Does anyone want the 2022 Winter Olympics?

[Chip R]

Besides Bejing and Almaty, Kazakhstan?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2014/10/02/oslo-drops-2022-winter-olympics-bid-leaving-ioc-with-two-bad-choices/?tid=pm_sports_pop

[Joseph]

I guess I could take it. I'm not doing anything that week.

Seriously strange that they are having trouble getting bids on this, but they may have priced themselves out of the market...so to speak.

[Yachtzee]

I guess I could take it. I'm not doing anything that week.

Seriously strange that they are having trouble getting bids on this, but they may have priced themselves out of the market...so to speak.

I think the IOC is suffering from backlash on two fronts. First, I think the Sochi games left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, whether it was the outrageous amounts of money spent or Vladimir Putin using the games as his own personal propaganda machine. Second, I suspect the blatant and obvious corruption in the awarding of the FIFA World Cups for 2018 and 2022 have tainted the bidding process for all international sporting events. I'm guessing the general public of many of these countries don't support public funds being spent to woo a bunch of corrupt sports "committee members" who end up giving the event to whoever pays the most bribes or turns a blind eye while they embezzle the profits. Look at how hosting the World Cup and the Olympics has impacted Brazil: plenty of new sports facilities, many of which are of little to no use for the general public, who have protested the lavish spending of public funds to the detriment of other programs.

I've heard rumors that FIFA (read: Sepp Blatter) has all but already decided to award the 2026 World Cup to the US to save face for awarding 2022 to Qatar, but Sunil Gulati of the USSF is saying the US won't bid until FIFA reforms the bidding process to be more transparent.

[Chip R]

I think the IOC is suffering from backlash on two fronts. First, I think the Sochi games left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, whether it was the outrageous amounts of money spent or Vladimir Putin using the games as his own personal propaganda machine. Second, I suspect the blatant and obvious corruption in the awarding of the FIFA World Cups for 2018 and 2022 have tainted the bidding process for all international sporting events. I'm guessing the general public of many of these countries don't support public funds being spent to woo a bunch of corrupt sports "committee members" who end up giving the event to whoever pays the most bribes or turns a blind eye while they embezzle the profits. Look at how hosting the World Cup and the Olympics has impacted Brazil: plenty of new sports facilities, many of which are of little to no use for the general public, who have protested the lavish spending of public funds to the detriment of other programs.

Maybe. But there doesn't seem to be any problems with the Summer games. I understand why these cities don't want to bid on the Winter Games. All that money on stadiums and arenas and Luge and Bobsled that you only need for 2 weeks.

[Yachtzee]

Maybe. But there doesn't seem to be any problems with the Summer games. I understand why these cities don't want to bid on the Winter Games. All that money on stadiums and arenas and Luge and Bobsled that you only need for 2 weeks.

This isn't the first time the IOC has had problems with cities hosting the Olympics. The '70s weren't a good time for the IOC. For the Winter Games, Denver was awarded the games for 1976 but had to give them up when voters rejected a funding bill.
They were then offered to Vancouver/Whistler, who also said no, and finally given to Innsbruck, who had hosted before and had most of the veenues ready to go. Lake Placid got the 1980 games because no one else bid. The Summer Games had the tragic 1972 games in Munich, the money pit 1976 games in Montreal, and the boycotted 1980 games in Moscow. It took the rousingly successful and profitable 1984 games in LA to really encourage cities and countries to bid for the Olympics again.

I don't think we've had a full bidding process for the Summer Games since a lot of the backlash from Sochi, Brazil, and the bad press from the FIFA bids came to light. So we'll see how it goes. It may also depend on how the games in Rio come off. Personally I like an idea I heard where potential hosts for the Winter Games have to be pre-qualified before being permitted to submit a bid, meaning they have to meet certain criteria such as having existing infrastructure, appropriate weather, and access to ski areas of sufficient quality. It would streamline the process and discourage the wasteful spending of Sochi. The other idea I've heard is that the IOC designates a number of cities in Europe, North America, and Japan as permanent hosts and just rotates between those cities.

[Chip R]

The other idea I've heard is that the IOC designates a number of cities in Europe, North America, and Japan as permanent hosts and just rotates between those cities.

That sounds like a fabulous idea but probably won't happen since the IOC members won't be able to feather their nests like that.

[KronoRed]

So only corrupt governments want to fund a corrupt group?

Some of the IOC demands.

Cars and drivers for IOC members, with special dedicated highway lanes
Street lights synchronized to prioritize IOC traffic
Separate airport entrance for IOC members
Hotel mini-bars must have only Coca-Cola products
Samsung phones for all IOC members
All meeting rooms must be kept at exactly 68 degrees.
All furniture must have "Olympic appearance."
"IOC members will be received with a smile on arrival at hotel"

Classy.

