Jump to content

2036 Olympics: Crowded Field of Interested Parties


Recommended Posts

The problem is that pre-New Norm, interest in hosting a Games was gauged by the number of bids submitted to the IOC.

Now with New Norm, initial interest comes only from a whole string of media reports 

- but that’s the game we’re in now and if media reports are all we have, then we count those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

The problem is that pre-New Norm, interest in hosting a Games was gauged by the number of bids submitted to the IOC.

Now with New Norm, initial interest comes only from a whole string of media reports 

- but that’s the game we’re in now and if media reports are all we have, then we count those.

And that’s the crux of the issue. As you’re fond of pointing out, it’s a different game now and it’s fraught to draw direct parallels between how cities move up the bidding process now compared to how it used to happen. And the charts you’ve done don’t really correspond or show any type of equivalency in their categories.

For example, the charts for the older races start from a base point of “Bid Cities” before progressing onto “Applicant Cities” and “Short List Cities”. The latter, “New Norm” charts, start from “Media Reports Only” which in no way corresponds to the previous bidding cities category.

While not even then exactly the same,“Bid Cities” would more closely be analogous to “Continuous Dialogue”. You would need to add a “Media Reports Only” section to those earlier races if you wanted to make a closer comparison. There have always been a lot more cities who have mused about bidding for an Olympics - much less even making it to the point of public record - than there have been who’ve actually gone on to formally initiate a formal bid run or dialogue with the IOC.

For example:

I’d been following bids closely since the 1980s, especially from when Brisbane was bidding for 1992. By the late 1990s and early 2000s, when I was a journo on a major national newspaper and also excited at my home town hosting the 2000 games,  I’d amassed a pretty good library on the Olympics and bidding and was closely following any news items pertaining to possible future hosts. In those days, at work I had access to raw reports from the “wire services” - news agencies such as Reuters, UPI, Agence France Presse, Kyodo, Deutsche Press Agenteur etc, from which newspapers’ foreign desks culled stories for their foreign news pages (this was before the internet gave such access to pretty well everyone). I used to scan these feeds for any mentions of potential bids and print those stories out on dot matrix sheets and keep them in a manila folder for my own interest. It was actually these searches that led me, in about 2003-2004, to discovering and eventually joining GamesBids - by that time it was one of the few sites also collating such reports. Anyway, I possibly still have that manila folder somewhere in my piles of old junk but I’m not sure where to start looking. What I do recall, though, is many reports of cities expressing “interest” in bidding the games - the likes of St Petersburg, Cairo, Buenos Aires, Budapest, India to name just those I can definitely remember because they enthused me - who never made it to the point of formal application.

In the almost 20 years since I joined up here, likewise, there have been many cities who have surfaced on press reports as harbouring “interest” in the games for 2012 to 2020 who never progressed as far as bidding. Here’s just a small sample from off he top of my head - I’m sure other long time members can recall more. 

Let’s take the list for 2012 to start. It mentions Leipzig but not the fact it beat out formal domestic bids from Hamburg, Düsseldorf, Stuttgart and Frankfurt to become the German bidder for that year.

Then there’s infamous musings of politicians from the likes of Tulsa and Minneapolis, who became something of a meme here because of their slim chances.

The Netherlands government in the late 2000s were reportedly working on a strategic plan to bid in the 2020s. Ditto the New Zealand government (which also at one stage apparently got to the point of the government non-commitally “investigating” the wisdom of a bid for the 2022 Winter Games before dismissing the notion).

We’ve even seen the likes of radio jocks from Tasmania getting headlines for launching a Hobart “bid” - and even coming to the GamesBids board to argue they were dead serious. 

That’s just a sampling from direct memory. Some were serious. Some were just politicians’ or civic groups’ pipe dreams. But all of these, and more, would need to be reflected in the charts if you were to try and compare the “Crowded Field of Interested Parties” to similar fields for earlier races.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

 

Now with New Norm, initial interest comes only from a whole string of media reports 

- but that’s the game we’re in now and if media reports are all we have, then we count those.

