IOC Review of Olympic Host Selection Process

[AustralianFan]

Olympic Host Selection Process Paused - Review Underway

Shortly after taking office in June 2025, IOC President Kirsty Coventry paused the entire Olympic Host selection process.

This was to undertaking a review of the host selection process, driven by calls from IOC members to be more engaged and understand the process better.

The Olympic Host Selection Review will analyse experiences from recent host cities like Los Angeles 2028 and Brisbane 2032, varying timelines and the effectiveness of the current approach.

The goal is to find a more effective, transparent, and sustainable method for selecting future host cities.

Key Drivers for the Review 

• Member Engagement: 

  IOC members want greater involvement and more information about the process, feeling excluded from discussions on candidacies and future awards.
• Process Understanding: 

  There's a desire among members to better understand the process, including the timing of award selections and how information is shared.
• Analysis of Recent Experiences: 

  Lessons learned from the host selections for the Brisbane 2032 and LA28 Games, as well as the French Alps 2030 Games, are being studied to inform improvements.

 

Areas of Focus

• Timing: 

  The review will examine when it is most appropriate to award future Games to ensure a more effective process. 

   
• Effectiveness: 

  The effectiveness of the current selection model and how it burdens stakeholders will be assessed. 

   
• Geopolitical Influences: 

  The new geopolitical landscape is also being considered, as it significantly influences the candidate profile and institutional dynamics within the IOC. 

   
• Transparency and Information Flow: 

  A working group will be established to refine the methodology and ensure interested parties, including potential host cities, are better informed. 

   

What's Next

• A Paused Process: 

  While the review is ongoing, the IOC is pausing the formal awarding of future Games to allow time for the evaluation and new strategy to be developed. 

   
• Consultation with Stakeholders: 

  Interested parties, including delegations from potential host nations like India, will be consulted as part of the review process. 

   
• Future of the Selection Process: 

  The IOC aims to implement a more transparent, inclusive, and efficient process for selecting future host cities. 

   

  ——————————————————————

  The current New Norm Selection Process was the baby of previous IOC President Bach.

   With the 2036 Summer Games Host next in line to be selected and the 2038 Winter Host (Switzerland) yet to be confirmed, it will indeed be very interesting to see what findings and recommendations this Olympic Host Selection Review process produces.

 

• IOC Review of Olympic Host Selection Process

[sebastien1214]

@Sir Rols Seems like someone typed this prompt into ChatGPT: "Get me an article praising Coventry's action on the suspension."

[Sir Rols]

18 minutes ago, sebastien1214 said:

@Sir Rols Seems like someone typed this prompt into ChatGPT: "Get me an article praising Coventry's action on the suspension."

He just seems to be having a sugar rush at the moment.

i’m just interested why he’s so engaged with this review now, after years and years of shooting down any critiques of Bach’s “New Norm”.

[AustralianFan]

44 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Olympic Host Selection Process Paused - Review Underway

 

Shortly after taking office in June 2025, IOC President Kirsty Coventry paused the entire Olympic Host selection process.

This was to undertaking a review of the host selection process, driven by calls from IOC members to be more engaged and understand the process better.

The Olympic Host Selection Review will analyse experiences from recent host cities like Los Angeles 2028 and Brisbane 2032, varying timelines and the effectiveness of the current approach.

The goal is to find a more effective, transparent, and sustainable method for selecting future host cities.

Key Drivers for the Review 

• Member Engagement: 

  IOC members want greater involvement and more information about the process, feeling excluded from discussions on candidacies and future awards.
• Process Understanding: 

  There's a desire among members to better understand the process, including the timing of award selections and how information is shared.
• Analysis of Recent Experiences: 

  Lessons learned from the host selections for the Brisbane 2032 and LA28 Games, as well as the French Alps 2030 Games, are being studied to inform improvements.

 

Areas of Focus

• Timing: 

  The review will examine when it is most appropriate to award future Games to ensure a more effective process. 

   
• Effectiveness: 

  The effectiveness of the current selection model and how it burdens stakeholders will be assessed. 

   
• Geopolitical Influences: 

  The new geopolitical landscape is also being considered, as it significantly influences the candidate profile and institutional dynamics within the IOC. 

