2036 Olympics: Crowded Field of Interested Parties

[AustralianFan]

9 minutes 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.

 

1 minute ago, AustralianFan said:

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.

It’s obvious that the number of withdrawls adds to the overall reality of diminshing interest in hosting the Games which actaully occurred under the old bidding system.

This actually happened.

• 2000:     4 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 the new host selection process which replaced the old bidding system actually happened too.

Like it or not, both happened.

[FYI]

1 minute ago, AustralianFan said:

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

It's not difficult at all when you look at them without an agenda in mind.

3 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

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

The way the new-norm is designed, also doesn't really a allow for a flood of actual bids, either. So IDK what exactly you're trying to get at here, when it contradicts exactly what you're trying to promote.

[FYI]

2 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

 

It’s obvious that the number of withdrawls adds to the overall reality of diminshing interest in hosting the Games which actaully occurred under the old bidding system.

This actually happened.

.. and the new host selection process which replaced the old bidding system actually happened too.

Like it or not, both happened.

If initial interest is your argument (which is what you're doing for 2036), then the previous withdrawals don't matter, because the "interested parties" were there at the *very beginning* - 'like it or not', that's how those races happened, too.   

[AustralianFan]

At Host Elections under the old bidding system, and the agony, painful  look on the faces of the losing candidates as the world’s media would trained their cameras on their humiliated faces under the old bidding system, as dramatic as it was.

The final vote rounds losers as the humiliated candidates realise their dream and lots of money spent just getting to this vote - has all been a big waste.

Final Host Vote Rounds Losers

• 2000   3 losers (Beijing, Istanbul, Manchester)
• 2004   4 losers  (Buenos Aires, Capetown, Rome, Stockholm)
• 2008    4 losers  (Istanbul, Osaka, Paris, Toronto)
• 2012     4 losers  (Madrid, Moscow, NYC, Paris)
• 2016     3 losers  (Chicago, Madrid, Tokyo)
• 2020     2 losers  (Istanbul, Madrid)

This illustrates the “too many losers” cited as on of the reasons for the change to the bidding cities.

The above also doesn’t include the time and money spent by cities not short-listed, not recognised as applicant cities or those who withdrew.

[FYI]

22 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

It’s obvious that the number of withdrawls adds to the overall reality of diminshing interest in hosting the Games which actaully occurred under the old bidding system.

Right, because remind me how much of a solid ground, Sapporo, Vancouver & the trainwreck that it the Barcelona/Pyrenees bids are, that's suppose to be for the first (2030) winter Games to be elected under the 'new-norm' procedure.

[AustralianFan]

23 minutes ago, FYI said:

It's not difficult at all when you look at them without an agenda in mind.

The way the new-norm is designed, also doesn't really a allow for a flood of actual bids, either. So IDK what exactly you're trying to get at here, when it contradicts exactly what you're trying to promote.

The level of interest in hosting the Games as translated to actual formsl  bids has been steadily in decline over the last 20 years and also placed the old bidding system in terminal decline along with it

…. so much so it has now been replaced.

Where we are at now is assessing for 2036 under the new host selection system is to see how many of the interested parties translate into actual continuous dialogue with the IOC Future Host Commission.

[FYI]

5 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

At Host Elections under the old bidding system, and the agony, painful  look on the faces of the losing candidates as the world’s media would trained their cameras on their humiliated faces under the old bidding system, as dramatic as it was.

The final vote rounds losers as the humiliated candidates realise their dream and lots of money spent just getting to this vote - has all been a big waste.

Final Host Vote Rounds Losers

• 2000   3 losers (Beijing, Istanbul, Manchester)
• 2004   4 losers  (Buenos Aires, Capetown, Rome, Stockholm)
• 2008    4 losers  (Istanbul, Osaka, Paris, Toronto)
• 2012     4 losers  (Madrid, Moscow, NYC, Paris)
• 2016     3 losers  (Chicago, Madrid, Tokyo)
• 2020     2 losers  (Istanbul, Madrid)

This illustrates the “too many losers” cited as on of the reasons for the change to the bidding cities.

The above also doesn’t include the time and money spent by cities not short-listed, not recognised as applicant cities or those who withdrew.