[Redsfaithful]

Permanent host cities makes a great deal of sense, to me.

[M2]

So only corrupt governments want to fund a corrupt group?

Some of the IOC demands.

Cars and drivers for IOC members, with special dedicated highway lanes
Street lights synchronized to prioritize IOC traffic
Separate airport entrance for IOC members
Hotel mini-bars must have only Coca-Cola products
Samsung phones for all IOC members
All meeting rooms must be kept at exactly 68 degrees.
All furniture must have "Olympic appearance."
"IOC members will be received with a smile on arrival at hotel"

Classy.

Are those for real? If so, that's hysterical. Those are "only dictatorships need apply" rules.

[Chip R]

So only corrupt governments want to fund a corrupt group?

Some of the IOC demands.

Cars and drivers for IOC members, with special dedicated highway lanes
Street lights synchronized to prioritize IOC traffic
Separate airport entrance for IOC members
Hotel mini-bars must have only Coca-Cola products
Samsung phones for all IOC members
All meeting rooms must be kept at exactly 68 degrees.
All furniture must have "Olympic appearance."
"IOC members will be received with a smile on arrival at hotel"

Classy.

Also, IOC members will receive green M&Ms only. ;)

[KronoRed]

Are those for real? If so, that's hysterical. Those are "only dictatorships need apply" rules.

Yep.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/10/02/ioc_demands_oslo_drops_bid_after_over_the_top_list _of_requirements.html

[AtomicDumpling]

The Olympics just aren't the big deal they used to be anymore. The popularity of the Olympic sports have been bypassed by a whole bunch of other sports in the world today. Most Olympic events just don't interest people in the 21st century. It is not worth spending billions of dollars to host a sporting event that has lost most of its appeal.

[M2]

The Olympics just aren't the big deal they used to be anymore. The popularity of the Olympic sports have been bypassed by a whole bunch of other sports in the world today. Most Olympic events just don't interest people in the 21st century. It is not worth spending billions of dollars to host a sporting event that has lost most of its appeal.

It's one of the two most watched sporting events on the planet. If you've ever been in other countries during an Olympic the coverage is wall-to-wall. American pro sports fans may not get into it as much (if only there were Olympic fantasy leagues), but the problem the Olympic are having isn't lack of interest from a worldwide audience. It's from potential host nations not wanting to bear the expense of putting on the games.

[AtomicDumpling]

It's one of the two most watched sporting events on the planet. If you've ever been in other countries during an Olympic the coverage is wall-to-wall. American pro sports fans may not get into it as much (if only there were Olympic fantasy leagues), but the problem the Olympic are having isn't lack of interest from a worldwide audience. It's from potential host nations not wanting to bear the expense of putting on the games. It is a passive worldwide audience nowadays. It used to be that the host country came close to offsetting the cost of putting on the games by selling tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals, tourism and souvenirs etc., but now the Olympics are just a giant, sucking money pit. The cost has far outpaced the return on investment. The only way it makes any sense at all is if the host country has a big chunk of the infrastructure and stadiums already in place. Building it all just for the Olympics is foolish if all you get is two weeks of television coverage. People in prosperous countries with big-time sports leagues don't care that much about the Olympics anymore, certainly not as much as they used to, and they are the ones who used to spend a ton of money to attend the Olympics. There are better things to spend your sports budget on nowadays. I expect the decline of the Olympics to continue if not accelerate.

[M2]

It is a passive worldwide audience nowadays.

With all due respect, no it's not. Worldwide, the Olympics are a massive deal. When small nations have a good athlete, they stop to watch that person compete. When an athlete from other countries has a big Olympics, that person is an instant celebrity and is generally made for life. One of the biggest news stories of this century has been the arrest and trial of Oscar Pistorius, Olympic athlete. Relatively modest deal here, huge news elsewhere.

The U.S. is a backwater when it comes to international sports viewing. We're largely off the map. Outside of Lebron and the fumes of Kobe Bryant, our pro sports heroes aren't really big news outside our borders. Nations that are big into soccer do follow the Olympics with significant interest. Pro tennis players put a massive amount of stock in getting an Olympic gold medal. It really is another world out there.

So I would not conflate worldwide interest in the games with the potential misery of hosting them. The live event revenue, even when attendance is maxed out, can't come close to paying for the facilities. It's especially tough for the winter games. They're really going to have to start recycling sites or getting far more lenient about what qualifies as Olympic facilities. For instance, New York, Boston and Montreal have most of what you need to host an Olympics. You've got to travel three hours for good mountains outside of NY and Boston, but that's not a terribly great distance when you've got a quality highway system. Those cities aren't going to build multiple new arenas, but they have the venues that should accommodate the games. The hotels, the transit systems, the restaurants, the tourist attractions. All of that stuff is in place. Building an Olympic village that could be turned into housing would be the biggest trick.