   
• Transparency and Information Flow: 

  A working group will be established to refine the methodology and ensure interested parties, including potential host cities, are better informed. 

   

What's Next

• A Paused Process: 

  While the review is ongoing, the IOC is pausing the formal awarding of future Games to allow time for the evaluation and new strategy to be developed. 

   
• Consultation with Stakeholders: 

  Interested parties, including delegations from potential host nations like India, will be consulted as part of the review process. 

   
• Future of the Selection Process: 

  The IOC aims to implement a more transparent, inclusive, and efficient process for selecting future host cities. 

   

  ——————————————————————

  The current New Norm Selection Process was the baby of previous IOC President Bach.

   With the 2036 Summer Games Host next in line to be selected and the 2038 Winter Host (Switzerland) yet to be confirmed, it will indeed be very interesting to see what findings and recommendations this Olympic Host Selection Review process produces.

 

IOC President Coventry covers here the pause and Review of the Olymoic Host Selection process:

 

[Sigh]

8 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

He just seems to be having a sugar rush at the moment.

i’m just interested why he’s so engaged with this review now, after years and years of shooting down any critiques of Bach’s “New Norm”.

No surprise at all. Perfectly consistent behaviour by HMV.

[cfm Jeremie]

9 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

He just seems to be having a sugar rush at the moment.

i’m just interested why he’s so engaged with this review now, after years and years of shooting down any critiques of Bach’s “New Norm”.

Maybe he is an IOC influencer... or more likely just trying to increase his number of posts.

[Sir Rols]

I’d love to be wrong, but I’d be surprised if much came out of the review beyond the minimal tinkering around the edges that they can get away with.

The selection process was hardly mentioned by Kirsty during her campaign, while everyone else was putting forward various plans to reform it. I suspect her hand was forced to make some gesture about it as the price to ensure she’d get over the line. But I don’t think her heart’s in it, and it’s certainly not what her mentor Bach wants. So we get a very Kirsty solution - appear to be doing something decisive by setting up a committee/taskforce/review while in fact just kicking the can down the road and doing nothing in the hope some sort of compromise can be hammered out to show she’s “listened” and “studied”.

More transparency and clearer guidelines and information (as opposed to the constantly shifting goalposts the “New Norm” has operated under to date) should be the bare minimum to come out if the review, but it’s hard to be confident we‘ll get more than lip service for even that.

[AustralianFan]

In Olympic bidding history it’s rare that the entire Olympic Host Selection process is paused to review that same bidding process.

I’d be very cautious to assume that nothing much is going to come out of it.

 

 

[Sir Rols]

When you’ve got 11 years up your sleeve, it’s not like there’s any time pressure against a pause - unless you’re in the midst of an epidemic and want to slip in a “vice captain’s pick” while everyone’s distracted.

It would be interesting if the scheduling window gets considered as part of the review.

Whatever, they”ll come up with something to make a chart about, and however major or minor the recommendations end up being, they’ll dress it up appropriately. And certain people will hail it as “historic” and proof of Kirsty “Press Pause and Start a Committee” Coventry’s stunning leadership.

[AustralianFan]

14 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

I’d love to be wrong, but I’d be surprised if much came out of the review beyond the minimal tinkering around the edges that they can get away with.

The selection process was hardly mentioned by Kirsty during her campaign, while everyone else was putting forward various plans to reform it. I suspect her hand was forced to make some gesture about it as the price to ensure she’d get over the line. But I don’t think her heart’s in it, and it’s certainly not what her mentor Bach wants. So we get a very Kirsty solution - appear to be doing something decisive by setting up a committee/taskforce/review while in fact just kicking the can down the road and doing nothing in the hope some sort of compromise can be hammered out to show she’s “listened” and “studied”.

More transparency and clearer guidelines and information (as opposed to the constantly shifting goalposts the “New Norm” has operated under to date) should be the bare minimum to come out if the review, but it’s hard to be confident we‘ll get more than lip service for even that.

During the IOC President Election campaign, IOC members reportedly engaged with Kirsty Coventry regarding the Olympic Host Selecrion process and how they felt they were being side-lined and did-engaged from the process.

This was reported by several media outlets.