And the IOC *loved* it all, until it was FORCED to do something about their wild ways. They were like a bunch of party boys, until everyone was told that it was 'last call'. They'd do it all over again, if it was open bar night.

[AustralianFan]

5 minutes ago, FYI said:

Right, because remind me how much of a solid ground, Sapporo, Vancouver & the trainwreck that it the Barcelona/Pyrenees bids are, that's suppose to be for the first (2030) winter Games to be elected under the 'new-norm' procedure.

What on earth are you on about?

This thread is about the level of interest in hosting the 2036 Summer Games.

If you want to discuss why one of the Winter Games candidatures is in terminal decline due to in-fighting, you’re in the wrong thread.

[AustralianFan]

As mentioned, under the old bidding system, its a logical conclusion to draw that a steady decline in the number of Summer Games formal bids was accompanied with a dropping level of interest in hosting the Games from 2004 to 2024/28:

• 2000:     4 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)

 

[FYI]

1 minute ago, AustralianFan said:

What on earth are you on about?

This thread is about the level of interest in hosting the 2036 Summer Games.

If you want to discuss why one of the Winter Games candidatures is in terminal decline due to in-fighting, you’re in the wrong thread.

Nice way of trying to deflect. But it still has to do with the "new norm" that you're constantly promoting all over the place around here (so you never really know where it ends or where it begins). And the Pyrenees bid is suffering from more than just in-fighting, but also from a NOlympics movement & looming referendum that also threatens the bid to ultimately "withdraw".

[AustralianFan]

1 minute ago, FYI said:

Nice way of trying to deflect. But it still has to do with the "new norm" that you're constantly promoting all over the place around here (so you never really know where it ends or where it begins). And the Pyrenees bid is suffering from more than just in-fighting, but also from a NOlympics movement & looming referendum that also threatens the bid to ultimately "withdraw".

As I said, you’re completely off-topic.

[FYI]

Not really. It still has to do with the new-norm that you're constantly promoting. Again, that's just your way of conveniently deflecting what you don't like to hear.

[AustralianFan]

3 minutes ago, FYI said:

Nice way of trying to deflect. But it still has to do with the "new norm" that you're constantly promoting all over the place around here (so you never really know where it ends or where it begins). And the Pyrenees bid is suffering from more than just in-fighting, but also from a NOlympics movement & looming referendum that also threatens the bid to ultimately "withdraw".

 

1 minute ago, AustralianFan said:

As I said, you’re completely off-topic.

Here is the link to the Pyranees-Barcelona-Zaragoza 2030 thread. 

This thread here that you are in now is about those interested in hosting the 2036 Summer Games.

[FYI]

Funny, yet you had no trouble posting this in the "2036 interest thread", which made reference about the *2030 race* in there. Go figure. 

On 5/23/2022 at 2:54 PM, AustralianFan said:

This helps understanding of the new process:

Credit: Barret extols IOC's new process for electing Olympic Games hosts - 23 May 2022 - Inside The Games

 

• Sapporo has long been viewed as a frontrunner for 2030, but is facing stiff competition from Salt Lake City, Vancouver, and a joint Pyrenees-Barcelona proposal.

 

[AustralianFan]

For 2036, we can expect that the large number of interested parties as reported by the media to increase further to some extent in the next few years until a Host is chosen.

Over time, we will should be able to get a better idea of who has converted words into action and actually is in continuous dialogue about the 2036 from the list of interested parties as reported by the media.

 

[Quaker2001]

6 hours ago, Chris_Mex said:

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.

Let's not forget the history of that vote.  84 votes cast and 40 were for Almaty.  In hindsight, yes that would have been a disaster.  But let's not paint it that China was the only option, because a lot of people knew from minute one that was a bad choice.

At the end of the day, what matters is the winner, not how strong the field of competition was

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, AustralianFan said:

For 2036, we can expect that the large number of interested parties as reported by the media to increase further to some extent in the next few years until a Host is chosen.

Over time, we will should be able to get a better idea of who has converted words into action and actually is in continuous dialogue about the 2036 from the list of interested parties as reported by the media.

