Two Controversies In Paris

Through the first few days of the Paris Olympics, two controversies have stood out.  One actually started before the Opening Ceremony, when the Canadian women's soccer team was caught using a drone to spy on New Zealand's practice before the two played each other in the first game of the tournament.  The other is in tennis, specifically regarding late withdrawals and replacing those players in the draw.

Let's start with Olympic soccer's very own Spygate.  The culprit was a Canadian staffer, who was immediately sent home, along with the assistant coach he reported to.  The Canadian head coach then announced that she was voluntarily withdrawing from coaching the New Zealand game to "take accountability."  The Canadian Olympic Committee promptly responded by revoking the Olympic accreditation of all three.  I put "take accountability" in quotes because the head coach clearly knew what was going on, as FIFA's investigation found.

As it turns out, this wasn't the first time Canada was caught cheating.  They were apparently doing it as far back as Tokyo, when they won the gold, if not longer.  The U.S. has known about it for a while, but didn't see any benefit in reporting the Canadians because of how closely the federations need to work together for the 2026 World Cup (among other events).  So, this didn't exactly come as a surprise to U.S. Soccer.

After its investigation of the incident, FIFA suspended the three staff members in question for one year.  They also docked Canada six points in the Olympic group standings (three for each of the two violations committed in Paris).  That penalty wasn't announced until after Canada beat New Zealand, which dropped their point total from 3 to -3, making it virtually impossible for the Canadians to advance to the knockout phase.  Or did it?

Canada's first game after the scandal was against France.  They clearly were not supposed to win.  They did, resetting their point total to 0.  Now, all they need to do is beat Colombia and they'll make the quarterfinals.  As improbable as it seemed after the penalty was announced, it's not that far-fetched at all anymore.  In fact, it would be a surprise if Canada doesn't beat Colombia.  Which really says a lot about their players, who clearly aren't at fault for any of this.

The Canadian Olympic Committee immediately appealed the six-point reduction, arguing that it was too harsh a sanction.  They're only playing three games, and had two wins' worth of points taken away, meaning the maximum they can finish with is 3.  It's also not the players' fault, yet they're the ones being penalized, which seems unfair. 

I understand the logic behind that argument.  It's the same one that college programs make when they get postseason bans for past infractions or actions by their coach.  However, my response is the same here as it is in those situations.  Don't blame the governing body (be it the NCAA, FIFA or the IOC) that issued the sanction.  Blame the person who put you in that situation to begin with.  No, it's not "fair" that you have to suffer because of someone else's wrongdoing.  But if that wrongdoing goes unpunished, how is that fair to everyone who was impacted by it?

In tennis, meanwhile, the controversy involves withdrawals, specifically withdrawals after the draw was made.  There were far too many, which is another issue entirely.  However, the method by which those players are replaced in the field is what's drawn criticism.  It should be noted here that the ITF and IOC run the Olympic tennis tournaments, not the ATP and WTA.  And their replacement method is necessarily different.

At an ATP or WTA tournament, if a player withdraws before their first match, they're replaced in the draw with a "lucky loser," the highest-ranked player who lost in the last round of qualifying.  This is actually fairly common at Grand Slams when there's an injury, etc.  However, at the Olympics, there's an entry deadline (which is later in tennis than most other sports), as well as an athlete quota for each sport that cannot be exceeded.  So, there's no room for lucky losers or alternates.  Instead, if someone withdraws, they can only be replaced by somebody who's already entered in the Olympics, which likely means a doubles specialist.

That's exactly what happened in the Olympic men's tournament.  Novak Djokovic's first round match was against Matthew Ebden, an Australian who hasn't played singles in so long that he doesn't even have a singles ranking.  It wasn't a great look, and everyone knew exactly what would happen.  I give Ebden credit, though.  He knew as well as anybody that he was overmatched.  Yet he went out there and took his beating against the No. 1 player in the world.  (Sidebar: how is Alcaraz not No. 1 when he's won the last two Grand Slams and Djokovic has only made one final this year?)

Olympic tennis has always been a bit of a different animal than the Grand Slams, and not only because you have overmatched doubles specialists or lower-ranked players (who qualify via continental events instead of by their ranking) getting their butts kicked in the first round.  There's always a good number of top players who opt out.  For various reasons.  (Frankly, I can't really blame anybody for not wanting to randomly play on clay a month before the US Open.)  Others prioritize the Olympics and wouldn't miss it.  It's that important to them. 

Then you also have singles players who never players deciding that they suddenly want to since that's another chance to win an Olympic medal.  To me, that's no different than the doubles players getting pressed into action in singles.  Neither Nadal nor Alcaraz ever plays doubles.  Yet suddenly they're a doubles team?  I mean, yeah, I guess it's kinda cool.  But it's also kinda ridiculous.

Getting back to the withdrawals, though.  I blame the players who withdraw for that.  Especially if they withdraw after the draw's already made.  Something happened in the two days between the draw being made and the tournament starting that you're no longer able to play?  I'm especially calling out the players who withdrew from singles, but are still playing doubles.  No!  If you withdraw from singles, you withdraw from the whole tournament!  (That's a rule I think should be implemented at Grand Slams, too.)  If the draw hasn't been made yet, that's one thing.  Then they're still able to replace you.  Once the draw's out, though, that's on you.

