Jump to content

Does the Winter Olympics just need a rotating roster of hosts?


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

It would work much more smoothly if these pesky things were to always remain the same:

  • public support
  • government financial guarantees
  • climate readiness
  • availability and useability of venues and other infrastructure

But … we know that any one of these things can change over time, no matter what best laid plans are made, including a rotating hosting pool.

I cannot see any avoidance of the dialogue pricess to test all these things even for those candidates in the hosting pool.

Which is to say.. maybe this isn't going to work out as well as the IOC might make it seem.  Again, there's a pathway to make it happen, but it's not one I foresee the IOC going down.

15 minutes ago, FYI said:

It's rather hard to believe that a report handed to them a few months later, after Bach made his comments, simply led them to all these radical ideas. Surely the IOC had to have SOME kind of inkling of what was going on well before-hand. It's precisely why they're doing all this zigging-&-zagging, trying to find a way out of a maze. As of late, they change their minds as often as changing one's underwear. It makes them look not in control anymore, when they're desperately wanting to regain control of their long-established, lavish sports party. 

They can tell us this is about climate change, but I don't think anything is buying that.  This is definitely damage control

8 minutes ago, FYI said:

Lol, 'pesky' things? 

Taxpayers should have a right & say as to where their tax dollars are going. To them, I doubt they would find any of that pesky, & that would go in-line with the gov't financial guarantees, not to mention the maintenance re'q to have all those facilities at the ready for future (winter) Games.

Climate change is another serious matter. Weather patterns look like they're starting to get more extreme now, & should take priority these days, over some three-week sports orgy, regardless of how much we nerds here at GB's are enthusiastically enthralled by them.

Building and maintaining these facilities isn't just about the Olympics.  There needs to be a better plan for how they will be used and maintained the rest of the year, whether it's for competitions or recreational purposes or whatever else.  Definitely climate change is an issue there about where these facilities can exist and make money.  Let alone to have a world class facility up to Olympic standards that can stand the test of time.

As harsh as it is to think about, maybe certain sports aren't destined to survive long term because of the costs associated with them.  With few exceptions (think whitewater canoeing), most summer sports aren't like that.  Find a field or a court and you're good to go.  And as we've seen with Brisbane, clearly the IOC is willing to accept less than the biggest, shiniest, newest facilities out there.  We'll see which countries insist on offering those.  Not really an option with the Winter Olympics where especially for the snow sports, you need very specialized facilities.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Building and maintaining these facilities isn't just about the Olympics.  There needs to be a better plan for how they will be used and maintained the rest of the year, whether it's for competitions or recreational purposes or whatever else.

This is the fundamental issue. In general, Olympic facilities are an awful fit for the actual needs of the local community. Re-using the same facilities once every sixteen or twenty years does not make sense if they are not heavily used in the interval period.

For the winter games a complicating factor is that part of the decline comes with the overall decline in winter sports participation. Skiing is an expensive sport with a relatively high risk of catastrophic injuries (both of which make it unappealing to parents) and it's hard to get to a ski area if you are young or don't own a vehicle with snow tires. Declining numbers of winter sports enthusiasts equals declining support for spending money on winter sports.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Vancouver to host Winter Games again? And again?

The International Olympic Committee is looking at a plan that would have several cities host the Olympic Winter Games on a rotating basis, and Vancouver is on the list.

Feb 14, 2023  Dean Recksiedler and Charlie Carey

vancouver.citynews.ca

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could Vancouver become a permanent Winter Olympics host city?

Posted February 14, 2023 9:36 pm EST      From Globalnews.ca

“It’s an idea that’s gained currency in recent days, amid word the International Olympic Committee is considering teeing up a rotating list of permanent host cities amid a lack of volunteers to host the winter games.”

“Cities being floated as theoretical regular hosts include Salt Lake City and Vancouver in North America, Pyeongchang in Asia and places like Switzerland, Italy and Scandinavia in Europe.”

WATCH: Vancouver is on a list of potential rotating Winter Games host cities discussed at the highest of the International Olympic Committee. Richard Zussman reports.

Could Vancouver become one of a select few permanent homes to an Olympic podium?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how does a city who's province does not want to fund/commit to another Olympic Games, all of the sudden, become part of a permanent rotating pool of hosts? Not to mention places like Switzerland & Scandinavia, which have also in the recent past, have said, thanks, but no thanks to the Olympic circus. That's another Olympic billion dollar question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More to the point, what’s Vancouver got to do with it? It’s not an alpine venue, and it’s the alpine/snow locations that are the focus of these “considerations”. Sure, Whistler might be a contender. Or Cortina. Or Åre. Or Zhangjiakou. But anchor cities/ice sports locations aren’t part of the discussions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've heard this idea thrown out there plenty of times before, but actually executing it would be a lot different.  Salt Lake I'm sure would be on board.  PyeongChang likely as well.  After that, no idea who else they're assuming would be in this rotation.