Since Rob did it for 2012, let's look at the 2024 field of candidates.. Bids for the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics

That's a really long list of cities there and it's based off of actual interest.  Not your misleading notion of "media reports" which is a terrible metric to use.  So for 2024, there were all those cities, 5 eventually put in bids, and as we know, only 2 were left standing at the end.  How is that all any different than what we should expect for 2036?  Other than your pie in the sky notion that there's more serious contenders out of this group in your mind than will probably actually play out.

Maybe take a longer look at those media reports to get a better sense of who is serious or no.  An example from 2024.. N.Y. looking at bid for 2024 Olympics, Cuomo says

You would have jumped on this and put it in your "interested cities" list.  If you actually read the report, you'd see there was no interest.  Just the governor of the state of New York saying he would entertain a proposal *IF* there actually was a proposal.  Which was then made moot 2 weeks later when the mayor of NYC said they wouldn't entertain a bid.

So aside from your nonsensical posts about looking at past bids versus current "interest," we need to be a little bit more discerning when compiling a list based on media reports.  Maybe take a look at those reports first and actually reading them because simply adding them to your list and saying "they're interested" and making it seem like we should evaluate them as if they're working towards what could be a legitimate bad

[cfm Jeremie]

16 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

So here goes, starting with 2000:

The notion of Applicant Cities was only introduced in 2000 for the 2008 bidding process. All the 2000 bid cities were candidate cities. Berlin didn't withdraw and was part of the 2000 vote.

[Chris_Mex]

3 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Let's not forget the history of that vote.  84 votes cast and 40 were for Almaty.  In hindsight, yes that would have been a disaster.  But let's not paint it that China was the only option, because a lot of people knew from minute one that was a bad choice.

At the end of the day, what matters is the winner, not how strong the field of competition was

Yeah but is also possible that those 40 votes had a political implication behind, such as the beijing 2000 bid failure, rather than Beijing (with almost all stadium venues built and plans to develope world class ski resorts) being a bad option for 2022

[AustralianFan]

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Since Rob did it for 2012, let's look at the 2024 field of candidates.. Bids for the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics

That's a really long list of cities there and it's based off of actual interest.  Not your misleading notion of "media reports" which is a terrible metric to use.  So for 2024, there were all those cities, 5 eventually put in bids, and as we know, only 2 were left standing at the end.  How is that all any different than what we should expect for 2036?  Other than your pie in the sky notion that there's more serious contenders out of this group in your mind than will probably actually play out.

Maybe take a longer look at those media reports to get a better sense of who is serious or no.  An example from 2024.. N.Y. looking at bid for 2024 Olympics, Cuomo says

You would have jumped on this and put it in your "interested cities" list.  If you actually read the report, you'd see there was no interest.  Just the governor of the state of New York saying he would entertain a proposal *IF* there actually was a proposal.  Which was then made moot 2 weeks later when the mayor of NYC said they wouldn't entertain a bid.

So aside from your nonsensical posts about looking at past bids versus current "interest," we need to be a little bit more discerning when compiling a list based on media reports.  Maybe take a look at those reports first and actually reading them because simply adding them to your list and saying "they're interested" and making it seem like we should evaluate them as if they're working towards what could be a legitimate bad

The point I am making is that for the 2036 Games we literally do not know who of the list of interested parties will actually commence discussions with the IOC Future Host Commission.   All we have are media reports of interested parties at this stage.

So , since under the new host selection process the IOC themselves don’t publish a list of “Interested Parties” nor a list of “Parties in Continuous Dialogue”, it certainly is difficult to gauge which of the media reports of interested parties progressing into actual dialogue with the IOC in a future edition of the Olympic Games.

We wait for an interested party themselves to choose if and when they might want to to disclose to the world to know if they are in continuous dialogue with the IOC for the 2036 Games.

All we have to go on is a list of media reports of parties interested in hosting the 2036 Games. 

[AustralianFan]

6 hours ago, cfm Jeremie said:

The notion of Applicant Cities was only introduced in 2000 for the 2008 bidding process. All the 2000 bid cities were candidate cities. Berlin didn't withdraw and was part of the 2000 vote.

Thanks for pointing that out re Berlin’s participation in the 2000 and the introduction of the concept of “Applicant Cities”.

I must have somehow misread the protests that occurred in the days just before the final voting rounds for the 2000 Games as “Berlin withdrawing from the vote” which , did not occur as you said.  My bad.