Further, we did not see or hear Coventry’s, nor any other candudate’s final pre-election address to members prior to the Presidential election as it was a closed shop.

So, here we are now, seeing this being played out:  

1. March: Coventry elected President

2. June:  On taking office, her first major act as President was to pause or suspend  the current Olympic host selection process while a Review of the whole shebang was undertaken.

Rare indeed.

[AustralianFan]

*dis-engaged

(re IOC members dis-engaged from the Olympic host selection process)

[baron-pierreIV]

The only thing I'd add or change in the selection process is give the concerned IFs a full vote since they are the technical experts on their sport(s).  But if, for example, Coe, is the sitting president of World Athletics, then WA doesn't get a vote anymore--just Coe.  For the WOG selection, IOC members from non-winter nations, should only have their votes counted in case of a tie amongst the Winter Nations' members.  But the Winter IFs also get a vote.  

[StefanMUC]

The IFs have the technical expertise as well as, in many cases, corrupt governing that doesn‘t vote based on what‘s best for their sport in their own event organisation, so why belueve they‘d do better in an Olympic host vote?

As for winter: what is a „winter nation“? Countries like Jamaica, Kenya or Thailand don‘t sound like it but have repeatedly sent athletes already. In theory, any NOC can participate.

[Sir Rols]

9 hours ago, AustralianFan said:

During the IOC President Election campaign, IOC members reportedly engaged with Kirsty Coventry regarding the Olympic Host Selecrion process and how they felt they were being side-lined and did-engaged from the process.

This was reported by several media outlets.

Further, we did not see or hear Coventry’s, nor any other candudate’s final pre-election address to members prior to the Presidential election as it was a closed shop.

We read their manifestos (and believe me, a number of us here perused them very closely), we saw their post-presentation media interviews, and read and watched many other interviews in various media with the candidates. Host selection reform was hardly, if ever, publicly addressed by Coventry during the campaign. She was never pitched, by herself or others, as a candidate for host selection reform.

If she was engaged by members about host selection reform during the campaign, that just goes to show how strongly such members feel about being dis-engaged from the process. And, as I alluded, meant the onus was on her to make some gesture to address the matter. Now we just have to wait and see how seriously she addresses it.

[Sir Rols]

9 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

The only thing I'd add or change in the selection process is give the concerned IFs a full vote since they are the technical experts on their sport(s).  But if, for example, Coe, is the sitting president of World Athletics, then WA doesn't get a vote anymore--just Coe.  For the WOG selection, IOC members from non-winter nations, should only have their votes counted in case of a tie amongst the Winter Nations' members.  But the Winter IFs also get a vote.  

As Stefan says, there’s no guarantee many of the IF leaders can be relied upon to be anything but self serving or even straight corrupt. You only need to read The Inquirer to see what a bunch of charlatans many of them are.

And anyway, that predisposes they or the other members ever got to vote again for a host, as opposed to just rubber stamping whatever Madam President the Future Host Commission decrees.

[AustralianFan]

1 minute ago, Sir Rols said:

We read their manifestos (and believe me, a number of us here perused them very closely), we saw their post-presentation media interviews, and read and watched many other interviews in various media with the candidates. Host selection reform was hardly, if ever, publicly addressed by Coventry during the campaign. She was never pitched, by herself or others, as a candidate for host selection reform.

If she was engaged by members about host selection reform during the campaign, that just goes to show how strongly such members feel about being dis-engaged from the process. And, as I alluded, meant the onus was on her to make some gesture to address the matter. Now we just have to wait and see how seriously she addresses it.

Coventry can’t get anymore serious about IOC members concerns than suspending the current Olympic host selection process. 

The Review is underway.  

 

[AustralianFan]

Has the Olympic Host Selection process been Unpaused?

Sounds like the Olympic host selection process may have been unpaused (?) with the news that the Germany 2036 team has just met with the IOC President Coventry in Lausanne.

 See latest post from @cfm Jeremie in the Germany 2036 thread about their bid entering Continuous Dialogue with the IOC Future Host Commission.

If the 2036 host selection process has been unpaused, may we expect more movement on the 2036 host selection front re all other 2036 interested parties, numbering 10 at the last count?