 

Nice idea in theory.  Good luck trying to actually make it work.  Unless the IOC stops acting like the IOC and actually wants to help the host cities rather than just using them and not caring about the aftermath

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“The idea of designating a pool of host cities around the world as permanent host cities, as opposed to one-off hosting duties, changes the entire dynamic and cost-benefit analysis.”

”And it is certainly likely to increase competition to land one of these spots, with previous host cities — with existing venues, facilities, and infrastructure — having the upper hand.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble is the IOC would probably not keep such a plan around long enough to get to the second cycle of the hosts.

I think as things are now that they've dropped any pretence of a transparent bidding process they should probably seek to lock in 2030, 2034 and even 2038 probably out of a pool of former hosts, but I think it would be foolish to look much further ahead yet and it is still important that the IOC doesn't block out potential new hosts - there are certainly a few who though new to the Olympics wouldn't be new to hosting Winter sports events.

 

I do think the sensible compromise for both the summer and winter games to slash bidding costs and encourage both new and former hosts to bid is to award on a two episode cycle, perhaps even with the caveat that for the Winter Games at least one of those two games would go to a former host.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Brekkie Boy said:

I think as things are now that they've dropped any pretence of a transparent bidding process they should probably seek to lock in 2030, 2034 and even 2038 probably out of a pool of former hosts, but I think it would be foolish to look much further ahead yet and it is still important that the IOC doesn't block out potential new hosts - there are certainly a few who though new to the Olympics wouldn't be new to hosting Winter sports events.

Kind of hard to do when you only have one host city and they just want 2034.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Brekkie Boy said:

The trouble is the IOC would probably not keep such a plan around long enough to get to the second cycle of the hosts.

I think as things are now that they've dropped any pretence of a transparent bidding process they should probably seek to lock in 2030, 2034 and even 2038 probably out of a pool of former hosts, but I think it would be foolish to look much further ahead yet and it is still important that the IOC doesn't block out potential new hosts - there are certainly a few who though new to the Olympics wouldn't be new to hosting Winter sports events.

 

I do think the sensible compromise for both the summer and winter games to slash bidding costs and encourage both new and former hosts to bid is to award on a two episode cycle, perhaps even with the caveat that for the Winter Games at least one of those two games would go to a former host.

 

FIFA thought it would be a good idea to award 2 World Cups at once.  How'd that work out for them?

 

There is little to no benefit in looking beyond 2030 at this point.  If Stockholm steps up and can be taken for seriously for 2030, then by all means talk to SLC about 2034.  But right now, the IOC is on shakier ground than in recent memory, especially with regard to the Winter Olympics (the Summer side seems to be in better shape).  The list of cities that wants 2030 is close to 0, what's the sense in trying to lock in more Olympics down the line?  It's not like they can just say "hey Vancouver, you want 2038?" when they had a bid in the works for 2030 and couldn't get it all together.

 

1 step at a time.  Bidding costs are no longer the issue.  It's the sustainability of an event that requires very specific venues where the ROI simply isn't there.  The IOC got lucky that Italy pulled together a venue plan, although we're seeing that they're still having issues with that.  Looking 15 years down the line is not something most cities, with the exception of a Salt Lake, will likely want to be a part of

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

ROTATING HOST POOL

What is the Economic Model of a Returning Olympic Winter Games ?

What are the benefits of this Rotating Host Pool for a member Host City in being able to count on the certainty of the Games regularly coming back every 20 years or so?

What are the negatives/costs for them?

One thing is for certain, it is a very different economic model to that of a one-off Games being awarded to that City or Region.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

ROTATING HOST POOL

What is the Economic Model of a Returning Olympic Winter Games ?

What are the benefits of this Rotating Host Pool for a member Host City in being able to count on the certainty of the Games regularly coming back every 20 years or so?

What are the negatives/costs for them?

One thing is for certain, it is a very different economic model to that of a one-off Games being awarded to that City or Region.
 

 

 

Yes it is.  Will the IOC take a more active role in order to help manage and maintain these sites so that venues and other infrastructure doesn't fall into disrepair?  Or that NOC's and the local community are in fact allowed to benefit from this?  Still seems like a dubious idea unless the IOC is more hands on.  Not sure if that would wind up being a good thing or a bad thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

 

Yes it is.  Will the IOC take a more active role in order to help manage and maintain these sites so that venues and other infrastructure doesn't fall into disrepair?  Or that NOC's and the local community are in fact allowed to benefit from this?  Still seems like a dubious idea unless the IOC is more hands on.  Not sure if that would wind up being a good thing or a bad thing

Yes, there is certainly a lot of investigative and research work to do by the Future Host Commission around this whole Rotating Host Pool concept, particularly because the positves of the economic model of a returning Games will be a crucial sell to sustain government and business support.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IOC may have fixed, rotating hosts for Winter Olympics

“Retired Olympic skiing champion Lindsey Vonn of the U.S. told The Associated Press (AP) that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) may have to list fixed hosts on rotation for the Winter Olympic Games.”