Brad Gilbert also called out the ATP for having a tournament in Croatia that ended on Saturday, the day after the Opening Ceremony.  Both finalists were entered in the Olympics and played their first-round matches on Sunday.  That's just dumb.  If you're entered in the Olympics (which start on Saturday), you shouldn't be allowed to play in a different tournament that ends on Saturday.  I've gotta say, he's got a point there!  That's a completely different problem, though.

Well, It Was Unique

When Paris promised us a "one of a kind" Opening Ceremony along the banks of the Seine rather than inside the Stade de France, I wasn't quite sure what to expect.  I liked the concept of showcasing everything the city has to offer and making it accessible to hundreds of thousands of fans, but wasn't sure if it would work.  It would either be spectacular or a disaster.  Unfortunately, it was the second one.

The memorable Opening Ceremonies of Sydney, Beijing and London it was not.  Actually, scratch that.  It was memorable.  But not for the right reasons.  Although, they definitely achieved their goal of a "one of a kind" ceremony that was definitely unique.  And there were some enjoyable parts.  Just not enough of them.

I actually thought the way they started the ceremony was very clever.  A torchbearer running into the Stade de France, only to wonder where everybody was before French soccer legend Zinedine Zidane saved the day.  Unfortunately, it was pretty much all downhill from there, though.

Now, there was one thing that was completely out of their control.  It was pouring throughout much of the Ceremony!  After the years of planning and all that preparation, it, of course, had to rain on the big night!  It hadn't rained during a Summer Olympic Opening Ceremony since 1952!  That's just bad luck.  I don't really think it impacted the Ceremony one way or the other, though.  People either had umbrellas or ponchos or they didn't and got wet (although, I hope athletes didn't get sick by getting wet in what would otherwise be extremely pleasant temperatures).

Mixing the Parade of Nations with the cultural presentation seemed like a good idea in theory.  In reality, though, it made everything feel so disjointed.  The fact that everything was so spread out didn't help matters, either.  Some performances were held on the steps of buildings overlooking the river.  Others were on barges alongside the athlete boats.  And the stuff that wasn't on the water was obviously pretty far away.  It was confusing and enough to give you whiplash, especially with the way they kept cutting back and forth to that fashion show (I don't know if that was NBC or the world feed's decision)!

They also took away from the spectacle of some of the key elements by putting almost too much focus on the Seine.  There were no French Olympic legends carrying the Olympic flag into the stadium.  Instead, it was some woman on horseback wearing it as a cape as she "rode" up the river, which looked creepy in the pitch black of night, then walking it by herself up that long stage that they made to look like the Eiffel Tower (which was a cool touch).  And, I'm not 100 percent sure, but I think the Olympic flag might've been upside down after they raised it up the flagpole!

And what was that with the torch?  I don't really know what to make of that!  They had that mysterious figure take it down the parade route to the Trocadero...only to then put it on a boat and send it right back!  And that hot air balloon thing?  That might just be the weirdest Olympic cauldron in history! 

Although, I can't help but be proud of myself for nailing the final two torchbearers who actually lit the cauldron--Teddy Riner and Marie-Jose Perec.  That final portion of the torch relay (after it got off that boat with Serena, Rafa, Carl Lewis and Nadia Comaneci) was actually one of the better parts.  In honor of the 2024 Olympics, it was 24 French Olympic and Paralympic champions, who all ran together after handing it off.  Having the 100-year-old Charles Coste, a 1948 Olympic gold medalist in cycling who was born the year Paris last hosted the Olympics and is France's oldest living Olympic champion, be the final torchbearer before Perec and Riner was a particularly nice touch.

That spectacular light show on the Eiffel Tower was another highlight.  If they don't do that every year on New Year's Eve and Bastille Day, they should.  Celine Dion's finale was sensational, as well! They reportedly paid her $2 million to perform.  It was well worth it.  She was as showstopping as ever!  The performance of "Imagine," which has become an Olympic Opening Ceremony staple, was equally beautiful.

Celine Dion's powerful voice was just one of many different musical styles that was used.  I've never seen such variety at an Olympic ceremony.  She and Lady Gaga were the headliners, but they touched on every different style of French music.  They went from Les Miserables to heavy metal to classical to, of course, the can-can to rap to opera (the performance of "La Marseillaise" got lost in the shuffle since it was mixed in with everything else, but it was beautiful).  So, you certainly can't accuse them of leaving anybody out.

There was also something cool about the variety of boats used to transport the athletes.  That was actually one of the things I was most curious to see going in.  For the most part, I think they pulled it off.  The United States and France, with their huge delegations, had what looked like cruise ships packed to the brim.  Some of the smaller delegations, meanwhile, looked like somebody took a handful of buddies out on the boat just to hang out.  All they were missing was the cooler full of beers.  (That's not a criticism at all.  I actually thought some of the smaller boats were the coolest-looking ones.  And I loved that they had boats of all different sizes.)

Those multi-team boats, though.  I have mixed feelings about those.  I get why they had countries share boats.  And, on the one hand, it was cool to see athletes from different nations all mixed together at the Opening Ceremony, which is something we normally only see at the Closing Ceremony.  Although, on the other hand, there's something special about marching into the stadium and hearing your country's name announced, and that moment was somewhat taken away by sharing your "entrance" with other nations.

