Here we go again. Graz, Austria announced today that it has withdrawn from the race to be the host city of the 2026 Winter Olympics, bringing the initial list of seven candidate cities down to five. Like Sion, Switzerland, Graz backed out because they couldn't get the government support. And of the remaining five, we may end up losing a few more because of the dreaded referendum.
Of the remaining options, Sapporo, which would be a third straight Winter Olympics in Asia, has said they would rather host in 2030; Calgary may get shuttered because Edmonton's one of the World Cup host cities; and Stockholm's bid, which I think is still considered the favorite, may also end up facing a referendum. So, for a second straight Winter Games, we could end up with a two-horse race between whichever Italian city ends up getting chosen and Erzurum, Turkey. We could end up seeing them go to Turkey by default. Not exactly what the IOC had in mind when they said they wanted a "more traditional" host.
After the debacle of the 2022 bid and, to a lesser extent, the Paris/LA joint-awarding situation, the IOC tried to change the perception of hosting the Olympics. All cities (and, more importantly, the taxpayers in those cities) were seeing were the price tags for Sochi and Tokyo and the empty venues in Rio and PyeongChang. Cities don't see the benefit, especially when the Olympics are seven years after the host-city vote, so they're taking a hard pass.
The Winter Olympics have become that party you want to be invited to, but you hope is at somebody else's house. You don't mind going. You just don't want to do all the setup and cleanup. And you'd rather not pay for it yourself.
It's imperative that the IOC figures out a way to change that. The need to make the idea of hosting the Olympics (especially the Winter Games, where there's a limited number of places you can hold them to begin with) attractive again. Otherwise, they're gonna keep running into this same problem over and over again. You'll have three straight Games in Asia and Winter Olympics in cities that don't have any snow with the closest mountains 100 miles away (whoever thought Beijing 2.0 was a good idea was incredibly wrong).
They revamped the bid process, making it shorter and less expensive. It hasn't worked. They revised the Host City Contract, changing the requirements and lessening the financial burden on the host city and country. It hasn't worked. They pretty much flat out begged cities to focus on existing venues and only build stuff that's needed. That hasn't worked either. Nothing has worked!
Western Europe and North America are extremely important to the Olympic Movement. Most of the top sporting countries are in Western Europe, and most of the IOC's money comes from NBC. They know that they don't want to make these biannual trips to the Far East, and that no one likes the awkward start times that result from the time difference (the athletes don't like morning finals, TV doesn't like events taking place overnight). But, when that's the only option, they have no choice.
I give the IOC credit for trying with their reforms. They're trying to get the message across that hosting the Olympics can be a good thing. Look at Barcelona. Look at London. Look at Salt Lake City. But those positives are drowned out by the anti-Olympic groups that pop up in every potential bid city and every failed referendum. To put it bluntly, that message isn't getting across. So it's on them to change it. Otherwise, they'll continue having this same problem.
For a long time, the IOC has been viewed by most of the general public as an elitist Boys Club. There's a good reason for that. The IOC has a ridiculous list of VIP perks for its members, some of which are completely unnecessary, that host cities are expected to fulfill. Once someone who's opposed to the idea gets their hands on one of those documents, it's pretty easy to get other people on their side. And the politicians, even if they personally see the benefit, can't offer their support if the voters don't offer theirs.
Instead of focusing on how cities can help the Olympics, they should emphasize how the Olympics can help the city. Because the Olympics can be the ultimate help me help you. The money doesn't need to be spent on venues that will only be used for two weeks and then either torn down or sit there unused. But it can be used to improve the roads or the subway or the airport. Or it can be used to build hotels. That benefits everybody. (Not to mention the amount of jobs that would be created and the amount of visitors that'll come into the city at Games-time.)
Unfortunately, no one has that perception of the Olympics. The only message that gets across is the negative one. It's the "anywhere but here" mindset from people who'd rather see their tax dollars spent on something else. (Even Olympics that have a good amount of private funding run into opposition!) And that's why the IOC repeatedly finds itself in this predicament. Because even the people who see the benefit and support an Olympic bid are drowned out by the protesters.
Or maybe we just need to come to terms with the fact that this is the new reality. Maybe getting governmental support for an Olympic bid in a Western democracy is going to be an uphill battle no matter what. Maybe the anti-Olympic groups will gain enough traction to force a referendum (or get the city to pull out before it can fail one). Although, who knows?, maybe one day one of those referendums might actually pass.
No comments:
Post a Comment