If 2032 needed a hasty evac out of Brisbaine, who would IOC turn to in order to deliver?

[iceman530]

I've been seeing more and more concern with Brisbane.  There seems to be more and more friction in this bid coming by the day.  If things did take a turn for the worse, who is the IOC looking at to save the day here?

Im looking at a two primary candidates off the top of my head:

- Istanbul:  Theyre getting prepped to host a few sequences of events here, including the Euros in 2032.  And that scheduling could actually be a blessing rather than a curse because the city will still be in the "zone" with the event holding mentality.  The Euro's last match would be July 10th.  Olympics tend to start third week of July.  That'd be enough time to clean up and move on to the next thing immediately.

-London:  Lots of the stuff is still there, and it could pump the breaks on West Ham tearing up that track area immediately.  

I like these two the best.  They'd be in best position to take that on.

 

Perhaps could:

Seoul:  Have the track record with big events to get something like that done quickly

Budapest:  Don't threaten Mr. Orban with a good time.  He's exactly the sort of guy the IOC likes to pull out all the stops to make it happen.

Literally every country in the gulf (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, etc)

[FYI]

Lol, I'm sure the Aussies are gonna love this one!! Where is a certain you-know-who when you need them (but not really)!!! 

[sebastien1214]

Why not Sydney or Melbourne ? I love Europe, that's my continent but we have 2024, 2026, 2030... that's a lot of Olympics for us in a short time.

[Sir Rols]

Sigh…

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, IF (and I still maintain it‘s an incredibly remote possibility) it were to happen, the ONLY possibility would be LA. It‘s about the only one that could provide the venues on call, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, the only one who could supply an Olympic Village at short notice… that is unless Doha decided to refurbish some shipping containers again. 

Edited April 14, 2024 by Sir Rols

[sebastien1214]

6 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Sigh…

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, IF (and I still maintain it‘s an incredibly remote possibility) it were to happen, the ONLY possibility would be LA. It‘s about the only one that could provide the venues on call, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, the only one who could supply an Olympic Village at short notice… that is unless Doha decided to refurbish some shipping containers again. 

Yeah, it's true that the United States seems like the logical country to serve as a backup. Besides, I sometimes ask myself the question and I imagine you have the answer: why has New York never organized the Olympics? I even have the impression that they have never applied (or very rarely). However, in terms of infrastructure and accommodation, seen from afar I have the impression that they have everything?

[Sir Rols]

9 minutes ago, sebastien1214 said:

Yeah, it's true that the United States seems like the logical country to serve as a backup. Besides, I sometimes ask myself the question and I imagine you have the answer: why has New York never organized the Olympics? I even have the impression that they have never applied (or very rarely). However, in terms of infrastructure and accommodation, seen from afar I have the impression that they have everything?

New York bid for 2012. it‘s plan for a midtown stadium fell through during the bid though and basically destroyed any chance they had (and anyway, it was always a race mainly between Paris and London (who was considered the only one who might be able to beat the French favourite).

I‘m with you and a lot (maybe most) non Americans here - we‘d love to see a New York games. Americans usually tell us that LA is the one with everything in place (and the US is allergic to sending public money on the games). And New Yorker members have said that most NYC residents don‘t feel Iike they need the Games to prove anything - we‘re the one and only Big Apple bitches!  

Edited April 15, 2024 by Sir Rols

[FYI]

3 minutes ago, sebastien1214 said:

Yeah, it's true that the United States seems like the logical country to serve as a backup. Besides, I sometimes ask myself the question and I imagine you have the answer: why has New York never organized the Olympics? I even have the impression that they have never applied (or very rarely). 

New York tried for the 1984 Games, which the USOC ultimately gave the domestic nod to L.A. 

Then New York was one of five finalists for the 2012 Olympics, along with London, Paris, Madrid & Moscow, which in the end obviously went to London. The 2012 New York bid (their last, & really only serious attempt) was largely seen as a "one & done" deal (their mid-Manhattan stadium plan also fell apart during the bid campaign & so they had to scramble for a replacement venue at the last minute).