Another thing I have mixed feelings about was the red carpet for celebrity arrivals.  For one thing, it's Paris.  So, it's very appropriate for the setting.  The Olympics aren't about the celebrities in attendance, though.  They're about the athletes.  If this was a one-time deal because they were in Paris, I guess I'm fine with it.  But the next Olympics are in LA, and they aren't exactly lacking for celebrities there, so I fear this is going to become a regular thing, which is an idea I'm not a fan of.

Ultimately, though, this Opening Ceremony achieved exactly what they were looking for.  They wanted to showcase all that Paris has to offer.  They wanted the city itself to be one of the stars.  And there's no denying that they were successful in that regard.  There's absolutely no mistaking where this ceremony was taking place.

It was an idea that was as bold as it was novel.  Having the Olympic Opening Ceremony in the heart of the city instead of inside a stadium.  It was worth giving it a shot, too.  You don't know if it'll work until you try it.  And for all the security risks they took and the logistical and technical challenges it presented, they did pull it off.  Not without a hitch, but they pulled it off nonetheless.

With all that being said, however, I hope it was a one-time thing.  LA will have its own unique Opening Ceremony at both the L.A. Coliseum and SoFi Stadium in 2028, but even that promises to be more traditional than what we saw in Paris.  That's the missing element that made this Opening Ceremony feel lacking.  Paris brought the Opening Ceremony to everybody, and it was packed along the parade route.  But there's just something about having it in a stadium that brings the excitement.  And that excitement was the biggest thing that was missing at this Opening Ceremony.

Returning to France & the US

There were two major announcements today that, while not directly related, definitely have an impact on each other.  On the first day of competition at the Paris Olympics, the IOC confirmed the hosts of the 2030 and 2034 Winter Games, awarding the former to the French Alps and the latter to Salt Lake City.  Meanwhile, the NBA rejected TNT's matching offer and formally approved its new media rights deal with ESPN/ABC, NBC and Amazon, starting with the 2025-26 season.

What do those two things have to do with each other, you ask?  Well, in the new NBA contract, NBC will have the rights to both the All-Star Game and All-Star Saturday Night.  NBC has also arranged its portion of the NFL contract to have Super Bowl rights in Winter Olympic years.  Which means in 2026, 2030 and (most likely) 2034, NBC will have two other major events right smack in the middle of the Winter Olympics (one of which will be in the U.S.!).  So, I'm very curious to see how they schedule everything on those couple of very busy Sundays in February (although, in 2002, they had both the Daytona 500 and NBA All-Star Game during the Winter Olympics, so they have done it before).

Back to the subject at hand, though--the two Winter Olympics.  The approval was always considered a mere formality after the IOC announced each as the "preferred candidate" as part of the new bidding process.  The vote was more of a rubber-stamping, but it did include provisions for each, so they aren't done deals yet. 

France can't sign the required governmental guarantees right now because of the political situation in the country and no actual ruling party at the moment.  Emmanuel Macron has assured the IOC that it'll be one of the first orders of business once the new French Prime Minister takes office, however.  They've only got five-and-a-half years to go, though, so they're already behind the 8-ball, and I'm not sure if there's any sort of Plan B should the IOC not get that government assurance.

The U.S., meanwhile, was basically told that it needs to stay in its lane and accept the fact that WADA has final authority over doping cases.  This was actually necessary since the USADA has had some very public tiffs with WADA, most recently about the Chinese swimmers who were allowed to compete in Tokyo (and will again in Paris) despite failed tests.  Not to mention the fact that the Rodchenkov Act, which somehow makes it a U.S. federal crime to dope in any international sporting event involving American athletes (even though the U.S. has absolutely no jurisdiction over international sports), is unenforceable and most likely makes the U.S. WADA non-compliant.  The USOPC has also given its assurance that it'll play by the rules and abide by WADA's decisions.  Whether the USADA (perhaps the most self-righteous organization in all of sports), FBI and Congress also will is a completely different question.

Assuming all of that is resolved, and there's no reason to think it won't be, it's now official that four of the next six Olympics (including the ongoing games in Paris) will be in either France or the United States, with stops in Italy and Australia mixed in.  After the struggles the IOC had in finding bidders for the past few Winter Olympics, they made a smart move and took the safe bets.  With the short turnaround before the 2030 Games, especially, they needed someone that can organize the Olympics quickly.  Which the French can.

Yes, two Olympics six years apart is quite a commitment, and it's one not every country is willing or able to make.  Japan decided against it, which is why the 2030 Olympics aren't in Sapporo, which was the longtime favorite until dropping out of the race.  The fact that France and the United States were not only in the financial position to do so, but wanted to host Summer and Winter Games so close together made the safe picks the easy ones.

Just as the Paris Games are using virtually all existing facilities, the 2030 Olympics will feature venues throughout the region that are regularly used for World Cup and World Championships competition.  This spread out, regional approach is similar to the one being used by Milan and Cortina in 2026, which, unfortunately, I think will be a way of life with most Winter Olympics in this new era of bidding.  These Games will be so spread out, in fact, that there are five different Olympic Villages in four zones.