It looks like then that Berlin was eliminated from the voting after round 2.

Here it is corrected:

 

[AustralianFan]

8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Since Rob did it for 2012, let's look at the 2024 field of candidates.. Bids for the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics

That's a really long list of cities there and it's based off of actual interest.  Not your misleading notion of "media reports" which is a terrible metric to use.  So for 2024, there were all those cities, 5 eventually put in bids, and as we know, only 2 were left standing at the end.  How is that all any different than what we should expect for 2036?  Other than your pie in the sky notion that there's more serious contenders out of this group in your mind than will probably actually play out.

Maybe take a longer look at those media reports to get a better sense of who is serious or no.  An example from 2024.. N.Y. looking at bid for 2024 Olympics, Cuomo says

You would have jumped on this and put it in your "interested cities" list.  If you actually read the report, you'd see there was no interest.  Just the governor of the state of New York saying he would entertain a proposal *IF* there actually was a proposal.  Which was then made moot 2 weeks later when the mayor of NYC said they wouldn't entertain a bid.

So aside from your nonsensical posts about looking at past bids versus current "interest," we need to be a little bit more discerning when compiling a list based on media reports.  Maybe take a look at those reports first and actually reading them because simply adding them to your list and saying "they're interested" and making it seem like we should evaluate them as if they're working towards what could be a legitimate bad

 

34 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

The point I am making is that for the 2036 Games we literally do not know who of the list of interested parties will actually commence discussions with the IOC Future Host Commission.   All we have are media reports of interested parties at this stage.

So , since under the new host selection process the IOC themselves don’t publish a list of “Interested Parties” nor a list of “Parties in Continuous Dialogue”, it certainly is difficult to gauge which of the media reports of interested parties progressing into actual dialogue with the IOC in a future edition of the Olympic Games.

We wait for an interested party themselves to choose if and when they might want to to disclose to the world to know if they are in continuous dialogue with the IOC for the 2036 Games.

All we have to go on is a list of media reports of parties interested in hosting the 2036 Games. 

[Sir Rols]

12 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

At Host Elections under the old bidding system, and the agony, painful  look on the faces of the losing candidates as the world’s media would trained their cameras on their humiliated faces under the old bidding system, as dramatic as it was.

The final vote rounds losers as the humiliated candidates realise their dream and lots of money spent just getting to this vote - has all been a big waste.

Final Host Vote Rounds Losers

• 2000   3 losers (Beijing, Istanbul, Manchester)
• 2004   4 losers  (Buenos Aires, Capetown, Rome, Stockholm)
• 2008    4 losers  (Istanbul, Osaka, Paris, Toronto)
• 2012     4 losers  (Madrid, Moscow, NYC, Paris)
• 2016     3 losers  (Chicago, Madrid, Tokyo)
• 2020     2 losers  (Istanbul, Madrid)

This illustrates the “too many losers” cited as on of the reasons for the change to the bidding cities.

The above also doesn’t include the time and money spent by cities not short-listed, not recognised as applicant cities or those who withdrew.

Okay, let’s look at the issues of “too many losers” and withdrawals.

The Bach argument was that “too many losers” was discouraging cities from bidding, but let’s look at your list.

2000 - Beijing went on to bid again, and win, for 2008. Istanbul went on to bid again for 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020. After losing with Manchester, UK went on to bid again, and win, for 2012 with London.

2004 - Buenos Aires has not bid on a SOGs again, but did bid for, and win, a YOG. Capetown has not subsequently bid. Rome went on to express interest in 2016, formally bid for 2020 (but withdrew). Stockholm has not bid for a SOGs since, but has made two formal bids for the WOGs as well as expressing interest in others.

2008 - Istanbul (See above - losing has not prevented perennial interest). Osaka has not bid again, but Japan bid again wth Tokyo for 2016 and again (winning this time) for 2016. Toronto has not made a formal summer bid since, but has reportedly considered bids at various times and meanwhile Canada has continued with interest in biding for a WOGs.