And NYC hasn't shown any interest since then. Same with Chicago which bid for 2016 that Rio won. Boston wanted to bid for 2024, but the residents there didn't want it, which after all that, is what basically got us L.A. (2028) again by default per se.  

[baron-pierreIV]

25 minutes ago, FYI said:

Boston wanted to bid for 2024, but the residents there didn't want it, 

Well, they got the 2025 ISU World Figure Skating Championships next March instead -- an all-important one because the results handicap who goes to Milano and how the skaters are seeded for MIlano.  

[Nacre]

40 minutes ago, sebastien1214 said:

Yeah, it's true that the United States seems like the logical country to serve as a backup. Besides, I sometimes ask myself the question and I imagine you have the answer: why has New York never organized the Olympics?

Because 1) it does not have the existing sporting facilities to host, 2) the USA is a Common Law country making new infrastructure projects very expensive (for example it is 10 times more expensive to build new subway/metro tunnels in New York than in Berlin or Paris) and 3) it's extremely difficult for politicians to force through unpopular projects in built-up cities in Western countries.

Edited April 15, 2024 by Nacre

[FYI]

4 hours ago, sebastien1214 said:

Why not Sydney or Melbourne ? 

Apparently, officials in Sydney have already rejected the idea. And Melbourne just handed back the 2026 CWG's, at a total price tag of $382 million USD. So can't imagine that they'd want anything to do with Brisbane's sloppy seconds in that instance. Plus, the weather in Melbourne is not really conducive to the IOC's July-Aug time preference anyway, which was a key driving force in picking Brisbane.

5 hours ago, sebastien1214 said:

I love Europe, that's my continent but we have 2024, 2026, 2030... that's a lot of Olympics for us in a short time.

I was going to expand on this earlier, but had to run.. this was very much a topic of discussion on here in the past, particularly among other Americans about why must Europe "hog" all the Games, but the European argument then was, that Europe hosted many Games because it's made up of so many other countries that could viably host the Olympics than any other continent. Which is correct when looking at it in a pragmatic way. 

Between 1908 & 1928, all those Olympics were held in Europe. And again between 1948 & Feb. 1976 (although Innsbruck 1976 was by default, since Denver 1976 gave them up), 10 out of those 15 Olympics were also held in Europe. And in 1992, both summer & winter, & winter 1994 were all held consecutively in Europe. So 2024, 2026 & 2030 isn't really that much of an anomaly for Europe (other than perhaps two of those three Games are in France). A total of 33 Olympic Games (between 1896-2034) have been held (or going to be held) in Europe, moreso than any of the other continents, combined.

And in terms of countries alone, the U.S. & France are now the only two countries in the world that can boast that they've hosted the most Olympic Games than anyone else. Other than perhaps Australia, which by a per capita basis, that makes them the winners (at least in the summer category).  

[Australian Kiwi]

8 hours ago, sebastien1214 said:

Why not Sydney or Melbourne ? I love Europe, that's my continent but we have 2024, 2026, 2030... that's a lot of Olympics for us in a short time.

If Brisbane 2032 falls in a heap, it would not stay in Australia. 

Melbourne and Sydney are (apparently) too cold and too poor to host 2032 (despite them both having most venues in place for an Olympics).

That said, both Melbourne and Sydney would struggle with the stadium issue (and it frankly being too cold in those cities in July/August). The AFL will not let go of the MCG, and the NRL will not let go of Stadium Australia. 

Ultimately the IOC has this July-August hosting window in place for now, and the consequence of that is they have forfeited a guaranteed brilliant second Melbourne or Sydney Olympics in the 2040s for Brisbane 2032. 

 

 

[Australian Kiwi]

2 hours ago, FYI said:

And Melbourne just handed back the 2026 CWG's, at a total price tag of $382 million USD.

Sorry I feel like I'm a broken record, but we didn't. Melbourne has nothing to do with it, aside from being the state capital of the state which the host cities were located in .

If Melbourne had been hosting 2026, it would not have been cancelled. It was cancelled because the State Government didn't have the political courage to be seen to be "taking" something from the regional cities into Melbourne (would have gone down as well as the UK Govt taking the 2022 Comm Games off the West Midlands and giving them to London). 