When France last hosted the Winter Olympics in 1992, that was one of the big criticisms.  Albertville was the "host" city, but the venues were far apart and the athletes said it felt more like a bunch of individual World Championships rather than an Olympics.  Well, that's exactly what's in store again 5 1/2 years from now, when all three of the French Alpine cities that have previously hosted the Winter Olympics (Chamonix, Grenoble, Albertville) will host events, along with Nice on the Mediterranean coast for the ice sports.

In another nod to Paris and its Opening Ceremony down the Seine, the 2030 Closing Ceremony will be along Nice's famous Promenade des Anglais.  Interestingly, they haven't selected a site for the Opening Ceremony, though (in 1992, they built a temporary stadium just for the ceremonies).  Speed skating, which was famously held outdoors in 1992, will take place outside of France since there aren't any speed skating tracks in the country.  Turin isn't that far from the French border, so I'd imagine that the 2006 Olympic venue (which Milano Cortina didn't want to use) may end up getting pressed into action.  That would seem to make the most sense.

Salt Lake City, meanwhile, is ready to host another Winter Olympics tomorrow.  All of the venues from 2002 not only still exist, they're all still in use.  The USOPC moved pretty much all of its national training centers to the Olympic venues in Salt Lake City after the 2002 Games, and the area has become a premier winter sports destination.  The venues are all ready to go and will require little to no work (and the Delta Center's already being renovated to accommodate the NHL's arrival in Utah)...and they're all set to be used as Olympic venues again 32 years later.  

They're so ready, in fact, that they were willing to step in as hosts in 2030 should no other candidates emerge.  That was never really a viable option since it would've been too close to LA 2028.  Salt Lake 2034 always seemed like the smarter, more logical bet.  So, it wasn't a surprise that Salt Lake City was moved back to 2034 as the only candidate, making its selection a mere formality.

After two straight spread out, regional Winter Olympics (three if you count the mountain venues being 100 miles away from Beijing in 2022), it'll be just the opposite in Salt Lake City.  The 2034 Games promise to be one of the most compact Winter Olympics in history, with every venue located within an hour of the Olympic Village at the University of Utah.  The furthest is the biathlon/cross country course at Soldier Hollow, a whopping 53 miles outside the city.

Going back to Salt Lake City could be a bit of a palate cleanser for the IOC, too.  Their struggles with finding potential Winter Olympic hosts in recent cycles have been well-documented.  So well-documented, in fact, that there's been talk of establishing some sort of permanent rotation (which would almost certainly include Salt Lake City).  Now they're returning to the site of arguably the best, most well-run Winter Olympics ever.  Salt Lake 2002 was a prime example of how a Winter Olympics can be run successfully, and there's no reason to think Salt Lake 2034 won't do it again.

And maybe a second successful Salt Lake City Games is exactly what the Winter Olympics needs.  Especially after all of the upheaval and uncertainty surrounding the selections for the previous three editions, there's something reassuring about having a safe, solid, reliable option.  Which is exactly what they had in Salt Lake City.  And, who knows what'll happen in the next 10 years before Salt Lake 2034?  But maybe it'll be a chance for a much-needed reset.

Most importantly, we have Winter Olympic hosts for the next decade locked in.  That's perhaps the biggest takeaway from the IOC's announcement.  Seven years ago, they did a historic double awarding of 2024 and 2028 to France and the United States.  Now, on the eve of those Paris Games, they've done it again with the Winter Olympics, setting up four of the six Olympics over the next 10 years to be in the same two countries.  It was the smart thing to do then, and it was the smart thing to do again now, even if it does mean a lot of France and the United States in the coming years.

Needs at the 2024 Deadline

When the current MLB CBA went into effect for the 2022 season, they got rid of the second trade deadline and moved to a single deadline at the end of July.  They also expanded the postseason from 10 teams to 12 that year, which means a lot more teams are in contention (or at least think they are) at the end of July.  Which really limits what teams are selling and who's available.  Because of that, there's been some talk about moving the trade deadline later (pushing it back two weeks to mid-August would make sense). 

I'm sure that'll be a point of discussion in the next CBA negotiations, but for now, we've still got just the one deadline.  And this year, the number of sellers will definitely be low.  In the National League, only the Rockies and Marlins are truly out of it, while in the AL, it's just the White Sox, A's and Angels, as well as maybe the Blue Jays.  That's not a lot of teams to choose from.  So, if you're a buyer, you'd better strike early to fill your needs and get who you want.

Will some of those teams on the fringe stand pat or will they go for it?  Or will it be some sort of combination?  And what about the true World Series contenders?  What will they do?  Frankly, some of them don't need to do much.  And players coming back from injury could sure be a factor, too.

Last year's World Series was between two wild card teams, and one of them was an 84-win Diamondbacks squad that just got in as the 6-seed in the NL.  So, just getting into the field is the important part.  Then, anything can happen.  It still might not be enough for some of those teams, though.  Especially if the true World Series contenders address their needs.  Teams such as the...

Orioles: Baltimore's need for starting pitching is well-documented.  It's the main reason why they got swept by the Rangers in the Division Series last season.  They went out and traded for Corbin Burnes in the offseason and he's been great.  He started the All*Star Game.  But they could use another starter to put behind Burnes in their postseason rotation.

