Then There Were Two

Citing calls for a referendum, Budapest has withdrawn its bid for the 2024 Olympics.  Budapest was always viewed as the outsider in the race anyway, and their withdrawal announcement read as sort of an acceptance of that fact more than anything else.  The way I interpreted it, Budapest basically said "We're not gonna win, so we're gonna just give up."

That leaves the IOC with just two choices for the 2024 Games--Los Angeles and Paris.  This after there were just two choices for 2022, and three for both 2018 and 2020.  More cities have dropped out of Olympic bid races than actually allowed themselves to be part of the vote in the last two cycles.  It's an alarming trend, but it's not the first time that this has happened, either.

After the terrorist attacks in Munich and the cost overruns in Montreal, hosting the Olympics was not a very attractive option for many cities in the late 70s/early 80s.  Moscow and Los Angeles were the only candidates for the 1980 Games, LA ran essentially unopposed four years later, and the 1988 Olympics came down to just Seoul and Nagoya, Japan.  Then LA 84 happened, cities and countries figured out how to make money on the Olympics, and suddenly cities were lining up to host.

Now the Olympic movement is stuck with a similar problem.  Beijing and Sochi spent so much money, Tokyo's budget grows by the day, and Rio and Athens spent money that they didn't have, that people are questioning whether hosting the Olympics is worth it.  Nobody looks to London, which did everything right and held a tremendous Games (with full stadiums) that came in on budget while also establishing a lasting legacy, as the example of what to do.  They just look at those massive price tags and say "Thanks, but no thanks."  Especially in Western democracies, where governments need approval to spend public money and opposition groups, no matter the size, are enough to prevent a bid from even gettting off the ground.

The next Olympic vote after this one, obviously, is for the 2026 Winter Olympics.  And it's looking like that one might be a two- or three-horse race, too.  Just last week at the Alpine Skiing World Championships, the Swiss city of St. Moritz (which has hosted the Winter Olympics twice) decided not to pursue a bid because of public opposition.  Who's to say how many other European cities will come to the same conclusion?  It's entirely possible that we could end up with three straight Winter Olympics in the Far East, if only because Sapporo (the 1972 host), which is currently hosting the Asian Winter Games, might end up being the only serious bidder.

It's pure coincidence that Los Angeles is involved again, but that might be just what the Olympic movement needs.  Alan Abrahamson, the respected Olympic journalist, wrote an in-depth piece on his website arguing why he thinks LA is really the only choice for 2024.  Both LA and Paris have outstanding bids, and they both have such high public support that you know neither one is going anywhere.  But only LA is privately-financed.  Paris doesn't need to use a lot of public money, but that's still more than LA needs.

Personally, I don't care which one wins, and I know that either city will put on a tremendous Games in 2024.  And that just might be the Games that restores public faith in the Olympic process.  It's a faith that's shaken, but isn't completely gone.  The IOC knows that, too.  That's one of the reasons why Thomas Bach is pushing so hard for the joint award to both cities in September.

There was lukewarm perception to Bach's idea when he first proposed it.  As late as last week, there were some high-ranking IOC members that were skeptical about it.  Many of them didn't want to alienate Budapest by giving each of the other two cities an Olympics while they got nothing.  But Budapest themselves has taken that problem off their hands.  Does that put the dual award back in play?  Both cities have said they're focused on only 2024 and have no interest in 2028.  But seeing as only one of the two can host in 2024, does Bach get together with both organizing committees, as well as the U.S. and French Olympic Committees, and come up with some sort of compromise?

Bach thinks the current process has "too many losers" and wants to change that.  That's especially true for Paris (which bid for the 1992, 2008 and 2012 Games, and lost all three) and the United States (which would be looking at failed bids from each of its three largest cities if LA loses).  It'll piss off a lot of people, but giving 2024 to Paris and 2028 to LA makes a lot of sense.  Especially now.

Budapest was never going to win 2024 Olympic vote.  But it was going to have a say in which city did.  Now Paris and LA have six months to campaign for those Budapest votes, which will likely decide the election.  They can't go wrong with either Paris or LA.  But they'd better get it right.  For the sake of the Olympic movement and its future, they need to.