But hey, this model is more transparent than the old one, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

In the almost 20 years since I joined up here, likewise, there have been many cities who have surfaced on press reports as harbouring “interest” in the games for 2012 to 2020 who never progressed as far as bidding. Here’s just a small sample from off he top of my head - I’m sure other long time members can recall more. 

Let’s take the list for 2012 to start. It mentions Leipzig but not the fact it beat out formal domestic bids from Hamburg, Düsseldorf, Stuttgart and Frankfurt to become the German bidder for that year.

Then there’s infamous musings of politicians from the likes of Tulsa and Minneapolis, who became something of a meme here because of their slim chances.

We’ve even seen the likes of radio jocks from Tasmania getting headlines for launching a Hobart “bid” - and even coming to the GamesBids board to argue they were dead serious. 

That’s just a sampling from direct memory. Some were serious. Some were just politicians’ or civic groups’ pipe dreams. But all of these, and more, would need to be reflected in the charts if you were to try and compare the “Crowded Field of Interested Parties” to similar fields for earlier races.  

Yeah, if we're going to count every nook & cranny "interest", then the list for prior races really outpaces anything now, & the new-norm really hasn't super-charged interest at all. If anything, I'd say that it's DECREASED from the past. 

In addition to what you've mentioned, there's also the 2012 & 2016 U.S. domestic nomination races, which those alone saw about a dozen other cities showing 'interest' that never even made it to the application stage. 

Like Seattle, Tampa/Orlando, San Francisco, San Diego/Tijuana, Dallas, Houston, Washington DC/Baltimore, Pittsburgh & Cincinnati.

And of course who can forget Las Vegas' rogue attempt for the 2020 Olympics. :lol:

And so many other international mentions that are too long to list. But this notion that the new-norm, along with Brisbane's 2032 coronation, has somehow "super-charged" interest is a myth.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FYI said:

Yeah, if we're going to count every nook & cranny "interest", then the list for prior races really outpaces anything now, & the new-norm really hasn't super-charged interest at all. If anything, I'd say that it's DECREASED from the past. 

In addition to what you've mentioned, there's also the 2012 & 2016 U.S. domestic nomination races, which those alone saw about a dozen other cities showing 'interest' that never even made it to the application stage. 

Like Seattle, Tampa/Orlando, San Francisco, San Diego/Tijuana, Dallas, Houston, Washington DC/Baltimore, Pittsburgh & Cincinnati.

And of course who can forget Las Vegas' rogue attempt for the 2020 Olympics. :lol:

And so many other international mentions that are too long to list. But this notion that the new-norm, along with Brisbane's 2032 coronation, has somehow "super-charged" interest is a myth.

Also it is true that 2032 only proved IOC needs only 1 bid, it doesnt really matter if dozens of cities present to the competition if only one will get the event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

Does anyone know how to create simple online graphs?

Just been pulling together numbers of bids and interested parties since 2000 for Summer Olympic Games under the old bidding system and continuing into the new norm host selection period up to the present.

Would be great if someone knows to show these numbers on a graph as numbers in a table aren’t as clear when looking at trends.

So, might start posting the tables of one Summer Games at a time leading up to 2036.

As this is all googled, there most definitely will be inaccuracies, errors, etc so feel free  to correct / discuss / highlight.

If you plan the data into an Excel spreadsheet, it can create a graph.  That said...

5 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

It’s hardly redundant when you can have it all in one spot comparing the number of bids from past Games with the level of interest currently for the 2036 Games.

That’s the whole point of this thread.   Having it in one spot makes it a lot easier to compare and discuss.

What exactly are we comparing here?  Up through 2024, you're giving us bids and applicant cities.  For 2032 and 2036, you're giving us the list of media reports.  Seems like you're intentionally skewing the information to try and prove your "look how great the new norm is at getting interested cities."  That's not a trend you're trying to demonstrate.  It's confirmation bias

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

The problem is that pre-New Norm, interest in hosting a Games was gauged by the number of bids submitted to the IOC.

