Are Cities Being Frightened Off By The Size Of The Games?

[Stu]

There don't seem to be that many cities interested in hosting the 2016 Olympics. The competitions for the 2004, 08, 12 Games all had far more interested cities.

Are there likely to be a number of surprise last minute candidates?

Is it because Europe stands only a limited chance this time so they've kept away?

Have the Olympics just got too big?

[Sir Rols]

Maybe we were all just a bit spoiled by the 2012 glamour race. But I don't think we'll ever see a race like that again anyway.

The Europe factor's a thing, though. The likes of Rome and Berlin have explicitely stated they're sitting it out because Europe's chances are so low. And Paris have wisely decided to take a break.

But then again, it's not like it's a totally lacklustre field. Tokyo and Rio both have a bit of glamour factor. Maybe we'd feel a bit different about the line-up if San Francisco was up against them bidding instead of Chicago, but it's not as if Chicago is total dullsville either though.

Maybe also we're just craving a few more unexpected colourful entrants. We've known the current make-up of contenders for months now, so maybe are a little bored. But there don't appear to be any signs of last minute surprises yet.

2020 is possibly shaping up to be a big one _ I've mentioned Europe's candidates saving themselves for then, we all expect Capetown to have a tilt, New Delhi have already said they'd enter for it, the likes of Prague and Budapest will possibly also join in, and depending on the 2016 result we'll also have other Americas or Asia bids. Maybe I was hasty in saying we'll never have the likes of 2012 again.

[Guardian]

Well, for me, it could be frightening that the size of the Games could make one believe that it is only reserved for the "wealthy nations and 'well-known cities.'" If anything, will be seeing a "forceful reaction" from the IOC and others of having the Games go to places, like Africa and South America, like the way FIFA handed out its Men's World Cup?

[baron-pierreIV]

Have the Olympics just got too big?

Of course not, silly boy!! Who remembers Montreal?

Wouldn't every city want to throw a 2-week party costing at least $10 billion? Oh wait, costs be damned. Every cty in the developing world needs at least 30 stadia, a brand-new airport, at least 45,000 hotel rooms, etc., etc., etc.

[Alexjc]

Yeah I can see 2020 being another big bid event. It's one of those hohum years that is 2016. Still, if you were a major city, the 2016 could be your year, hence Rio and Chicago being left in a battle for the America's.

[Techno Dragon]

May be they just are not interested in spending all that money not to be shortlisted?

[ejaycat]

After the Athens Games, this thought immediately came to my mind, that perhaps the pendulum is starting to swing the other way and fewer cities will be interested in hosting the summer Olympics because of the cost/size.

I'm hoping this is the case, just because I have a bit of schadenfreude when it comes to the IOC. It'd be great if for the first time, NO city will want to host them.

[Faster]

After the Athens Games, this thought immediately came to my mind, that perhaps the pendulum is starting to swing the other way and fewer cities will be interested in hosting the summer Olympics because of the cost/size.

I'm hoping this is the case, just because I have a bit of schadenfreude when it comes to the IOC. It'd be great if for the first time, NO city will want to host them.

LA will come in than

[Sir Rols]

After the Athens Games, this thought immediately came to my mind, that perhaps the pendulum is starting to swing the other way and fewer cities will be interested in hosting the summer Olympics because of the cost/size.

I'm hoping this is the case, just because I have a bit of schadenfreude when it comes to the IOC. It'd be great if for the first time, NO city will want to host them.

I don't see any danger for that yet. Okay, by the standards of the 2012 race, 2016 is arguably lacklustre, but still none of them (except baku?) to be sneezed

at. And come 2020, there already sems to be a swag of potentials lining up to bid from Europe (Rome, Berlin, Prague, Budapest maybe even Paris again), Asia (New Delhi) not to mention what would happen if the Ameriucas don't get 2016.

Of course, we should never be complacent _ a series of tragedies and political fights like in the 1970s could always put the games in dire straights again _ but for the moment nothing is preventing a lot of enthusiasm from nearly all corners of the world to try their hand at winning a hosting.

[ejaycat]

LA will come in than

If it will even want to in the future. If anything I think NYC would try to jump at the chance if nobody else wanted the Olympics.

But I think it'd be awesome if NO CITY wanted them. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Bupkis.

[ejaycat]

I don't see any danger for that yet. Okay, by the standards of the 2012 race, 2016 is arguably lacklustre, but still none of them (except baku?) to be sneezed

at. And come 2020, there already sems to be a swag of potentials lining up to bid from Europe (Rome, Berlin, Prague, Budapest maybe even Paris again), Asia (New Delhi) not to mention what would happen if the Ameriucas don't get 2016.

Of course, we should never be complacent _ a series of tragedies and political fights like in the 1970s could always put the games in dire straights again _ but for the moment nothing is preventing a lot of enthusiasm from nearly all corners of the world to try their hand at winning a hosting.

IMO if Rome, Berlin and Paris were to run again, that would be total yawnsville. We're back to the cycle of previous host cities running again, or previous also-rans running again. I just can't get excited about that.

It'd be more interesting to me if all the cities running were from countries that have never hosted the Olympics before. A lineup like Auckland, New Delhi, Prague, Panama City and Bangkok would be a very interesting race, I think!

[Sir Rols]

If it will even want to in the future. If anything I think NYC would try to jump at the chance if nobody else wanted the Olympics.

But I think it'd be awesome if NO CITY wanted them. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Bupkis.

It's a good question, though, possibly even worthy of its own thread. What would the IOC do if in that situation _ just NOBODY interested in hosting?

It's not like they could force anyone to take them on.