Victoria State Govt could have afforded to stage them in Melbourne in 2026, but chose not to. 

[sebastien1214]

Thank you for your answers. I had completely forgotten about New York's candidacy in 2012; it must be said that in France we were so traumatized by London that we forgot that there was not only this candidate city...

For Sydney & Melbourne, I had completely forgotten the question of temperatures. Well, mind you, games in July in Sydney would still be less strange than games in Doha aha. But hey, I still hope that if Brisbane ever withdraws from the Olympics (I don't believe it; but obviously this question seems to be asked more and more...), it won't do too much harm to Australia.

7 hours ago, FYI said:

I was going to expand on this earlier, but had to run.. this was very much a topic of discussion on here in the past, particularly among other Americans about why must Europe "hog" all the Games, but the European argument then was, that Europe hosted many Games because it's made up of so many other countries that could viably host the Olympics than any other continent. Which is correct when looking at it in a pragmatic way. 

Between 1908 & 1928, all those Olympics were held in Europe. And again between 1948 & Feb. 1976 (although Innsbruck 1976 was by default, since Denver 1976 gave them up), 10 out of those 15 Olympics were also held in Europe. And in 1992, both summer & winter, & winter 1994 were all held consecutively in Europe. So 2024, 2026 & 2030 isn't really that much of an anomaly for Europe (other than perhaps two of those three Games are in France). A total of 33 Olympic Games (between 1896-2034) have been held (or going to be held) in Europe, moreso than any of the other continents, combined.

And in terms of countries alone, the U.S. & France are now the only two countries in the world that can boast that they've hosted the most Olympic Games than anyone else. Other than perhaps Australia, which by a per capita basis, that makes them the winners (at least in the summer category).  

Yeah, it's true, pragmatically it's much simpler to organize the Olympic Games in Europe. That said, as the years go by, more countries around the world become capable of hosting such events. And that’s great news; it makes the Olympic Games more universal, and less centered on the West.

[Rob2012]

19 minutes ago, sebastien1214 said:

Thank you for your answers. I had completely forgotten about New York's candidacy in 2012; it must be said that in France we were so traumatized by London that we forgot that there was not only this candidate city...

[FYI]

10 hours ago, Australian Kiwi said:

Sorry I feel like I'm a broken record, but we didn't. Melbourne has nothing to do with it, aside from being the state capital of the state which the host cities were located in .

If Melbourne had been hosting 2026, it would not have been cancelled. It was cancelled because the State Government didn't have the political courage to be seen to be "taking" something from the regional cities into Melbourne (would have gone down as well as the UK Govt taking the 2022 Comm Games off the West Midlands and giving them to London). 

Victoria State Govt could have afforded to stage them in Melbourne in 2026, but chose not to. 

Regardless of what cities cancelled what & for what reason, the point is, that after the state of Victoria just spent $382 million USD of taxpayer money to host nothing, I can't them being that gung-ho, politically & citizenry speaking, to take on 2032 in the case of a Brisbane mishap.

5 hours ago, sebastien1214 said:

Yeah, it's true, pragmatically it's much simpler to organize the Olympic Games in Europe. That said, as the years go by, more countries around the world become capable of hosting such events. And that’s great news; it makes the Olympic Games more universal, and less centered on the West.

It would seem that the opposite is occurring, though. Due to massive inflation post-Covid, things are so much more expensive than they once were. And even before 2020, Olympic budgets were still going over. South Africa, for example, seemed better poised to host the Olympics like 10-20 years ago than they are now. The same can be said of many other countries in South America & Asia, too.

With the Olympics also getting even bigger & more expensive than they already are (Paris 2024 really got spared the recent inclusion of Cricket & some other sports, that now L.A. 2028 [& likely Brisbane 2032 as well, which they themselves are having a hard time of sorting things out] will have to endure to carry them out), I don't really see the Olympics making it to many other developing countries anytime soon, other than perhaps India or Qatar (which will just flash all of it's cash to stage them). Although, with many European cities already recoiling from hosting the Olympics in recent years (because of the insane costs these days), the IOC may not have much of a choice anyway.