Now with New Norm, initial interest comes only from a whole string of media reports 

- but that’s the game we’re in now and if media reports are all we have, then we count those.

Exactly.. that's an extremely dumb way of looking at it if we're judging by media reports.  Those existed pre-new norm as well so why aren't you putting that list together?  Other than that it might completely dis-prove your point.

To lump all media reports into a list as if they're all created equal is extremely stupid.  Not all "interest" is the same and if you're going to go off those reports, be smart enough to know what's in those reports.  It's not that difficult to do a few minutes of research and have at least some idea of what cities may or may not actually have something that may eventually lead to a more serious bid rather than just generic and meaningless "interest"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chris_Mex said:

Also it is true that 2032 only proved IOC needs only 1 bid, it doesnt really matter if dozens of cities present to the competition if only one will get the event.

Well, true to a point. But having a choice is a better. You don’t want to be left with only one bid if that bid’s a dud. Or like 2022 when you’re left with the proverbial… what was it?… A choice between a turd and a sh!t sandwich.

I’ll say one thing for the “New Norm” - it’s designed to discourage dud bidders and coax, encourage and drag along anything that’s halfway decent.

Also, speaking of the infamous 2022 race. Yes, it was the one that forced the IOC’s hand when the field dropped out to leave only the problematic two at the end. But remember, it started out with a decent field of applicants, that as well as Beijing and Almaty also included Oslo, Stockholm, Krakow and Lviv. And also, courtesy of Wikipedia: Bids for the 2022 Winter Olympics, it also started with a “Crowded Field of Interested Parties”, which included:

Tyrol/South Tyrol/Trentino

Sarajevo

Quebec City

Santiago, Chile

Nice, France

Taiko, Koupio and Helsinki, Finland

Munich

Queenstown-Christchurch, NZ

Brasov, Romania

Barcelona

Zaragosa

Ostersund, Sweden

Graubunden, Switzerland

USA

Vancouver

All of which would count as “Media reports only”

 

 

Edited by Sir Rols
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Well, true to a point. But having a choice is a better. You don’t want to be left with only one bid if that bid’s a dud. Or like 2022 when you’re left with the proverbial… what was it?… A choice between a turd and a sh!t sandwich.

I’ll say one thing for the “New Norm” - it’s designed to discourage dud bidders and coax, encourage and drag along anything that’s halfway decent.

Also, speaking of the infamous 2022 race. Yes, it was the one that forced the IOC’s hand when the field dropped out to leave only the problematic two at the end. But remember, it started out with a decent field of applicants, that as well as Beijing and Almaty also included Oslo, Stockholm, Krakow and Lviv. And also, courtesy of Wikipedia: Bids for the 2022 Winter Olympics, it also started with a “Crowded Field of Interested Parties”, which included:

Tyrol/South Tyrol/Trentino

Sarajevo

Quebec City

Santiago, Chile

Nice, France

Taiko, Koupio and Helsinki, Finland

Munich

Queenstown-Christchurch, NZ

Brasov, Romania

Barcelona

Zaragosa

Ostersund, Sweden

Graubunden, Switzerland

USA

Vancouver

All of which would count as “Media reports only”

 

 

Sure but the same, China was the only one left. The same china that had the capability (by their own authoritarian ways) of building infrastructure, which 7 years prior hosted one of the most iconic editions of the olympic summer games, and which is the world's 2nd economy. If the only bid lef was the Kazakh one,then they would have been in a real trouble. If we reduce the last olympic allocations we would be reduced to a dominant bid a safe milano-cortina vs a polemic stockholm, a centennial paris games vs a rather humble hungarian bid and another LA bid (although it would have been competed if rome and germany didn't pulled off their bids). a modern tokyo bid vs a troubled istanbul and a desesperated madrid. a booming rio de janeiro vs an asian bid (after 2008), a european bid (after 2012) and another us bid...The last really competed race that took place was for 2012 and that was in 2005.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this new norm age, and from where we are sitting as commentators in these threads on the sidelines, there  is no judgement on interested parties as reported by the media, that’s up to that interested party to go further than just talk to the media and actually contact the IOC Future Host Commission to have a chat.