I suppose Option A would be to try and talk the last immediate host to go for a double _ though there's no guarantee that would work (Sydney strictly ruled itself out of taking over from Athens when 2004 seemed in doubt).

What else? Maybe try to talk the Greeks or Swiss into being permanent hosts? Maybe a repeat of 1984 and asking a powerful country (USA? China?) to take them on with no strings attached _ basically agreeing to whatever conditions the host would demand? The IOC dipping into its own funds to buy/bribe a host?

[ejaycat]

It's a good question, though, possibly even worthy of its own thread. What would the IOC do if in that situation _ just NOBODY interested in hosting?

It's not like they could force anyone to take them on.

I suppose Option A would be to try and talk the last immediate host to go for a double _ though there's no guarantee that would work (Sydney strictly ruled itself out of taking over from Athens when 2004 seemed in doubt).

What else? Maybe try to talk the Greeks or Swiss into being permanent hosts? Maybe a repeat of 1984 and asking a powerful country (USA? China?) to take them on with no strings attached _ basically agreeing to whatever conditions the host would demand? The IOC dipping into its own funds to buy/bribe a host?

I always thought the IOC should pay for the Olympics. It's their party, why don't they throw it? I think this would seriously alter the way host cities are chosen. It would be like a city council soliciting bids for a contracting job to pay for road paving or something, they'd have to go with what their budget allows and which one they feel could do the job well for the cost. And obviously, cities that would otherwise not be able to afford them would have more of an opportunity to host.

[Stu]

If it will even want to in the future. If anything I think NYC would try to jump at the chance if nobody else wanted the Olympics.

But I think it'd be awesome if NO CITY wanted them. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Bupkis.

I really don't see a situation where no cities bid for the Olympics in the near future - even with the expense, it is still seen as the best way to promote your city around the world - every mayor and civic authority wants that. The Olympics television audience is huge no matter in which time zone the event is taking place.

Although I'm still over-the-moon that London will host the Olympics, in many ways it won't benefit to the same extent as other hosts - it is already globally recognised, business and tourist centre, etc... But other cities like Barcelona and Seoul have benefited greatly from hosting the Games - even Atlanta increased its profile substantially (before many people outside the US had no idea it even existed - they thought the Olympics would be in Atlantic City!).

There is alway going to be some place that someone wants to promote for economic and psychological gain.

[Sir Rols]

I always thought the IOC should pay for the Olympics. It's their party, why don't they throw it?

But is it their party? I tend to regard it as the party that the host wants to throw the world to show off their country, city and culture. And because it is a lavish party, it is up to those cities with the means to splurge on it, and the civic pride to do it, to bid for them. Having lived through one in my home town, I really think that was what the general feeling was _ it was a giant party and the chance for us to poudly strut our stuff in the spotlight.

[frenchnounours]

the big problem of the olympics bids is the price

it s a shame how much you have to give to IOC just to bid.

You should have to pay anything only if you win

Now if you re not sure to have a shot at winning there is no reason to spent 15 millions on a bid.

IOC should make the bid totaly free then a lot of cities might give it a try and we should see amazing bids because it would be hard to make the shortlist,not just good bids from very big cities.

With that i can see smaller cities trying and winnig like mr rogge want it to happen

[cfm Jeremie]

What do you mean the IOC has to make the bid free?

Applicant cities and Candidate cities have to pay a fee to the IOC ($150,000 in the first phase, more in the candidate city phase) in order to cover the knowledge transfer/observer programmes and such. It's standdard practice nowadays to pay for this kind of service. That's only a tiny portion on how much a bid city will spend over the bid process.

When you speak of $15 million, that's (the low end BTW) of a bid budget. This covers the preparation of the bid questionnaire and bid book, the various presentations, the bid staff salary and so on. The IOC does not really have any control over the money spent (banning the visit and the gifts, providing a bid book template are the ways the IOC is trying to keep the bid budget under control). The candidate cities are responsible of the money they spend.

[NYCD 2012]

Frightened ? I doubt so. Otherwise, we wouldn't be seeing Doha & Baku bidding !

[baron-pierreIV]

If it will even want to in the future. If anything I think NYC would try to jump at the chance if nobody else wanted the Olympics.

But I think it'd be awesome if NO CITY wanted them. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Bupkis.

Actually, Madrid and Istanbul would be there to fight over the scraps.

[can135]

If it will even want to in the future. If anything I think NYC would try to jump at the chance if nobody else wanted the Olympics.

But I think it'd be awesome if NO CITY wanted them. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Bupkis.

Havana - Here we come

[Kenadian]

I think its just a timing thing. Most in Europe recognize its not their time. A bunch of other developing cities realize they are not quite ready. And the others - like Canada, China and Australia - are recent hosts. But we have a number of strong options. Maybe this short list will only be 3 or 4? Who knows.

Guardian - it IS an event for the "rich and famous" so to speak. Do you think the IOC is going to want to spend 7 years frettin' over and jettin' to East Buttville, Nowheresland to watch a tinpot dictator show them how a mound of dirt and some boulders can be made into a stadium? Not when Paris, New York and Tokyo have expressed an interest.

[Guardian]

Hence, the dilemma for the IOC. Guess it is just the matter of time, before a nation, like Canada, could host the Summer Olympics again because it has already hosted one before.

[Kenadian]

I don't think it is much of a real problem. Only one city can host the Olympics at a time. You don't need 30 bidding at once. All you need is a good selection of a few bids to make it work. I'd say all that is needed is two or three good bids at a time. Keeps it interesting, keeps the bidding cities on their toes and keeps the costs down. 2012 was excessive and a big exception when considering the calibre of the candidates. Three of the world's 4 Alpha cities in one race is clearly going to be a big race.