I’m very pleased for Germany, that just a bit puzzled that despite the IOC saying that the host selection pricess has been paused shortly after this year’s election of IOC President Coventry, that here we are now seeing an announcement with official photos from IOC HQ in Lausanne of the Germany 2036 team entering continuous dialogue.
 

Sounds to me like the 2036 host selection process is no longer “paused” ?

 

 

[Brekkie Boy]

A return to a competitive bid process is a must - games should never be awarded behind closed doors before rivals who have expressed interest in hosting even know the bidding was open.

I think a dual games awarding is wise though - effectively had that for 2024/28 and 2030/34 and there are no real downsides to it.

[world atlas]

Hello again

first I want to say that's what I'm writing here is just a rant and rambling of an olympic fan who has followed the movement for more than 20 years and who's main interests are the hosting rights, the bidding process and the political and social aspects and implications on the hosting city/region/country.

to elaborate more my point of view is from an international olympic fan not a local one, so seeing the bidding cities/ countries from the olympic side just like the IOC.

just seeing who are on the table and why do they want to host the games and what are the pros and cons from hosting the games in that city/region/country for both sides but mainly from an olympic perspective.

I also want to apologize that I can't really engage in any real conversation on here because of my limited English level. I'm writing this using the help of Google translate and the best vocabulary I know and remember.

to elaborate my English level is not even enough to engage in a conversation in real life without a translator in between and it's not much different here on an internet forums so thank you for understanding.

Despite that I always wanted to share my opinion and thoughts about the Olympic movement and sports in general especially what concern the bidding process and the hosting of global/continental events sports and non-sports on here.

one of the reasons is because my whole interest in the bidding process and following the olympic movement started here by reading this forums more than 20 years ago when I discovered it during the 2012 Summer Olympics bidding process.

since then I become a bidding process enthusiast who follow every bidding process possible for any international/continental event sport and non-sport.

currently the best I can do is just sharing my opinion and thoughts regarding any olympic movement/bidding process development that happens by commenting here once in a while. now let's get into business!

——————-

My focus today is on the current status of the olympic bidding process and its future.

first I want to see it from Coventry and co ( Christophe Dubi - the Olympic Games Executive Director and others at the helm of the IOC ) perspective.

then I want to comment on the current olympic bidding races and what I think should change or let's say brought back from the past in the future.

another organization went from a baby boomer president to a millennial ( and skipping gen x ) it seems like most IOC members looks for a change and new start instead of relying on seniority and experience (Coe and Samaranch Jr).

assuming Kirsty keeps the current 12 years term limit the next president should be elected in 2037 and they could be older than Coventry ( I mean older IOC members from gen x who have ambitions to lead the organization should not lose hope ) by then it will be a different time and there could be a different generation leading the worlds of Politics, Business and Sports but let's now focus on the decade ahead.

Coventry is young and she could live for decades after leaving the IOC presidency, sometimes when there are older leaders they seems not to care much about the far future subsequently they don't care about the long term consequences of some of their decisions because they will be either dead or very old to care, meanwhile in the case of for example Coventry she could live a decades of shame and guilt if she take bad decisions as IOC president that could go horribly wrong for the olympic movement in the long term.

I previously defended Bach approach and his new norms but after some " boring" years the flaws of the Olympic agenda become obvious.

I don't like the chaos and much prefer the consistency of selecting future Olympic hosts at the odd years sessions 7 years ahead of the games. it was a perfect rule that worked for decades and should be brought back and reinstated in the Olympic Charter.

they could add except in exceptional circumstances to avoid the Beijing vs Almaty 2022 situation.

I don't see Los Angeles 2028 and Brisbane 2032 gained much from being selected 11 years ahead of their respective games. 

at the same time and irrespective of the french political situation the French Alps 2030 seems in a hurry and could rush some preparations instead of let everything take its appropriate time.

so I see that the 7 years lead up to the games was and should be the perfect rule as proven for decades.

and also it let us Olympic fans have something to look forward to and follow in the odd non olympic years.

and from host cities perspective every host city knows before they even bid that they will have seven years until the games if selected and build their Olympic bid based on this.

also I want to repeat a point that the longer the time the more the chance of a social,economic and political changes locally or globally that could jeopardize the whole games hosting plans.

back to Coventry, I feel like the Switzerland 2038 situation is wrong. if they end up being confirmed as hosts they were basically chosen in November 2023 when they have entered the "privileged dialogue" at the end of Bach tenure and when they host in 2038 it could be the first year for the next IOC president after Coventry. and I'm personally not comfortable with such long time between the selecting of the host and the actual hosting of the games. 

the rapid advance of the Artificial Intelligence in the past few years is an example of what I mean it just could be a whole different world by then which makes selecting hosts too early a wrong approach.