I keep hearing the IOC say that there is increased interest in hosting the Games since new norm’s introduction but as we dont get any actual numbers about the number of confidential dicussions they have going on at any one particular point in time, then, in the absence of formal bid lodgements we can only go on media reports.

Some parties may voluntarily actually report to the media that they are in continuous dialogue with the IOC Future Host Commission about a future edition of the Summer Olympic Games, while others might understandably prefer to keep a lid on things.

It’s been enormously diffiicult to get a handle on an estimate of the numbers of simply interested parties pre-New Norm who may or may not have gone on to submit a formal bid to the IOC under the old bidding system.

Withdrawls

One thing’s for sure, there is highly likely to far far fewer withdrawls from the Targeted Dialogue (preferred host) stage than previously.

Looking at the SOGs alone, since 2000 there were 8 withdrawls from the previous formal bidding process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^LOL, that argument sounds so ironically familiar from another past member who's acronym coincidentally was also AFan (but of a different Games).

When the USOC was planning to bid for the 2024 Olympics, they said that they were going to run the domestic nod process that time "low-key" & behind-closed-doors (after their two previous recent losses, 2012 & 2016, at the time). So they weren't going to publicly mention which U.S. (alpha) cities they were in contact with, other than sending an "invitation" to 35 U.S. cities (or unless those cities themselves made some form of declaration of their "interest" or discussions with the USOC).

But of course said member was so adamant that we "simply don't know" & "don't have enough information" & we're only on the "sidelines" to really know who the USOC is actually in contact with, even though common sense dictated who they likely were in contact with, & most likely who they weren't in contact with due to the current circumstances &/or stances of some of those U.S. (alpha) cities at the time to endeavor on a(nother) Olympic bid. But in the end, all of their arguments didn't add up because they wanted to read the tea leaves differently in promoting other U.S. (alpha) cities to come up to the plate, other than L.A. which we wound up with anyway nonetheless. 

This is not that much different from that scenario. Some common sense dictates who the IOC, is or isn't, in "continuous dialog" with. And if they are, how likely is it that an actual bid would materialize from some of these said places. Not knowing or some of these places 'understandably wanting to keep a lid on things' is a vague (& familiar) counter-argument, since it can just as easily not really be a 'crowded field of interested parties' as the IOC & some others would like to suggest otherwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the IOC Future Host Commission (Summer Games) is not edition-specific, who do you think might be in continuous dialogue now, or likely to initiate discussions,

- including those who missed out on 2032 and, following Brisbane’s election, remain in continuous dialogue about 2036, who of these could follow-up their interest into actual discussions with the IOC Future Host Commission ?

 

ZqzvGsO.jpg

 

xxIn this new norm age, and from where we are sitting as commentators in these threads on the sidelines, there  is no judgement on interested parties as reported by the media, that’s up to that interested party to go further than just talk to the media and actually contact the IOC Future Host Commission to have a chat.

I keep hearing the IOC say that there is increased interest in hosting the Games since new norm’s introduction but as we dont get any actual numbers about the number of confidential dicussions they have going on at any one particular point in time, then, in the absence of formal bid lodgements we can only go on media reports.

Some parties may voluntarily actually report to the media that they are in continuous dialogue with the IOC Future Host Commission about a future edition of the Summer Olympic Games, while others might understandably prefer to keep a lid on things.

It’s been enormously diffiicult to get a handle on an estimate of the numbers of simply interested parties pre-New Norm who may or may not have gone on to submit a formal bid to the IOC under the old bidding system.