2012 - Madrid bid again for 2016 and 2020 and Spain continues to muse over bids for both the SOGs and the WOGs. Russia subsequently bid and won the WOGs and has expressed interest from numerous cities for the SOGs. NYC has not bid again, but the USA subsequently bid for SOGs with Chicago, Boston and LA. Paris went on to bid for, and win, 2024.

2016 - Chicago (see 2012 above). Madrid (see above). Tokyo (see above).

2020 - Istanbul (see above). Madrid (see above)

So, from this list, only ONE (Capetown, South Africa) has not bid again. Of the rest. FOUR (Buenos Aires, Stockholm, Moscow and Toronto) have bid again for different versions of the games (YOGs or WOGs). THREE countries (UK, Japan and USA) have bid again with different cities (potentially a fourth with Russia). 

It’s not exactly strong empirical evidence for losing putting NOCs off from bidding again. Indeed, as Dick Pound (I think) used to say: “You have to lose one to win one”. A question to you and the wider Gamesbids membership - When was the last time a city won the games without having previously lost a bid (or one by the same country) in the immediate (let’s say 2) decades before? I’m hard pressed to think of any since Melbourne, and before that maybe in the 1920s when just about every host was a “new frontier”.

I’ve always believed that Bach’s “no more losers” mantra was more a excuse, and to justify his changes, rather than a serious attempt to address issues about maintaining public support for bds.

As to withdrawals. Okay, I don’t want make this essay even longer by doing another empirical analysis, but it’s very questionable that cities/countries/NOCs have been up off bidding because of the bidding process. What we have seen in recent years was many bids withdrawing, many after referendums, after strong campaigns by local groups (Nolympics) questioning the costs, sustainability and benefits of hosting a games. Why has this increased in recent years? Well, there’s many theories that have come from many quarters, but my thoughts are:

* The 2009 financial crisis had many countries’ general public questioning big spending projects. Plus Athens 2004 was thrown into the spotlight of the coverage of Greece’s default (unfairly, IMO. The games were a drop in the bucket of their economic probs - the were a symptom, no a cause, of Greece’s financial woes).

* The perceived gargantuan and wasteful costs of staging a games, based on the examples of Athens (see above) and also Sochi and Rio (the latter two I also think a bit unfairly. In hindsight and almost a decade on, Sochi seems to have actually been a successful investment and development, while Rio’s reputation was caught up in subsequent political/economic troubles in Brazil and exacerbated on by unfair and unbalanced “gotcha” journalism).

Which both fed into…

* The rise of social media populism/demagogy- as we’ve seen in democratic politics and social discourse, social media has given a platform and bullhorn to all manner of interest groups out o proportion to their actual numbers. It’s encouraged social and political divisions, caused scepticism of verifiable facts and “experts”, nurtured conspiracy theories and “fake news”  and generally disrupted the established order and ways of doing things. The IOC has struggled to adapt to the age of social media and refute scepticism of the Olympics.

Now also, as FYI pointed out above, comparisons of the event spate of withdrawals with the “New Norm” are going to be inevitably unfair. Under the new process there’ll basically be no such thing as “withdrawal” - there’s nothing to withdraw from as the process is designed that no-one’s status is formal and the winner is designated after everything is basically signed sealed and delivered anyway.  

 

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Sir Rols

[AustralianFan]

Just re-posted with the links now ‘clickable:                                            

• Ahmedabad
• Berlin
• Budapest
• Cairo
• China
• Copenhagen
• Doha
• Florence-Bologna
• Hong Kong
• Istanbul
• Jakarta
• Kazan
• Khaosiung
• London
• Mexico
• Montreal-Toronto
• Novosibursk
• Odessa
• St Petersburg
• Vladivostok

[AustralianFan]

53 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Okay, let’s look at the issues of “too many losers” and withdrawals.

The Bach argument was that “too many losers” was discouraging cities from bidding, but let’s look at your list.

2000 - Beijing went on to bid again, and win, for 2008. Istanbul went on to bid again for 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020. After losing with Manchester, UK went on to bid again, and win, for 2012 with London.

2004 - Buenos Aires has not bid on a SOGs again, but did bid for, and win, a YOG. Capetown has not subsequently bid. Rome went on to express interest in 2016, formally bid for 2020 (but withdrew). Stockholm has not bid for a SOGs since, but has made two formal bids for the WOGs as well as expressing interest in others.