———————-

[world atlas]

now let's look at the current situation of the Olympic bidding process.

Youth Olympic Games

this is a quote from Feisal Al Hussein manifesto for the IOC presidential election earlier this year :

Quote

 

The Youth Olympic Games (YOG) have served

as a valuable platform for youth engagement,

but it is time to rethink their format. I am in

discussions with many Members about

alternative solutions and believe that by

combining elements of transnational youth

festivals with elite high performance sporting

events we could offer a more dynamic

approach.

Such festivals would celebrate sporting

culture while also serving as a high-

performance pathway directly connected to

the Olympic Games. Exploring innovative

ways to engage youth remains essential.

Embrace new technology to drive engagement, especially with our youth, while providing a

membership-wide opportunity to address these fundamentally important issues:

Review the format and future of the Youth Olympic Games

Source:

https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/International-Olympic-Committee/president-election/manifesto/AL-HUSSEIN-FEISAL-HRH-manifesto-EN.pdf

 

while I agree with him in principle I actually support the cancelling of the YOG and replacing it with something like international youth olympic festival held in the same way as the European youth olympic festival every two years :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Youth_Olympic_Festival

I think this and the youth age-group championships organized by international sports federations are more than sufficient at the olympic/world stage level for the young athletes.

the YOG were the idea of Jacques Rogge and under the reign of Thomas Bach they have become less relevant and after Gangwon 2024 the IOC changed the eligible age group to just 15-17 years old.

making it a biennial festival like the EYOF is the best solution instead of a small scale olympic games.

—————-

Winter Olympics

while I support the return of the old bidding process for the summer olympics I reiterate my proposal of making a list of eligible national olympic committees for the winter games.

let there be a winter olympics commission that focus on this, I mean it works in a similar way as the Bach's era future hosts commission but it purpose is just to confirm the eligibility of a facility/venue and a city/region/country to host winter sports.

when time comes 9 years before the winter olympics in question the IOC sends invitation to bid letters to eligible NOCs.

anyone else needs to enter a dialogue with the Winter Olympics commission to assess if they can host based on:

- Future weather conditions predictions and climate change considerations.

- availability of winter sports venues and its use,sustainability and legacy.

- Winter sports popularity and possibility of expanding its fan base.

previously I mentioned human and political rights but it seems from the last few years that the leaders of the international sports federations don't consider that a requirement when choosing host nations and if they pretended to do so it's nothing more than a PR campaign.

then when any new NOC is approved as a possible future winter olympics host they would receive an invitation to bid from the next cycle.

Switzerland 2038

as I said I don't like the long gap between the start of the targeted dialogue and the games itself which started at the end of Bach's tenure and ends in the early months of the next president ( after Coventry) first term.

if the dialogue with Switzerland doesn't success I really want them to go back to the old norm which is starting the bidding process 9 years before the games in case of 2038 this should be in 2029 then a normal short list confirmed by the executive board after a technical evaluation report in 2030 before selecting the host at the IOC session in 2031 by IOC members like the old good days.

if the dialogue is successful it's either I hope that Switzerland 2038 would be the last host given the hosting rights earlier than 7 years before the games or they make the final confirmation of Switzerland as hosts and the signing of hosting agreements and documents at the 2031 session as it should be.

—————-

Summer Olympics

as I said with the current "Crowded field of interested parties" I think the best solution is the return of the old timetable and bidding process.

the current situation with 2036 is uneven and unjust with some bidders trying to make advances and other don't know what to do or when.

just go back to what worked fine for decades by starting a formal bidding process in 2027, make a shortlist in 2028 and let the IOC members choose their preferred candidate at the 2029 session !

now let's talk about some bids:

Germany

last October referendum in Munich asked the people about the bidding for 2036,2040 or 2044.

while I understand the German position and the current chaos created by Bach I see asking people about an event to be held in 2044 in 2025 a bit excessive.

here we can see one of the positives of the old bidding process.