I think what we're seeing is a healthy pushback against a corrupt process and overly grasping IOC officials. Hopefully what we get is a change at the top which focuses on making the Olympics a more attractive and manageable proposition for the host nation.

[bucksfan2]

With all due respect, no it's not. Worldwide, the Olympics are a massive deal. When small nations have a good athlete, they stop to watch that person compete. When an athlete from other countries has a big Olympics, that person is an instant celebrity and is generally made for life. One of the biggest news stories of this century has been the arrest and trial of Oscar Pistorius, Olympic athlete. Relatively modest deal here, huge news elsewhere.

The U.S. is a backwater when it comes to international sports viewing. We're largely off the map. Outside of Lebron and the fumes of Kobe Bryant, our pro sports heroes aren't really big news outside our borders. Nations that are big into soccer do follow the Olympics with significant interest. Pro tennis players put a massive amount of stock in getting an Olympic gold medal. It really is another world out there.

So I would not conflate worldwide interest in the games with the potential misery of hosting them. The live event revenue, even when attendance is maxed out, can't come close to paying for the facilities. It's especially tough for the winter games. They're really going to have to start recycling sites or getting far more lenient about what qualifies as Olympic facilities. For instance, New York, Boston and Montreal have most of what you need to host an Olympics. You've got to travel three hours for good mountains outside of NY and Boston, but that's not a terribly great distance when you've got a quality highway system. Those cities aren't going to build multiple new arenas, but they have the venues that should accommodate the games. The hotels, the transit systems, the restaurants, the tourist attractions. All of that stuff is in place. Building an Olympic village that could be turned into housing would be the biggest trick.

I think what we're seeing is a healthy pushback against a corrupt process and overly grasping IOC officials. Hopefully what we get is a change at the top which focuses on making the Olympics a more attractive and manageable proposition for the host nation.

I think the Winter games have a tougher task to find a suiter. Its tough to find a big city with big enough mountains close by to host the alpine events. The most ideal location would be Denver because they are a big city with world class mountains right there. San Fran would be another location that would work with Tahoe near by. But until you rein back the spending, use existing structures instead of building brand new ones, you are going to have cities who aren't willing to commit to the money pit the Olympics have become.

[Caveat Emperor]

The Olympics are popular with people on TV, but the price-tag to have them in your country simply isn't worth it, politically, for any real first-world nations.

Voters are savvy to the costs now and you'd be hard pressed to find many places in the first world who would support new taxes to finance construction of Olympic venues (many of which are single-use or low-use facilities) and Olympic facilities or would support using money out of general government funds to do so. The nations dominated by more "conservative" (little "c" ) politics -- United States / UK / Germany / Japan -- are too anti-tax to raise the money, the nations dominated by more "socialist" politics -- remainder of the EU -- are too pro-social welfare to spend on programs that don't benefit civilian populations.

What you're left with, as potential hosts, are nations that fall on the autocratic side (Russia, China -- if we're talking FIFA, Qatar) of the aisle, where a strongman or strong-party can push through the costs of construction and hosting without worrying about a civilian backlash.

[15fan]

London and Paris were the two finalists for the summer games in 2012. Rio won over Chicago for 2016. Tokyo was just awarded the 2020 games over Madrid.

There's still plenty of interest in hosting. I think what we're seeing for the 2022 games is partially a function of the rotten global economy from several years ago. Bids for 2022 probably had to crystallize in 2010 to get off the ground, and that would have been a tough climate to sell the idea of billions of dollars of infrastructure for the Olympics.

[Hoosier Red]

With all due respect, no it's not. Worldwide, the Olympics are a massive deal. When small nations have a good athlete, they stop to watch that person compete. When an athlete from other countries has a big Olympics, that person is an instant celebrity and is generally made for life. One of the biggest news stories of this century has been the arrest and trial of Oscar Pistorius, Olympic athlete. Relatively modest deal here, huge news elsewhere.

The U.S. is a backwater when it comes to international sports viewing. We're largely off the map. Outside of Lebron and the fumes of Kobe Bryant, our pro sports heroes aren't really big news outside our borders. Nations that are big into soccer do follow the Olympics with significant interest. Pro tennis players put a massive amount of stock in getting an Olympic gold medal. It really is another world out there.