Yankees: This recent stretch of playing absolutely terrible baseball may have actually been somewhat of a good thing for the Yankees because it exposed their weaknesses.  They need an upgrade at third base.  DJ LeMahieu isn't getting the job done.  They also love their bullpen for some reason, but it's not as good as they think it is, and getting a real closer so that Clay Holmes can move into the setup role where he belongs probably wouldn't be a bad idea.

Guardians: People don't realize just how good Cleveland really is.  That doesn't mean the team is flawless, however.  Their lineup is very lefty-heavy, so they could use a right-handed bat to balance it out (to be fair, they have a bunch of switch-hitters).  I wouldn't be surprised to see them make a move for a starter, either.

Royals: What will the Royals do?  It's been a few years since they've been in this position, so they might as well go for it.  They don't need to disrupt their young core that figures to keep them competitive for a while, either.  I also don't think they need to touch their starting staff that's been surprisingly solid.  Where they do need help is in the bullpen, and that's something they can get without giving up too much.

Astros: Houston's in first place and is primed to make a run at its annual ALCS appearance.  The Astros are a very interesting team, though, because they have a lot of players on the injured list (four starting pitchers alone are on the 60-day IL).  If they're confident about getting any of them back this season, that's as good as a trade for a starter.  If they aren't, they'll definitely be in the market for another one.

Mariners: If the Mariners' free fall out of a double-digit division lead isn't an indication they need to make a move or two, I don't know what is.  Seattle can't stand pat and hope to catch Houston or hold off the other teams in the mix for the wild cards.  Pitching-wise, they're OK.  But they desperately need a right-handed bat, preferably one who plays first base since they have a void at that position now after releasing Ty France.

Phillies: Don't be surprised if the Phillies stand pat.  Because, frankly, they're the one team that doesn't need to do much.  They had five pitchers (including three starters) make the All*Star team, and that doesn't even include their ace Aaron Nola.  If I wanted to nitpick, I'd say maybe they can upgrade at second base or in center field, but that's really about it.

Braves: They already struck.  Because they needed to.  With Ronald Acuna, Jr., and now Ozzie Albies out, they brought in super utilityman Whit Merrifield to help fill the void left by those two big bats.  Don't be surprised if the Braves continue to be aggressive, either.  Being aggressive at the deadline is what won them the 2021 World Series, after all.

Brewers: Who knows what the Brewers will do?!  They could very well stand pat and end up winning the NL Central with the team they've got.  If they do that, though, they won't win in the playoffs.  Not against the Phillies or Dodgers.  I just don't know what type of deal they'd make.  Shore up the bullpen?  A low-risk, right-handed infielder like a Luis Rengifo?  I really have no idea!

Pirates: Raise your hand if you had Pittsburgh as a potential buyer instead of a seller at the deadline.  Whether the Pirates can sustain it for another two months is a different question entirely.  And will they be willing to risk any of their young core (and upsetting what they've got going) by making a trade deadline move or two?  If so, I can see them being in the market for a third starter behind Paul Skenes and Mitch Keller, as well as a right-handed setup compliment for Aroldis Chapman in front of their excellent closer, David Bednar.  A big bat sure wouldn't hurt, either.

Dodgers: Much like the Astros, the Dodgers have seemingly 35 starting pitchers on the roster, most of whom are on the IL.  I exaggerate, of course, but they're in a similar boat as Houston in that if they can get one or more of the starters back, that's as good as a trade.  If they can't, that'll definitely be an area of need they want to address.  They could also use a bullpen upgrade or two.  I'm not worried about their lineup since they mix-and-match guys already.

Padres: Trading your best player in the offseason, even if it is for the king's ransom San Diego got from the Yankees for Juan Soto, isn't usually a sign that a team is planning on contending that season.  Yet here the Padres are, right in the thick of it.  They still probably could use another starter and the bullpen's not super deep.  Lineup-wise, they're in great shape, though.  So, if they can strengthen their pitching, look out!

Carrying the Stars & Stripes

As we get ready for a one-of-a-kind Olympic Opening Ceremony down the Seine that promises to be spectacular on Friday, I'm still curious how the Parade of Nations is going to work.  All I've heard is that the athletes will be on a flotilla of boats traveling down the river before the formal portion of the ceremony takes place in front of the Eiffel Tower.  Nations have been announcing their flagbearers, though, which leads me to believe there will still be some sort of procession (I'm guessing it'll be into the "stadium" as they get off the boats).

And, unlike in Tokyo, countries can pick pretty much anybody to carry the flag.  With the COVID restrictions in place at the last Olympics, athletes were only allowed to arrive a few days before their event, which meant anybody whose competition wasn't until the second week couldn't even attend the Opening Ceremony!  That, fortunately, will not be the case this time (although, it'll be tough to pick a surfer since their competition is in Tahiti).  The selections aren't limited to those competing in the first few days.  Countries can choose anyone they want this time.

The United States has not yet announced the man and woman who'll have that honor.  It's obviously coming pretty soon, though.  On a team of nearly 600 athletes, there are plenty of candidates, although some are more realistic choices than others.  Here are five men and five women who I think should be in contention:

Brady Ellison, Archery: Fun fact: I watched Brady Ellison win silver at the Pan Am Games nine years ago while sitting behind his mom and grandma.  That's not why I think he should be in the mix to carry the flag, though.  He's the only man on the U.S. archery team, and Paris is his fifth Olympics.  Ellison has won three Olympic medals, including an individual bronze in Rio.