DOSB and the German cities don't know when the IOC will choose the hosts and they are taking other possibilities such as Istanbul hosting 2036  into consideration so asking the people now about 2044 seems rational.

but as I said before a referendum about an event to be held 19 years later is just too much when a lot can happen in just a few years in addition to the political,social and economic changes that could happen from now until then.

under the old system everything was clear so the bidding process for 2044 should start in 2035 and the vote to select a host is at the 2037 IOC session.

here we can see that best time for a referendum about the 2044 Olympics is in 2033-34 roughly 10-11 years before the games which I see is adequate.

also this will give any bidder two years to reconsider and postpone their bid for a later edition if they see that their chances aren't good for the next cycle.

Italy and Spain

I admit that I'm somehow biased because I followed their bids earlier this century.

but I want to make a point that Spain and Italy are always ready just like France and the US and their know-how in addition to that they are always present and represented in most olympic and non-olympic sports world championships.

so if they bid for any future olympics they just need to convince the majority of IOC members that it's time to go back to them but when and for which edition it's for them to decide.

I just want to say that I prefer them over most current interested countries for 2036.

India and Indonesia

it's just my personal opinion but I don't see them ready.

socially and economically they are still emerging and it's still better for them to continue focusing on development at this stage rather than hosting an extravaganza events like the Olympics.

from sports perspective they are still behind (except in cricket for India and Badminton for Indonesia plus some exceptions in some individual sports).

they lack the powerhouse status that the like of the US, Australia, France, Spain, Italy and others enjoy which justify their hosting of many sports events again and again.

I understand the huge population point and the economic benefits from such big markets plus the promotion of sports for that population but I think it's still not the right time to go there.

I prefer if they wait until the second half of this century, improve the lives of their citizens, become more powerful at the world stage economically and politically like China today, support grassroots and become more relevant in world sports and have more success in as many sports as possible.

then let them submit a bid, pass the technical evaluation, and convince the the majority of IOC members to vote for them in a democratic vote.

it's worth mentioning that I think that Türkiye has reached the stage when they are ready and qualified to host an Olympics.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia

one of the reasons I dislike the current approach of India and Indonesia is that their bids are mainly politically motivated rather than a sports initiative supported by their citizens.

while France had both Paris 2024 and French Alps 2030 projects driven by politicians and political ambition in the first place, the know-how factor and France being a historical sporting powerhouse in many sports makes a difference in that case.

in the case of Qatar hosting the Olympics has a purely political purpose to confirm Qatar soft power status on the world stage rather than any social or sports improvement and progress.

but since human and political rights are not a factor in awarding sports events hosting rights let's focus on other major obstacles that are facing the Qatari bid to host the 2036 Olympics.

the first is the climate, Qatar is still relatively hot in October and early November especially heat and high temperatures during the day and high humidity during the night.

here is the climate/weather history of Doha ( you can see all historical data from 2009 to now):

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/qatar/doha/historic

as I said before the best time to host outdoor events in the gulf region is between late November and early April when the weather feels like a northern European summer.

but if the IOC agree on the October - November dates special and appropriate measures needs to be taken to address the heat/ humidity problem for all participants,athletes and spectators.

the other problem facing Qatar for 2036 is religious which is Ramadan ( fasting month for muslims).

Ramadan in 2036 is from 20 October to 18 November.

for many annual sports events like in Tennis and Cycling countries like UAE, Morocco and Qatar itself preferred to keep the original timing of the events and create some bubble to held the events as normal as possible while respecting fasting muslims instead of moving the events back and forth until Ramadan move to an earlier dates.

in case of motorsports (Formula 1 and motogp) Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Qatar preferred to held the races before then after Ramadan for around four years until the races could be held again at their usual time starting from 2027 or 2028.

I don't see that working for once in a lifetime event like a FIFA world cup or an Olympics.

I don't know what the proposed dates for the Doha 2036 bid and how they could address the Ramadan problem.