"There are talks. It is a challenge with climate change and also infrastructure to be able to find venues for the Winter Olympics," Vonn said. "A rotating venue option is on the table in which certain altitude standards would be in place and it would have to have mostly preexisting structures and it would limit the cost for the venues and it would limit the chances of climate change affecting the competitions in a negative way."

“Vonn is on the Salt Lake City's bid committee for the Winter Olympics of 2030 or 2034. Salt Lake City hosted the event in 2002 and, thus, has the infrastructure to do it again without having to launch enormous construction projects. In fact, if the IOC selects fixed hosts, they need to have held the Winter Games before, like Salt Lake City.”

"I know that's been discussed. How early that will happen, I don't know, but I don't think it would happen before 2034," Vonn added.”

Credit: IOC may have fixed, rotating hosts for Winter Olympics - news.cgtn.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

34 minutes ago, Sigh said:

Right, just now I'm a bit cynical so I'll say that the Future Host Commission will come to exactly the conclusions that EB already has decided internally.

 

The following is the actual IOC Executive Board response from Christophe Dubi to Gamesbids.com journalist Rob Livingstone’s question about the timeline for the 2030 host election, which also includes if there will be rotating host pool or not in the answer:

   On 3/30/2023 at 8:31 PM,  AustralianFan said: 

Christophe Dubi (IOC Executive Board):

“The question on the timing is interesting.  First and foremost, the Future Host Commission has to respond to these three strategic questions that were proposed re the future hosts. 

The EB wants to know if the Rotating Pool is a good idea, whether 2030 and 2034 makes sense, but also to look at the development of winter sports. 

This work is ongoing and we will anticipate that first, a report will be made to the Executive Board, and to the IOC Session in Mumbai as Mark confirmed before. 

Which leads us to a calendar after Mumbai for the election.

 

So the EB have clearly not committed to a rotating host pool .…yet.

But they are also clearly interested and have tasked the Future Host Commission to research whether it is a good idea or not.

As a rotating host pool would change the whole economic model and dynamic compared to that of a one-off Games, they’re clearly not rushing into this since the investigation was launched 5 months ago.

Mumbai this October is also clearly when the EB wants that report by, so we have only a max of 6 months to wait to hear more.

…. or we just might hear more about a decision on a rotating host pool at another Executive Board Meeting before October.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Update on Rotating Hosts of Olympic Winter Games

Source: IOC EB Press Conference, 13 October 2023 - Gamesbids.com

(apologies for repetition across more than this thread but this climate change and rotating hosts topic of Future Games cuts across more than a single thread)

ROTATING HOST POOL

IOC President, Thomas Bach, 13/10/23:

“The Future Host Commission for the Olympic Winter Games (FHCOWG) was asked previously by the Executive Board to evaluate the future allocation of Olympic Winter Games based on two main criteria:

Criterion 1

“For sustainability reasons, future Winter Games hosts should have a target of using only existing or temporary venues.”

Criterion 2

“Proposed snow competition venues should be Climate Reliable until at least the middleof this century.”

“The following two studies were commissioned by the FHCOWG:”

  1. “the number of NOCs which have existing I.F. home located venues,”
  2. “check if these existing venues were Climate Reliable until at least the middle of this century.”

“Today, the FHCOWG provided the first results of these studies.

  • 15 NOCs on 3 continents have at least 80% of existing venues,
  • 9 of these 15 NOCs have the required venues for Snow Sports,
  • 10 of these 15 NOCs have either recently hosted or are interested in hosting the Games in the future
  • By 2040, 2 of these 15 NOCs will no longer have the necessary Climate Reliability for the Olympic Winter Games held in Februrary,
  • By 2040, 5 of these 15 NOCs will no longer have Climate Reliability for the Paralympic Winter Games held in March,
  • This means:  By 2040, there are only 10 NOCs which are Climate Reliable to host Snow Events for both the Winter Games in February and the Paralympic Winter Games in March.”

“It becomes very clear that we need to address urgently the dramatic impact of Climate Change on winter sports and the Winter Games.”

“The FHCOWG has already started to address this very concerning situation.”

“This implies deliberations on a ROTATING SYSTEM, the composition of the sports program, the different needs of sports on ice and snow and many others.

“As you all can see, this is a very complex issue and needs more time to address these properly.  This cannot be done in the next 6 or 12 months.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

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...