Steffen Peters, Equestrian: Steffen Peters will be 60 years old later this year.  His first Olympics was 28 years ago in Atlanta.  He won a bronze in team dressage there, then another in the same event 20 years later in Rio.  In Tokyo, the U.S. took silver, his third Olympic medal in team dressage.  These are his fifth Games.

Gerek Meinhardt, Fencing: Fencer Mariel Zagunis was the U.S. flagbearer the last time the Olympics were in Europe 12 years ago.  That was the second Olympics for Gerek Meinhardt.  The Paris Games will be his fifth.  He was just 18 when he made his Olympic debut in Beijing.  Now he's one of the senior members of the U.S. fencing team.  Meinhardt has two bronze medals in the men's foil team event from the Rio and Tokyo Games.

Vincent Hancock, Shooting: A three-time Olympic champion, he became the first skeet shooter to win back-to-back gold medals in 2008 and 2012.  He finished 15th in Rio, then made it three career Olympic golds in Tokyo.  This is his fifth trip to the Olympics.  He's won gold in three of the previous four.  Shooters don't often get the spotlight, so that's mostly gone unnoticed.  So why not give him some of the love he richly deserves by selecting him for the honor?

Ryan Crouser, Track & Field: There are a lot of members of the Olympic track & field team.  Any number of them have the stories, either actual or potential, that would make them worthy flagbearers.  But I'm going with Ryan Crouser, and just because he's the biggest (6'7, 320 lbs).  Crouser's won back-to-back golds in the shot put, setting the Olympic record in Tokyo (after breaking the world record at Trials) in honor of his grandfather, who had passed away earlier that year.  He's also his own coach and has paid it forward by coaching younger athletes. 

Diana Taurasi, Basketball: This one is admittedly somewhat unlikely since Sue Bird was the women's flagbearer in Tokyo.  Tauarsi's the one who stuck around for another Olympics, though, and she has a chance to set a record with a sixth gold medal in a team sport.  The women's basketball final is the day of the Closing Ceremony, so, should the U.S. win, maybe Taurasi carries the flag there instead?

Simone Biles, Gymnastics: Simone was the flagbearer at the Closing Ceremony in Rio, and her struggles in Tokyo were well-documented.  The fact that she's back is inspirational enough.  The fact that she's better than ever, at an age that's considered "old" for a gymnast, truly shows her greatness.  We know a lot of people will be watching for her, but that's not the reason why she'd be a great choice.  Everything else is.

Katie Ledecky, Swimming: I understand that the chances of this actually happening are slim to none.  The Opening Ceremony is on Friday night and she'll have both a prelim and the final in the 400 freestyle on Saturday.  But that doesn't change the fact that Ledecky, one of the U.S. swim team captains, would be deserving if selected.  Maybe in LA, when swimming and track & field are flipped?

Maggie Steffens, Water Polo: While somewhat underappreciated because it doesn't have anywhere near the exposure as some other sports, the U.S. women's water polo team has dominated Olympic competition for a decade.  They've won three straight gold medals, and team captain Maggie Steffens has been a big part of that.  She's the all-time leading goal scorer in Olympic history.

Helen Maroulis, Wrestling: In 2016, Helen Maroulis became the first American ever to win an Olympic gold medal in women's wrestling.  In 2021, she moved up in weight class and earned a bronze to become the first American female wrestler with two Olympic medals.  In 2024, she became the first American female wrestler to make three Olympic teams.  She's making history for the third straight Olympics, yet not a lot of people know about her.  Carrying the flag in Paris would certainly go a long way towards changing that.

Since three of the women I mentioned are competing on the opening weekend and may not even attend the Opening Ceremony, that really narrows it down to just Taurasi and Maroulis.  And, I know what I said about Bird carrying the flag in Tokyo.  It's not a rule that you can't have someone from the same sport twice in a row, though, which is exactly what I think will happen.

On the men's side, I'd love to see it be either Ellison or Hancock.  They're my two favorites among the five I listed.  Ellison will have actually already started competition before the Opening Ceremony (I have no idea why, but the fencing ranking round is on Thursday).  He has two days off after the Opening Ceremony, though, so he should be able to attend...especially if he's selected as the flagbearer.  And, for me, he gets the nod.

Who will it actually end up being?  I have absolutely no idea!  My correct guess of John Schuster and Elana Meyers Taylor for the 2022 Winter Games was probably blind luck more than anything else!  I wouldn't be upset if it is Taurasi and Ellison, though.  I think they would both make fine choices, should they get the nod.

And I Thought THIS July Was Busy!

We're now just a week away from the Paris Olympics, the first Games in eight years that will have a true "Olympic" feel.  More on that as the Games get closer and I go into full-blown Olympic mode (which should happen sometime this weekend).  But first (in my best Julie Chen Moonves voice), let's look ahead four years.  Because if you thought this summer was jam-packed with international sporting events, just wait until 2028!

The LA Olympics take place entirely within the month of July, and the July 14 Opening Ceremony is the earliest in modern Olympic history.  (The last Olympics held in the U.S., the 1996 Atlanta Games, started on July 19 and ended on August 4.)  That will create some scheduling complications for numerous events that typically run until mid-July, but will obviously have to make adjustments in 2028, whether that means ending earlier (before the Olympics begin) or starting later (after the Olympics end).

