Wednesday, July 12, 2017

The 2024-2028 Combo

To the surprise of no one, the IOC unanimously approved the proposal to award both the 2024 and 2028 Olympics to Paris and Los Angeles at the IOC Session in September.  Now the three parties will work on an agreement as to who goes first, although the consensus on that has long been that Paris will get 2024, while LA will wait until 2028.  If there's no agreement in place by the IOC Session, the membership will only vote for the 2024 host.  Don't expect that to happen.

We've all known for quite some time that they were going to move ahead with the dual awarding.  That was the clear preference of IOC President Thomas Bach, so he was going to make sure of it.  And it makes sense on a lot of levels.

After the debacle of the 2022 race, as well as seeing four cities drop out of the running for 2024, leaving just LA and Paris, the dual award seemed inevitable.  And not just because, as Bach said, the old process "produces too many losers."  It's also about much more than the rhetoric the IOC was spewing about having two "first-rate" bids.  There was definite fear that the loser wouldn't want to come back for 2028, and the IOC wanted to make sure that wouldn't be the case.

Paris has bid for the Olympics and lost three times in the past 30 years.  They were considered the favorites in the stacked 2012 race, which was ultimately won by London.  How many times can you reject a city and expect them to keep coming back?  Especially a city as spectacular as Paris.  Now, full disclosure, if they didn't come to this arrangement and it was a straightforward head-to-head vote, Paris would likely win.  But it was definitely wise not to run that risk.

Likewise, the U.S. has seen New York and Chicago both suffer embarrassing defeats in recent bid cycles.  Then there was the even more embarrassing selection of Boston for the 2024 bid, only to have them say no before LA, which probably should've been the choice in the first place, step in as a replacement.  Boston would've had no shot of winning internationally.  LA is probably the U.S.'s best option as an Olympic host.

But an LA loss would've meant that the three largest cities in the most important nation to the Olympic movement were all rejected in a 12-year span.  And it almost certainly would've guaranteed that a Summer Olympics on American soil wasn't going to happen anytime soon.  The IOC didn't want that, either.  Not with the amount of money NBC and a whole bunch of American-based sponsors have invested in the Olympics.  Not to mention how much it would've alienated the USOC, wasting all that effort that went into repairing the relationship.

So, as much as this is about making sure two excellent bids are rewarded, there are also some obvious political reasons for the dual awarding.  They knew that they couldn't lose either one as a bidder for 2028, especially with the disaster that has been the last two bid cycles.  That's where the mutual benefit comes in.  Everybody gets an Olympics, and the IOC doesn't have to worry about having to settle for the best available option four years from now.  Now they have plenty of time to figure out a new system that works before the next Summer vote, which is now pushed back until 2025.

That vote won't take place until a year after the Paris Games.  There are a lot of reasons why Paris will likely go first, and, frankly, it should.  For one, the IOC needs a willing host in Western Europe.  It's been Western democracies that have been saying a resounding "No" to the Olympics over the past two bid cycles.  Western Europe is very important to the Olympic Movement.  They need the countries in Western Europe to actually be involved.  Hopefully a successful, on-budget Paris Games will stop scaring them off.

I can go into all the technical specifics about the two bids, too, but it also seems to make sense financially to go with the plan that doesn't require any building later.  That may sound counterintuitive, but it really isn't.  Because who's to say the money (and land) earmarked for those projects would still be available four years later?  (That's a big issue with their proposed Olympic Village, which is part of the reason why Paris insists it has to go first.)  LA wants to use already-existing permanent facilities.  If they'll already be there in 2024, they'll still be there in 2028.

One of the points the IOC has made repeatedly throughout this process is that these are both tremendous cities capable of hosting an outstanding Olympic Games.  They've both hosted twice previously.  Now they're poised to become the second and third three-time hosts.  And I'm sure both Games will indeed be outstanding, whichever order they're in.

Although, if you're planning on going to the 2024 Olympics, you'd better get your Passport ready.  Because the order will almost certainly be Paris-LA.

No comments:

Post a Comment