So I would not conflate worldwide interest in the games with the potential misery of hosting them. The live event revenue, even when attendance is maxed out, can't come close to paying for the facilities. It's especially tough for the winter games. They're really going to have to start recycling sites or getting far more lenient about what qualifies as Olympic facilities. For instance, New York, Boston and Montreal have most of what you need to host an Olympics. You've got to travel three hours for good mountains outside of NY and Boston, but that's not a terribly great distance when you've got a quality highway system. Those cities aren't going to build multiple new arenas, but they have the venues that should accommodate the games. The hotels, the transit systems, the restaurants, the tourist attractions. All of that stuff is in place. Building an Olympic village that could be turned into housing would be the biggest trick.

I think what we're seeing is a healthy pushback against a corrupt process and overly grasping IOC officials. Hopefully what we get is a change at the top which focuses on making the Olympics a more attractive and manageable proposition for the host nation.

I'm curious how Vancouver feels about its return on investment? Granted it already had most event venues available, but it seemed like people were pretty happy with the games there, no?

[Yachtzee]

London and Paris were the two finalists for the summer games in 2012. Rio won over Chicago for 2016. Tokyo was just awarded the 2020 games over Madrid.

There's still plenty of interest in hosting. I think what we're seeing for the 2022 games is partially a function of the rotten global economy from several years ago. Bids for 2022 probably had to crystallize in 2010 to get off the ground, and that would have been a tough climate to sell the idea of billions of dollars of infrastructure for the Olympics.

I think that there's a difference between the Summer and Winter Games in that many of the Summer Games events (Track and Field) can be held within a single venue. Other events, such as marathon or road cycling just require laying out a road course with very little needed in the way of facilities. I think most of the money spent on the Summer Games involves building one centerpiece stadium and improving infrastructure to get people around. There are also more events, which means more ticket sales and more money for TV rights. Sure there's your typical IOC graft and corruption, but the amount of money a Summer Games brings in vis a vis the expense means there is more of a financial tolerance for the graft and corruption.

On the other hand, the Winter Games requires building facilities for just about every sport unless a city has hosted before. With the number of events held indoors, it requires separate venues for many sports because otherwise the logistics to fit all those competitions into a two week period would be impossible. Add in the unpredictability of winter weather and the usual IOC graft and corruption and you have a much smaller margin for error in hosting the Winter Olympics and a much greater possibility that the whole thing could be a financial disaster.

I think the global economic downturn has had some effect, but I also think the precedent set by the Sochi games, from both a financial and an environmental impact perspective has given rise to the feeing in countries where the government listens to the public that hosting the Winter Games isn't worth it.

[Chip R]

I think that there's a difference between the Summer and Winter Games in that many of the Summer Games events (Track and Field) can be held within a single venue. Other events, such as marathon or road cycling just require laying out a road course with very little needed in the way of facilities. I think most of the money spent on the Summer Games involves building one centerpiece stadium and improving infrastructure to get people around. There are also more events, which means more ticket sales and more money for TV rights. Sure there's your typical IOC graft and corruption, but the amount of money a Summer Games brings in vis a vis the expense means there is more of a financial tolerance for the graft and corruption.

On the other hand, the Winter Games requires building facilities for just about every sport unless a city has hosted before. With the number of events held indoors, it requires separate venues for many sports because otherwise the logistics to fit all those competitions into a two week period would be impossible. Add in the unpredictability of winter weather and the usual IOC graft and corruption and you have a much smaller margin for error in hosting the Winter Olympics and a much greater possibility that the whole thing could be a financial disaster.

I think the global economic downturn has had some effect, but I also think the precedent set by the Sochi games, from both a financial and an environmental impact perspective has given rise to the feeing in countries where the government listens to the public that hosting the Winter Games isn't worth it.

I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning since you do need more facilities than you think for the Summer games but when people talk about the waning popularity of the Olympics, I think they are talking about the Winter games and not the Summer. The Summer games have more events that appeal to people: Basketball, Track & Field, Soccer, Volleyball (both indoor and beach) Swimming, etc. Plus the U.S. is way better at most Summer sports than they are at Winter. That shouldn't make much of a difference for countries bidding for the Winter games but you never know.

[JayBruceFan]

Cities would be lining up if the games weren't a giant money pit that leaves the host city with a slew of unrealistic buildings that serve no real purpose outside of the games.

[Hoosier Red]

I'm not sure I follow those who say there are a plethora of buildings that aren't necessary.

With the noted exception of Sochi, most places that host a Winter Olympics are winter resorts. So I can't imagine they don't have a toboggon run that could reasonably be turned into a sliding track for Luge, Skeleton, et al... As well as courses already set up for the various skiing, snowboarding, and other snow events.

For the sports that are indoors in the winter, I'd guess most cities have a main arena downtown for ice skating. As well as a secondary one for Hockey. It doesn't appear as though they build 20K seat arenas for curling or speed skating.