2008 - Istanbul (See above - losing has not prevented perennial interest). Osaka has not bid again, but Japan bid again wth Tokyo for 2016 and again (winning this time) for 2016. Toronto has not made a formal summer bid since, but has reportedly considered bids at various times and meanwhile Canada has continued with interest in biding for a WOGs.

2012 - Madrid bid again for 2016 and 2020 and Spain continues to muse over bids for both the SOGs and the WOGs. Russia subsequently bid and won the WOGs and has expressed interest from numerous cities for the SOGs. NYC has not bid again, but the USA subsequently bid for SOGs with Chicago, Boston and LA. Paris went on to bid for, and win, 2024.

2016 - Chicago (see 2012 above). Madrid (see above). Tokyo (see above).

2020 - Istanbul (see above). Madrid (see above)

So, from this list, only ONE (Capetown, South Africa) has not bid again. Of the rest. FOUR (Buenos Aires, Stockholm, Moscow and Toronto) have bid again for different versions of the games (YOGs or WOGs). THREE countries (UK, Japan and USA) have bid again with different cities (potentially a fourth with Russia). 

It’s not exactly strong empirical evidence for losing putting NOCs off from bidding again. Indeed, as Dick Pound (I think) used to say: “You have to lose one to win one”. A question to you and the wider Gamesbids membership - When was the last time a city won the games without having previously lost a bid (or one by the same country) in the immediate (let’s say 2) decades before? I’m hard pressed to think of any since Melbourne, and before that maybe in the 1920s when just about every host was a “new frontier”.

I’ve always believed that Bach’s “no more losers” mantra was more a excuse, and to justify his changes, rather than a serious attempt to address issues about maintaining public support for bds.

As to withdrawals. Okay, I don’t want make this essay even longer by doing another empirical analysis, but it’s very questionable that cities/countries/NOCs have been up off bidding because of the bidding process. What we have seen in recent years was many bids withdrawing, many after referendums, after strong campaigns by local groups (Nolympics) questioning the costs, sustainability and benefits of hosting a games. Why has this increased in recent years? Well, there’s many theories that have come from many quarters, but my thoughts are:

* The 2009 financial crisis had many countries’ general public questioning big spending projects. Plus Athens 2004 was thrown into the spotlight of the coverage of Greece’s default (unfairly, IMO. The games were a drop in the bucket of their economic probs - the were a symptom, no a cause, of Greece’s financial woes).

* The perceived gargantuan and wasteful costs of staging a games, based on the examples of Athens (see above) and also Sochi and Rio (the latter two I also think a bit unfairly. In hindsight and almost a decade on, Sochi seems to have actually been a successful investment and development, while Rio’s reputation was caught up in subsequent political/economic troubles in Brazil and exacerbated on by unfair and unbalanced “gotcha” journalism).

Which both fed into…

* The rise of social media populism/demagogy- as we’ve seen in democratic politics and social discourse, social media has given a platform and bullhorn to all manner of interest groups out o proportion to their actual numbers. It’s encouraged social and political divisions, caused scepticism of verifiable facts and “experts”, nurtured conspiracy theories and “fake news”  and generally disrupted the established order and ways of doing things. The IOC has struggled to adapt to the age of social media and refute scepticism of the Olympics.

Now also, as FYI pointed out above, comparisons of the event spate of withdrawals with the “New Norm” are going to be inevitably unfair. Under the new process there’ll basically be no such thing as “withdrawal” - there’s nothing to withdraw from as the process is designed that no-one’s status is formal and the winner is designated after everything is basically signed sealed and delivered anyway.  

 

 

Lots of Losers and Money Wasted

Still doesn’t take away that in each and every one of those lost bids, an awful lot of money was wasted.

Bidding again and again, and losing again and again, just meant more money wasted.

Trying again in future bididng rounds doesn’t magically recoup all that get bac that money which was wasted on previous losing Bid/s.

Seriously, it deosn’t. 

So, despite those losing cities trying again in some cases or trying for alternative Games, doesn’t magically recoup the money they lost on previous wasteful bids - that money is gone.

So, its not surprise we saw the number of bids gradually ticking down over the last couple of decades.

• 2000:     4 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)