Withdrawls

One thing’s for sure, there is highly likely to far far fewer withdrawls from the Targeted Dialogue (preferred host) stage than previously.

Looking at the SOGs alone, since 2000 there were 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IOC has never been short on "interested parties" wanting to discuss hosting any Olympics. It's not something "new" for 2036, like you keep trying to portray it. But as others have already pointed out, it's the *quality*, not the "quantity" that matters the most here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

Let’s take the list for 2012 to start. It mentions Leipzig but not the fact it beat out formal domestic bids from Hamburg, Düsseldorf, Stuttgart and Frankfurt to become the German bidder for that year.

Excellent post. I'll just pick up on this bit and supplement your memory with Wikipedia...

So, for 2012...the crowded list of interested parties is... :lol:

Besides the initial nine applicant cities, other cities also wished to bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics, but the bids were not internally selected by the NOC (in case of more than one bidding city from the same country), were not put forward to the IOC, or were withdrawn before filing the necessary paperwork.[58]

The Nigerian capital, Abuja, planned to present a bid to become the first African city to stage the Olympic Games, but ended up not filling its application.[59] In Asia, three cities were interested in holding the Games, but did not officially submit a bid: Hyderabad,[60] New Delhi,[61] and Tel Aviv.[62] In South America, the Brazilian Olympic Committee chose Rio de Janeiro over São Paulo,[63] and if Rio de Janeiro had been selected by the IOC, it would have been the first Olympiad staged in South America (four years on, Rio de Janeiro did land the 2016 Summer Olympics). In Canada, Toronto initially planned to gain hosting rights for 2012 after losing the 2008 Olympics bidding process, but because Vancouver landed the 2010 Winter Olympics, the Canadian city cancelled these plans.[64] In the United States, the city of New York was picked by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) over San Francisco,[65] although several other cities submitted candidatures to become the American candidate for the 2012 Olympics; these included Houston, Washington D.C. (in cooperation with nearby Baltimore), Cincinnati, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles,[66] Seattle and Tampa[67] (in cooperation with nearby Orlando).[68] Several European cities wanted to follow the likes of London, Madrid, Moscow and Paris, and were thus hopeful to gain their NOC's support. Germany chose Leipzig over Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, and Stuttgart,[69] while in Spain, Seville lost out to Madrid.[34] Other referenced cities were Budapest,[70] Milan, Rome,[71] Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmö, Oslo and Copenhagen.[72]

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FYI said:

The IOC has never been short on "interested parties" wanting to discuss hosting any Olympics. It's not something "new" for 2036, like you keep trying to portray it. But as others have already pointed out, it's the *quality*, not the "quantity" that matters the most here.

I believe that what you have just asserted is entirely incorrect, and in fact, the amount of interested parties did drop right away especially within the last 10-15 years or so.

As costs in even preparing a bid went up, and citizens referendums against the waste stopped a few bids in their tracks, yes the anount of interested parties did in fact decrease considerably.

You surely can’t actually be saying that in recent years there has always been a high level of interest to discuss staging the Olympic Games??
 

You can literally in front of your eyes watch the bids gradually go down and down and down over the last 17 years from the 2004 Games onwards:

  • 2004:   11 bids   downward trend in bid numbers continues thru to 2024
  • 2008:   10 bids
  • 2012:     9 bids
  • 2016:     7 bids
  • 2020:    6 bids
  • 2024:    5 bids

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The decrease in applicants is certainly true. It's the increase post new-norm (that you're claiming) that we're having trouble with. Because it doesn't look like you're comparing like with like (and Sir Rols explained this better than I could).