[sebastien1214]

22 minutes ago, FYI said:

It would seem that the opposite is occurring, though. Due to massive inflation post-Covid, things are so much more expensive than they once were. And even before 2020, Olympic budgets were still going over. South Africa, for example, seemed better poised to host the Olympics like 10-20 years ago than they are now. The same can be said of many other countries in South America & Asia, too.

With the Olympics also getting even bigger & more expensive than they already are (Paris 2024 really got spared the recent inclusion of Cricket & some other sports, that now L.A. 2028 [& likely Brisbane 2032 as well, which they themselves are having a hard time of sorting things out] will have to endure to carry them out), I don't really see the Olympics making it to many other developing countries anytime soon, other than perhaps India or Qatar (which will just flash all of it's cash to stage them). Although, with many European cities already recoiling from hosting the Olympics in recent years (because of the insane costs these days), the IOC may not have much of a choice anyway.

In a way, there are still 4 years between each Games, so that still leaves time for countries that would dream of hosting them to have them one day. There is a window for 2036 to hold these Games in a non-Western country that has never hosted the games: Qatar, Turkey, India, we can imagine that these three countries have the possibility of holding the Games from 2036 (small doubt for India anyway). Despite inflation, they still have a lot of infrastructure already ready, and even if they will still have to build a little more than Paris/L.A., we are not in the case of Sochi either.

This then brings us to 2040, where we can imagine a return of the Games to Europe in order to respect a geographical balance (since in 2040, it would be 16 years since Europe last had the Games since Paris). And even in Europe, we can try new countries: why not Hungary with Budapest?

And then 2044, i.e. in 20 years: that gives time for quite a few new countries to prepare (Morocco, South Africa, Indonesia perhaps with their new capital... from my point of view I find that these countries would not be ready for 2036, but why not eight years later).

For the winter games, it is obviously more complicated and the very nature of these games makes it much more difficult to organize them in non-Western countries. I always thought that one day, Kazakhstan might end up welcoming them. They almost got them in 2022 after all.

[FYI]

And notice the common theme in almost every country listed there, including the one in central/eastern Europe? Despotic to semi-despotic locales that have something to 'prove' to the world. I'm not so sure for some, but for me, that doesn't inspire much in the area of the Olympic ideals that the IOC harps so much about.

I'd much rather see countries like South Africa, Argentina, Chile or Thailand in those respective geographical regions instead, but unfortunately, at least for now, looks like it's beyond any of their reaches. Or Germany (they're definitely due & should host again sometime soon). India is passable (but Ahmedabad is not) , & which where I believe as of late, where Bach is leaning to anyway.

As for the winter Olympics, a traditional setting is definitely more preferable now, since they're much more on shaky grounds these days. The IOC should be working towards having countries like Austria, Switzerland, Norway to host again, & Sweden (which has never hosted the Winter Olympics before, & would be a welcomed 'new' addition to the winter Olympic host roster) than having the likes of Kazakhstan, no matter how much some are intrigued by them. They also haven't made much noise since their 2022 loss either, which says something in itself.

[sebastien1214]

I would also like major world events to take place in countries that respect human rights, but I understand that international organizations (IOC, FIFA, etc.) don't care at all, to the point that I myself ended up forgetting this parameter, more out of spite than anything else.

Afterwards, it could launch another debate, on "do the inhabitants of these countries deserve to be punished because of their political regime by prohibiting them from tasting the joy of major events", on a personal level I admit that I don't really have a fixed position on this.

For the Winter Olympic Games, I made two or three sentences out of principle so as not to forget them, but in reality I think that the real major challenge is global warming, and I don't know if the Games Winter Olympics will survive there. So in reality, the question of future host cities (from, say, 2040-2050) seems to me to become more and more secondary.

[FYI]

4 minutes ago, sebastien1214 said:

I would also like major world events to take place in countries that respect human rights, but I understand that international organizations (IOC, FIFA, etc.) don't care at all, to the point that I myself ended up forgetting this parameter, more out of spite than anything else.

Afterwards, it could launch another debate, on "do the inhabitants of these countries deserve to be punished because of their political regime by prohibiting them from tasting the joy of major events", on a personal level I admit that I don't really have a fixed position on this.