One event that should easily be able to make the adjustment is the Major League Baseball All*Star Game.  This year's game was a week later than usual.  It's normally the second Tuesday in July.  In 2028, it'll have to be, which actually works out well.  The second Tuesday in July is July 11, which is three days before the Olympic Opening Ceremony.  That shouldn't be a problem.  Although, with Olympic baseball being played at Dodger Stadium, I do wonder how long their road trip will be (and if the Angels will also have one).  In 1996, the Braves were on the road for the duration of the Olympics.

That's probably the only easy one, though.  As I noted during this year's U.S. Olympic Trials, the normal Trials schedule could work in 2028, but this year's Trials were designed to give them about a month before the Olympics...which would push them into early-to-mid-June rather than mid-to-late-June.  In track & field that could be problematic since the NCAA Championships are always the second weekend in June (two weeks after Memorial Day Weekend), and the Olympic Trials would have to be after that.  They could conceivably take place at the same time as this year, but that would have them ending only 10 days before the start of the Olympics.

So, what do you do?  If you move Trials up, the NCAA Championships would also have to be shifted (which would also shift up the NCAA Regionals and the various conference championships).  Leaving Trials at the same time seems like a logical option, especially since the Olympic qualifying period would likely end on July 3, the day after Trials end.  But that would mean that collegians could potentially have conference championships, Regionals, NCAA Championships, Olympic Trials and the Olympics all within a 10-week period. 

When the Track & Field Trials are scheduled will have a direct bearing on the Swimming Trials.  At the Olympics, swimming is usually first, so having the Swimming Trials first makes sense.  But, if they don't move the Track & Field Trials up, the Swimming Trials would have to stay in their same spot before track & field.  Which actually could be good.  Because Olympic swimming is being held at SoFi Stadium and they'll have to have an Olympic test event at SoFi sometime ahead of the Games.  That way, they could have Trials at SoFi and still have enough lead time to cover up the pools (which I'm sure they'd like to avoid installing twice) and get the stadium set up for the Opening Ceremony.

Schedule-wise, that seems to make the most sense.  Have the Swimming Trials in SoFi Stadium from June 17-25, then the Track & Field Trials from June 24-July 2.  Whether they're at the LA Coliseum (as they should be) or not, you keep the Track & Field Trials somewhere on the West Coast so that the athletes can just stay out there (especially if NCAAs are in Eugene as usual).

While figuring out the Olympic Trials schedule is up to the USOPC, USATF and USA Swimming (and, I'm sure, NBC), the early timing of the Olympics is just as problematic for plenty of other, international events that are mid-July staples.  Wimbledon, the British Open and the Tour de France will all have to make adjustments because of the early Olympics, which impacts the season-long schedules in those three sports.

I'll start with the British Open since that's the one that got me thinking about this and inspired today's post.  This is the British Open's regular weekend.  Always has been.  Except in 2028, this will be the opening weekend of the Olympics.  There's no way they'll have the two overlap.  So, it's either play the British Open a week earlier or play it immediately after the Olympics from August 3-6.

Option 2 certainly seems better and more likely.  If they play it before the Olympics, from July 6-9, that would put it only three weeks after the U.S. Open.  I know the PGA likes having the Majors relatively close together, but that seems a little too close.  Playing the British Open after would make it a five-week gap between the U.S. Open and Olympics (assuming the men's golf tournament is July 20-23), then two weeks between the Olympics and British Open.  That could work.

Playing the British Open before the Olympics, meanwhile, would overlap with Wimbledon.  Wimbledon typically ends on the second Sunday in July.  That actually won't be a problem in 2028 since it would put the Wimbledon gentlemen's final on July 9.  And that would actually create for a pretty awesome day in London since the final of Euro 2028 will be played at Wembley Stadium that night.

You'll notice I didn't include Euro 2028 on the list of events that will need to be adjusted.  That's because they've already announced the dates of the tournament: June 9-July 9.  The date of the final was almost certainly set because of the Olympics.  But it also means the Champions League Final can't be on the first Saturday in June like usual since that's less than a week before the start of the Euro.  (They haven't announced the dates of the 2028 Copa America, but I'm assuming that final will also be on July 9.)

Then there's the Tour de France.  This year, the route had to be adjusted because of the Olympics.  Instead of the traditional finish on the Champs Elysees, they moved the final stage to Nice so that Paris can prepare for the Olympics.  In 2028, the three-week race will need to push the start earlier, likely into mid-June, so that it can conclude on July 9.  Which will likely also push up the start of the Giro d'Italia, which is typically held in May/June.  Making those adjustments is easy enough that it shouldn't be a problem, especially since it wouldn't make sense to delay the Tour de France until August.

All of this will obviously be figured out.  They've got four years to do it.  (And, fortunately, this is nothing like the COVID-related adjustments in 2020-21.)  But it's still interesting to think about the ripple effect that the early dates of the 2028 Olympics will have across the board (I didn't even mention the NBA or WNBA, either, but they'll both be impacted, as well.), and the solutions they'll come up with.

