine once they get past next summer, they'll start looking ahead to the 2030 Olympics.

No, the IOC has stated that they are no longer bound by that 7 year-lead time rule.  They've said that they can pick/announce a host city any time if the conditions are right.  I suppose if Sapporo and Salt Lake are the only serious contenders for both 2030 and 2034; they can lock them in early or much later than the normal 7 years.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

When you say "starting to award the Games a bit early," you realize that was a one off, right?  That's not the start of a trend that we should expect to continue.  Remains to be seen how the IOC will be awarding hosting rights in the future, but 2026 was voted on right where it should have been.  7 years out seems like it will still be the standard and I would imagine once they get past next summer, they'll start looking ahead to the 2030 Olympics.

Definitely not a one-off, it is much more than that.  Further,, the traditional IOC 7-year  election/hosting timeline is officially out the window, as Baron said.

Under the previous adoption of Agenda2020 and last year”s passing of the additional ‘New Norm’ reforms, a Host City can be voted on at any time.  It is the IOC’s New Norm.

It is widely expected that the IOC will vote on the 2032 Summer Host around 2021-2022.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

In terms of your comments about pushing back.. shouldn't Rio have dont that with UCI prior to the 2016 Olympics instead of caving in and building a new one?  It's easy to say in a vacuum that the host cities have leverage, but if there's more than 1 bidder, than a city still has to put their best foot forward or risk losing the support of an IF.  That's their recourse.

And this is why Los Angeles has been so successful. It has bid again, and again, and again with plans that make sense for Los Angeles rather than the sports federations. 

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...

×
×
  • Create New...