Olympics in a conservative muslim-majority country during Ramadan would be a nightmare for all participants organizers,delegates,athletes,spectators locals and foreigners muslims and non-muslims and they can't really pretend like everything is normal during such event while muslims observe fasting during Ramadan.

also I don't know why they are insisting on 2036 when they would not face the Ramadan dilemma if they focused on 2040 ( Ramadan in 2040 will be from 8 September to 6 October).

for Saudi Arabia unlike Qatar I only found speculations about a bid on the internet nothing formal or official but seeing what happened last October to the Israeli delegation to the Artistic Gymnastics World Championships in Indonesia it's worth mentioning that Saudi Arabia doesn’t recognize the state of Israel and Israeli citizens aren't allowed to enter the country.

unlike Qatar which welcomed many Israeli athletes in many sports tournaments since the 1990s, Saudi Arabia has just recently started to open to the world and are newcomers to the world of hosting sports events.

I don't know if there was any Israeli delegates or athletes during the sports events and General Assemblies/Congresses of international sports federations that they hosted in the past few years.

also it seems like they are focusing on the esports which I unfortunately don't even know how such events work in the first place.

one international event I know they will be hosting is the Riyadh 2030 Expo and I didn't find any information regarding if there will be an Israeli pavilion or not.

the only thing we can do here is just wait and see how the Saudi- Israeli relations develop in the next few years.

Chile, Poland, Egypt, South Africa and others

as I said the only way with so many bidders is the good old way.

let all interested parties submit an application 9 years ahead of the games they are interested in hosting.

then let an evaluation commission assess their bids based on technical merits and recommend a list of qualified candidates before the Executive board confirm that list.

then a year later let IOC members choose their preferred candidate democratically. problem solved !

again from an Olympic fan perspective ( and I assume many IOC members share that opinion) the IOC sessions in non-olympic years have become a boring routine, let us have something to look forward once a year.

for Africa I agree with Bach stance, let african countries take their time.

just don't try to force it for the sake of Africa hosting.

when an african country is ready to bid they should submit an application like anyone else.

then if the evaluation commission see them fit and add them to the short list let the majority of IOC members vote and choose the african candidate democratically and confirm their desire to go to Africa.

now let's wait and see what Kirsty Coventry will do and change with her Executive Board colleagues and what the IOC members opinion on what she propose, looking forward to the Milan session next February!

[Sir Rols]

Those are some good, thoughtful assessments, @world atlas. Good food for thought. I agree with you the over-long lead times between host selection and the games is not the blessing many would have thought. And, yes, finding Winter hosts is the big problem, and likely to become a bigger problem as climate change heats up.

It’s still an open question how Coventry will measure up. She’s still an enigma and hasn’t done anything at all to judge her by so far. But maybe that’s a good thing. I really wasn’t gunning for her because I thought she was Bach’s mini-me candidate. But perhaps her inaction so far shows that she may indeed be a reflective, consultative and collegial president, as opposed to Bach’s knee-jerk, ad-hoc, secretive and authoritarian presidency. There’s an EB meeting this week, so just maybe we’ll get some sign of her mettle. Otherwise we’ll be waiting into next year.

[AustralianFan]

 

On 11/21/2025 at 7:21 AM, baron-pierreIV said:

I don't see why there should be a pause on the 2036 Selection process.  It will be certainly 10 years to the date in 9 months time.  If anything, I think they will probably set a Selection date of 2027 becuz that would give the would-be 2036 host 9 years' lead time.  And the IOC is now in Continuous Dialogue with RSA, Qatar and India.  I imagine Germany & Korea will join in a few months but--esp. Germany, is really just positioning itself for the more serious run for 2040.  Tempus fugit.  

In addition, if they name the 2036 host by 2027, then it can already send a team of observers to start with LA28, then AF2030, etc.,--and if it were Ahmedabad/India, then it would also be ready for the 2030 CWG and it would have observed at at least 2 SOGs (LA and Brisbane) under its belt before its own show in 2036. 
(Milano-Cortina will at least have observer teams from the next 4 Olympic Games + the Dakar 2026 team and the next World Games host. Maybe PanAm, Asian Games, Euro Games and Pan African Games observers.)