I'm no fan of Boston by any means. Anyone who knows me knows that. So don't take this commentary and chalk it up as just some more Boston-bashing by a New Yorker. But I'm surprised and confused by the USOC's selection of Boston as its candidate for the 2024 Olympics. And, even worse, I think choosing Boston all but guarantees the United States will NOT host the 2024 Olympics. Which might've been the entire point.
A very interesting piece came out today written by respected Olympic journalist Alan Abrahamson. He made some very interesting points, the most significant of which is that an op/ed piece by IOC President Thomas Bach appeared in the Boston Globe two days before the USOC picked its bid city. Only the Boston Globe. Not the Los Angeles Times. Not the San Francisco Chronicle. Not the Washington Post. Not USA Today. What can we take from that? A not-so-subtle suggestion that Bach wanted Boston to be the American bid city. And once the USOC realized that, their vote became a mere formality.
Los Angeles had long been considered the U.S. favorite for 2024, and the vote evidently came down to LA or Boston. LA had the best bid on paper, but there were plenty of questions about whether the IOC would've wanted to go there a third time (which was my biggest argument against LA). The IOC has long been a fan of San Francisco, but the USOC is still yet to get the point about the one American city that seems like it could be a guaranteed win against international competition. San Francisco bid for 2012 and lost to New York. For 2016, San Francisco lost to Chicago. Now the Bay Area loses to Boston. If Boston doesn't host the 2024 Games (which, again, I don't think it will), that's three times in a row that the U.S. ended up choosing another city that ultimately lost.
The Boston bid was built around existing facilities at the city's various colleges, which means it would cost the taxpayers very little. But the one big thing that Boston's missing is an Olympic Stadium. Where are you putting that, and what are you doing with it after the Olympics? The seemingly natural tenant would be the Patriots, but Gillette Stadium is still relatively new, so I don't think they're in the market for a new home. And relying on existing college facilities is all well and good in theory, but which one gets the new dorms that will first serve as the Olympic Village?
With the amount of money NBC just paid to extend its Olympic rights thru 2032, it's obviously in the IOC's best interest to have one of those three Summer Games in the U.S. They know that. You can't have the country that's the most successful and pays the most to broadcast the Olympics always playing a road game. The United States is going to host the Summer Olympics again relatively soon. Otherwise, the IOC will miss out on a financial windfall.
But I think more importantly, the IOC needed a U.S. bid for 2024. Especially after all the negative publicity they've received with the number of cities that have dropped out of the 2022 race, they want the 2024 field to be as strong as possible. In order to do that, they needed an American city, any American city, in the mix.
Now, I have no idea what President Bach's motivations were or how much credence the USOC gave to what he said, but Abrahamson's revelation was incredibly telling. The IOC wanted a U.S. bid, but do they really want that U.S. bid to win? If they don't, convincing the USOC to put up Boston seems like a brilliant strategic ploy. Because Boston is by no means going to be the favorite in this race.
It's clear that the 2024 race is going to include some heavy hitters. Boston and Rome are the only cities to announce that they'll definitely be bidding, but Germany just has to decide between Berlin and Hamburg, and it's likely that Paris will bid on the 100th anniversary of the 1924 Games. Istanbul bids for every Olympics and finished second for 2020, so you've gotta figure they'll be in the mix. Doha and Dubai aren't out of the question, either, but they'd just be wasting their time and money, since there's no way the IOC will put four straight Olympics in Asia.
Then there's the giant elephant in the room. South Africa. We're 18 months away from Rio, which will be the first Olympics in South America, leaving Africa as the only continent to have never hosted. That's a well-known fact in Olympic circles, and one they'd like to change. South Africa's probably the only African country that could realistically make it work financially. They've been back-and-forth on a bid, but I think they're back to yes on moving forward with Durban, which hosted an IOC Session a couple years ago. And I haven't even mentioned Toronto yet, which could be a definite possibility if the Pan Am Games go well.
This field is going to be loaded. And it's worth keeping in mind that the IOC is heavily European. With all those beautiful European cities in the running, and the fact that it'll be 12 years since London, they might look out for their own interests and make the easy European choice. Or they could make history and pick Durban. And who's knows if there's still any lingering anti-American resentment that derailed the New York and Chicago bids?
My point is this. The 2024 Olympic race is going to be a flashy one. The IOC's going to make the sexy choice. And Boston's not it.
While it probably wasn't done intentionally (at least I don't think so), by picking Boston, the USOC might've thrown in the towel before the race even began. So forgive me for not getting excited about it. Because I just don't see Boston 2024 actually happening.
No comments:
Post a Comment