Olympic Bid Process Changing?

In 2005, five major world cities were finalists to host the 2012 Olympics--London, Paris, Madrid, New York and Moscow.  Twelve years later, the competition to host in 2024 became a battle of attrition that was eventually whittled down to just two--Paris and Los Angeles.  The IOC wanted them both and did what they could to make sure of it, so they had the historic double awarding of Paris 2024 and LA 2028.

That came on the heels of a 2022 Winter Games race that saw everybody drop out except Almaty, Kazakhstan and Beijing, and a 2026 Winter bid race that was similarly lukewarm.  Which says nothing about the 2030 Winter Games, which they were begging countries to host before France finally stepped up and agreed to host them in the Alps.  All of which was a symptom of what we've seen over the past decade since the Sochi Games.  The Olympics were considered too expensive and not worth it, so Western nations were saying "thanks, but no thanks" before even starting the bid process.

Former IOC President Thomas Bach said that the system created "too many losers," so the entire bid process was revamped.  The IOC formed a "Future Host Commission," which hand-picks cities for each edition and presents them to the full IOC membership for little more than a rubber stamp.  This process has also rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.  It secured Olympic hosts for the next decade, but it was also highly secretive.  Most significantly, it took away the one real perk of being an IOC member--the ability to choose the Olympic host city.

Don't be surprised if the IOC members end up getting that perk back fairly soon.  During her first few days in office, IOC President Kirsty Coventry had one-on-one meetings with various stakeholders, and the bid process was a topic brought up in many of those meetings.  Specifically, IOC members want to be a part of the process.  Even if it's not voting on a preferred candidate, they want to have input and engagement.

When Coventry was finished with those meetings, one of her first orders of business was to hit the "Pause" button on the Future Host Commission.  She acknowledged the concerns of the IOC members and will set up a working group to look into those issues.  They don't necessarily want to go back to the old way (with the members deciding between multiple finalists), but they don't like the new way, either.  The working group will try and find that solution.

Whatever solution they come up with will have a direct bearing on the race to host the 2036 Games, which are the next Olympics yet to be awarded.  India had been considered one of the favorites, but there are plenty of other countries that are interested.  Doha is the most obvious, and Germany has also expressed its interest in either 2036 or 2040 (although, an Olympics in Germany on the 100th anniversary of World War II is a terrible idea for multiple reasons).  Budapest is another.  So is Istanbul.  As well as several cities in Africa and Asia.

Point is, it's shaping up to be quite a race to host the 2036 Olympics.  Under the old way, that race could've been over before it even started if the Host Commission decided that India was their "preferred candidate."  (Which is funny, because so many people thought Doha was a lock for 2036 for so long.)  India may still end up hosting, but it's not a guarantee by any means.  These other cities have seen their chances greatly improve, especially since the timeline will also change.

The timeline was the biggest concern brought up regarding the bid process.  When Brisbane was awarded the 2032 Olympics in 2021, it blindsided everybody.  Other potential bidders thought the process was just getting started, only to find out it was already over.  The 11 years' lead time was also questioned.  Why the rush?  Meanwhile, France was just awarded the 2032 Winter Games last summer.  They only have five and a half years to prepare.  Is that enough time?

Until the Paris-LA double-awarding, the Olympics were always awarded seven years out.  If that system was still in effect, the 2032 Games wouldn't have been awarded until sometime this year.  When the change was made to the Future Host Commission, though, they eliminated that rigid seven-year timeline, which gave them the flexibility to award an Olympics any time that "makes sense" for the IOC and the host city.  That's how we got Brisbane being awarded the 2032 Games three years before the Winter Olympics that will take place two and a half years earlier!

A lot can happen in a decade.  We've already seen a ton of changes to both LA 2028 and Brisbane 2032's Olympic plans, as well as other unforeseen circumstances.  While the enthusiasm to host the Olympics may be there in the beginning, there's no guarantee the political climate and public opinion will be the same a decade later when it's actually time for the Olympics.  The elected leaders probably won't be the same and might have different priorities.  Which is to say nothing about the financial commitment involved!

Likewise, French Alps 2030 is way behind in their preparations.  This isn't exactly their fault, seeing as they were only chosen as the host less than a year ago.  But 2030 will be here before they know it, and there are legitimate questions about whether they'll be ready.  Fortunately, they don't need to build anything, but the point remains.  They only have five and a half years to prepare for a major international sporting event, while the host city that follows them--Salt Lake City 2034--will get almost a full decade.

There's a happy medium between too little lead time (French Alps 2030) and too much (Brisbane 2032).  Spoiler alert: that happy medium is the seven years it used to be until the 2019 changes to the bid process.  Whether they go back to seven years or decide on something else (split the difference and do nine?), it will definitely have an impact on the 2036 bid race.  Under the old rules, we probably could've expected India to officially get the 2036 Games sometime this year (or on the eve of the Milan Cortina Games in February at the latest).  Now, we're all gonna have to wait, which is music to the ears of the other bid cities that could now be considered "contenders."

It's also important to note that this doesn't affect any of the future Games that have already been awarded.  Olympic hosts thru 2034 were set a year before Kirsty Coventry took office.  The next Olympics that don't yet have a host are in 2036, which is 11 years from now.  That means there's no need to rush anything.  They've got plenty of time to examine the bid process and make any necessary changes while still having a fair race for 2036 (and giving the chosen city plenty of lead time before the Games).  And it'll certainly have an impact on 2038 (where Switzerland is in "privileged" dialogue with the IOC).

Regardless of what ultimately ends up happening, change is coming to the Olympic bidding process.  IOC members wanted their voices to be heard and to be better educated about the most important part of their job--deciding where the Olympics will be.  Whether they get the ability to actually vote on host cities back remains to be seen, but the fact that Kirsty Coventry listened to them and has shown willingness to revamp the process represents major progress.  Progress that wouldn't have been possible under Thomas Bach.