Lamenting Local Rights

It's rare that I agree with Knicks owner Jim Dolan.  This is one of those times.  Dolan is not a fan of the NBA's new media rights deal with ESPN/ABC, NBC and Amazon, which is all but finalized.  He's so against it, in fact, that he sent a letter to the NBA Board of Governors and the other 29 owners criticizing the deal and the league's business model.  And, frankly, he's got a point!

The new contract is for 11 years and $76 billion starting with the 2025-26 season.  Notably absent is Turner Sports, the NBA's longtime TV partner, which has an option to match that it will reportedly be exercising.  Whether that will actually make a difference is anyone's guess, but the impression I've gotten is that it won't.

Under the new deal, each network will have an exclusive national window...and each will have their own night of the week.  ESPN would keep its Wednesday and Friday blocks, as well as the Saturday night window on ABC.  NBC will get Sunday nights after football season ends to go along with a Monday night package on Peacock.  Amazon Prime will also have the NBA take its football spot after the NFL season is over, streaming games on Thursday nights and getting exclusive rights to the NBA Cup.

One of Commissioner Adam Silver's main priorities with the new contract was to increase the NBA's exposure on streaming platforms...which is something that he certainly accomplished.  However, the increase in the number of exclusive national windows, as well as a team's maximum number of national television appearances are what really irk Dolan.  Under the new deal, the maximum number of national appearances will go from 12 per team to 18.  That's roughly a quarter of their schedule.  Or, as Dolan sees it, six fewer games for teams to air on their own regional sports networks.

As streaming has become more and more prominent, regional sports networks have suffered the most.  We've already seen it in baseball, where MLB had to take over the local broadcasts for the Padres and Diamondbacks because of Bally Sports' bankruptcy.  RSNs have already seen a massive reduction in revenue as cord-cutters ditch the traditional cable bundle, but still have some value as the broadcaster for the majority of the local team's games.  The fewer games available to them, though, the lower the value, while they'll still have to pay rights fees while not bringing in as much revenue (both from reduced cable subscriber fees and fewer sponsorship dollars).

In addition to the Knicks and Rangers, Dolan owns MSG Network, which broadcasts both teams' games (as well as the Devils and Islanders).  The Knicks and Lakers, who (obviously) play in the two largest markets in the league, have the highest local TV ratings in the league.  They also generate the most revenue from local broadcasts.  Both teams reportedly earned $3 million per game this season.  So, shifting six games from the local broadcasters to the national TV partners, that's a loss of nearly $20 million per season.

Dolan, understandably, considers the new TV deal a threat to the RSN model.  In his email, he even argues that it could make the RSN model unsustainable.  With the inclusion of streaming partners (and no blackouts), fans would potentially have the option of completely bypassing their local broadcast while still being able to see the game.  While the NBA counters this next point, he also argues that the new deal offers no protection for RSNs and that the league has no plan for a comparable replacement should one become necessary.

Another big issue that Dolan has regarding the new TV contract is the revenue sharing element.  Dolan is very critical of this aspect.  Teams like the Knicks and Lakers generate the most revenue locally, but they wouldn't get to keep it since the league would pool all teams' revenue and redistribute it equally.  If that sounds similar to the NFL's model, it should.  Because that's exactly what the NBA is going for.

There's one major difference between the NFL and the NBA, though.  Since 1961, the NFL has had a federal antitrust exemption that allows the league to negotiate a broadcast package on behalf of all teams collectively.  That antitrust exemption also requires all games to be available free over-the-air in the participating teams' local markets.  That rule still applies, so Monday and Thursday night games are on a local broadcaster, as well as ESPN or Amazon Prime (or Peacock or Netflix or NFL Network).  

More significantly, every NFL game is nationally televised.  The only exception is the preseason, where games that aren't nationally televised are produced by the teams themselves.  So, at most, teams will have three preseason games broadcast only locally and that's it.

That's only the case in the NFL.  In the NBA, NHL and MLB, a majority of a team's regular season games are broadcast locally in a deal that's negotiated directly between the team and their TV partner.  All of the deals are different, but the important thing to note is that while the local broadcasts are the team's responsibility, they also get to keep all the revenue.  So, Jim Dolan stands to lose a lot of money should the NBA's local TV revenue suddenly be pooled.

While the Knicks and Lakers stand out as the two teams that would be the most significantly impacted, Dolan said that the other owners should still consider how it will affect their franchise, particularly as it pertains to local revenue.  That seems to be the crux of his argument.  Not only will he stand to make less money under the new TV deal, the Knicks would also generate less since there wouldn't be as much coming in from local sponsorships...a situation that would be the same for every team since they'd all have less inventory to offer.

He accused the NBA of greed since a majority of the money in the new TV contract will be kept by the league (although, the NBA disputes his figures).  Dolan also claims that the league and other owners don't care since franchise values will continue to rise.  A very sarcastic (and true) point Dolan made in his letter was that the NBA is deemphasizing and depowering the local market and suggested that teams' only concerns will be ticket sales and the color of next season's jersey, since they'll be guaranteed to make money either way.

Ultimately, nothing will come of Dolan's legitimate concerns.  They've been working on the new media rights deal for too long, and too many owners are aligned with Silver to go against what he wants.  Dolan did make some good points, though.  Hopefully the other owners realize that before it's too late.