We're yet to see the equivalent stages to the applicant/bidding stage and we need a sample size of two or three cycles to make a claim such as yours with any certainty.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(just added in the withdrawl numbers to the clear sustained downward trend in bid numbers under the old bidding system):

  • 2004:    11 bids   
  • 2008:   10 bids
  • 2012:     9 bids
  • 2016:     7 bids
  • 2020:    6 bids - 1 withdrew, leaving 5 bids
  • 2024:    5 bids - 3 withdrew, leaving 2 bids
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rob. said:

The decrease in applicants is certainly true. It's the increase post new-norm (that you're claiming) that we're having trouble with. Because it doesn't look like you're comparing like with like (and Sir Rols explained this better than I could).

We're yet to see the equivalent stages to the applicant/bidding stage and we need a sample size of two or three cycles to make a claim such as yours with any certainty.

I agree.

It’s like comparing apples with oranges.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

I believe that what you have just asserted is entirely incorrect, and in fact, the amount of interested parties did drop right away especially within the last 10-15 years or so.

You can literally in front of your eyes watch the bids gradually go down and down and down over the last 17 years from the 2004 Games onwards:

  • 2004:   11 bids   downward trend in bid numbers continues thru to 2024
  • 2008:   10 bids
  • 2012:     9 bids
  • 2016:     7 bids
  • 2020:    6 bids
  • 2024:    5 bids

No, it was explained to you earlier, but you're *intentionally & deliberately* skewing the data to suit your own argument of "the new-norm is the next best thing since sliced bread".

You're only counting the ACTUAL bids in these races, but yet for 2036, you're including those media reports that you're so found of. Well, for those previous races, we also had media reports & domestic NOC bid races that can all be labeled as "interested parties", too, & they increase the numbers by far. So please STOP being so disingenuous here, just so you can push your 'great new-norm' agenda.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, FYI said:

No, it was explained to you earlier, but you're *intentionally & deliberately* skewing the data to suit your own argument of "the new-norm is the next best thing since sliced bread".

You're only counting the ACTUAL bids in these races, but yet for 2036, you're including those media reports that you're so found of. Well, for those previous races, we also had media reports & domestic NOC bid races that can all be labeled as "interested parties", too, & they increase the numbers by far. So please STOP being so disingenuous here, just so you can push your 'great new-norm' agenda.

As I said, you can clearly see a sustained pattern of the number of actual Bids under the old bidding system starting to decrease from 2004 onwards - and the number of withdrawls shown as well:.

 

  • 2000:     bids   (after 4 withdrew)
  • 2004:    11 bids   
  • 2008:   10 bids
  • 2012:     9 bids
  • 2016:     7 bids
  • 2020:     5 bids   (after 1 withdrew)
  • 2024:     2 bids   (after 3 withdrew)
  • 2028:       -    (LA from 2024 cycle awarded 2028 Games)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AustralianFan said:

As I said, you can clearly see a sustained pattern of the number of actual Bids under the old bidding system starting to decrease from 2004 onwards - and the number of withdrawls shown as well:.

The withdrawals isn't your argument here, though. It's the "interested parties". So which is it? Cause it can't be both, so pick one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

As I said, you can clearly see a sustained pattern of the number of actual Bids under the old bidding system starting to decrease from 2004 onwards - and the number of withdrawls shown as well:.

 

 

  • 2000:     bids   (after 4 withdrew)
  • 2004:    11 bids   
  • 2008:   10 bids
  • 2012:     9 bids
  • 2016:     7 bids
  • 2020:     5 bids   (after 1 withdrew)
  • 2024:     2 bids   (after 3 withdrew)
  • 2028:       -    (LA from 2024 cycle awarded 2028 Games)

 

… and this is only the Summer Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FYI said:

The withdrawals isn't your argument here, though. It's the "interested parties". So which is it? Cause it can't be both, so pick one.

As posted above, it’s very difficult to compare apples and oranges.

But suffice to say that it would be a logical assumption under the old bidding system to say that the dropping level of interest in hosting the Games up 2004 to 2024/28 was manifested in the number of bids dropping as well at the same rate .

It’s a reasonable and logical assumption that when the level of interest in hosting the Games drops, so do the number of bids.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...