Yes, true. They don't seem to care about that. But at the same time, I think it's also a bit more complicated than that. If the x,y or z despotic country is beneficial to the IOC in going there, then they overlook all of their human rights violations. But if there's no big incentive in them going to a particular autocrat country, then they won't do it. Which is why I think they bypassed Kazahkstan in the end in favor of China (again) for 2022 (after all the European cities dropped out). 

Going to China in 2008 was also a big draw for the IOC - "it's time the most populous country in the world, 1/5 of humanity, get's to host the Olympic Games", which coincides with your second point. That's why I think India is poised to host the next slated edition of the Summer Games, cause now they're the most populous country in the world that hasn't hosted yet. And I'm sure the IOC would also just love to tap into that 1.4 Billion Indian market. The other despot countries are really small potatoes in comparison, which is why I think they'll have a harder time attracting the IOC, unless push comes to shove, & they literally have no one else to choose from. And of course, there's always all that Qatari cash just in case the IOC needs a savior.

[Australian Kiwi]

5 hours ago, sebastien1214 said:

I would also like major world events to take place in countries that respect human rights, but I understand that international organizations (IOC, FIFA, etc.) don't care at all, to the point that I myself ended up forgetting this parameter, more out of spite than anything else.

Which country "respects human rights", down to the letter. This is far too ambiguous to enforce.

More often than not the IOC have done business with hosts who have extremely questionable track records here.... Berlin 1936 (Nazi Germany), Melbourne 1956 (during the White Australia Policy), Mexico City 1968 (500 students massacred only a week before the Games), Moscow 1980 (Afghanistan invasion), Seoul 1988 (South Korea had a pretty appalling track record at the time it was awarded), Beijing 2008 (where do you start), Los Angeles 2028 (likely to be held in Trump's America)....

[Australian Kiwi]

Forgot Sochi!

[FYI]

32 minutes ago, Australian Kiwi said:

Los Angeles 2028 (likely to be held in Trump's America)....

Bite your tongue!! France was able to thwart off, not once, but twice that kind of imminent nonsense. So let's hope & pray, not just for the Olympics, but for the sake of the world really, that's not the case!

[StefanMUC]

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Bite your tongue!! France was able to thwart off, not once, but twice that kind of imminent nonsense. So let's hope & pray, not just for the Olympics, but for the sake of the world really, that's not the case!

Though France has actually thwarted it off three times already (Daddy Le Pen in 2002…), there‘s no guarantee it will happen again next time. And Nice etc may see that Putin sock puppet opening.

[Rob2012]

France's electoral system produces 'least-worst' winners. And it was designed with exactly that aim in mind (I read a really interesting piece on how it was conceived a while back, doubt I can find it again now).

America's electoral system produces whatever the Electoral College barfs up any given cycle, which twice this century has meant the candidate with the fewest votes winning. The next election will be decided on the whims of maybe just 100k voters in key areas regardless what the other 150 million think. Even if America doesn't want Trump it, and LA28, might get him.

Edited April 16, 2024 by Rob2012

[FYI]

6 hours ago, StefanMUC said:

And Nice etc may see that Putin sock puppet opening.

Unfortunately, it does seem like he's trying to get as many of his sock puppets into as many western gov't's as he can, doesn't it.

1 hour ago, Rob2012 said:

America's electoral system produces whatever the Electoral College barfs up any given cycle, which twice this century has meant the candidate with the fewest votes winning. The next election will be decided on the whims of maybe just 100k voters in key areas regardless what the other 150 million think. Even if America doesn't want Trump it, and LA28, might get him.

The thing is that republicans are starting to grow wary of the (antiquated) electoral college, because of the country's shifting of political demographics. States that were once solid-red, like Arizona, Texas, Georgia & North Carolina for example, are slowly starting to become purple now. The only anomaly is Florida, where it went from a swing-state to basically solid-red in recent years.

My main concern, though, is all this gerry-mandering & so-called "voter-integrity" initiatives in republiCon-controlled states are doing lately, so that in the event their state produces voting results that they don't like, they can then literally overturn those results & in-effect "steal" the election for the candidate of their choosing for their state, thus giving that candidate all of their electoral votes.