By now everyone has heard that Chicago has lost out in its bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. Not only was Rio de Janeiro chosen over the Windy City, but the American city was the first of the four finalists (Rio, Chicago, Tokyo, and Madrid) to be eliminated at the Copenhagen meeting of the International Olympic Committee. The initial explanation offered by the U.S. press is that Chicago’s bid fell victim to still rampant anti-Americanism on the part of the IOC and the world at large. Even though this decision means that for the first time Olympic games will held on the South American continent, the conventional wisdom is that the IOC would have chosen Chicago with its guarantee of much greater revenues over Rio and the other contenders had animus toward the United States not been such a powerful factor. Obviously, personal appearances by President Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey were not enough to stem the anti-U.S. tide.
Does everyone agree with this analysis?
No, I don’t agree. It seems like simple logic to me. The North American continent has had its share of recent Olympic designations between the winter and summer sites (coming soon to Vancouver and most don’t forget Utah and Georgia). How many times in thirty years should one continent be a host? We have had our share. It was time for another continent to be host–especially one that had not ever been a host site.
I admittedly know little about how these kind of choices are made, but I think the decision is more a reflection of the $9+ billion difference in the two cities’ bids for the event than it is about any kind of rampant anti-Americanism.
But let’s just say I’m not shocked that the media narrative is consistent with the view that President Bush continues to destroy American’s reputation, even after he’s history. I mean, what else could possibly explain President Obama’s failure to woo the Olympic Committee?
To me, there was nothing logical about this vote. The Olympic city selection process is very, very political–and often very arbitrary.
The U.S., especially in recent years, hasn’t navigated the political process within the IOC, a very Eurocentric organization, very well. The current reality is that the U.S. has very little (if any) political clout or goodwill within the international Olympic Movement. In addition to Chicago being eliminated in the first round of bidding (reportedly because Rio and Madrid successfully influenced a critical mass of IOC members to vote for Tokyo rather than Chicago), other evidence includes the recent elimination of both baseball and softball as Olympic sports and NYC’s post-9/11 failed bid for the 2012 Games (although it wasn’t nearly as strong as Chicago’s bid).
In addition, there’s been too much turnover within the USOC’s top leadership in recent years (particularly in the past year), a pending dispute between the IOC and the USOC regarding the latter’s share of Olympic broadcasting and sponsorship revenues, and the USOC’s incredibly bad decision a few months to announce the formation of an Olympic sports channel without the IOC’s approval.
In most of the world’s countries there is substantial national government support, including direct funding, for Olympics sports governing bodies and hosting the Olympic Games. For at least the past 25 years the U.S. has not provided any federal funding of Olympic sports. This was the first time a U.S. president was so active in lobbying IOC members or made a personal appearance as part of a city’s final Olympic bid presentation.
Although Rio (and South America) deserves an opportunity to host the Olympic Games, I thought this was more likely to happen in 2020, especially because Rio is hosting the World Cup in 2014. As a Chicago resident, the results of today’s IOC vote (i.e., first round elimination) are shocking and very disappointing. (Jacque Rogge also looked shocked and disappointed when he announced that Chicago had received the fewest votes.) Chicago put together a great bid and would have put on a wonderful Olympics in 2016. It’s simply amazing to me that Obama’s appearance in Copenhagen wasn’t enough to win the Olympic Games for his hometown. At worst, I thought Chicago might lose a close vote to Rio in the final round.
All the stars seemed to be aligned for Chicago, but its best effort wasn’t enough. What message does this send to U.S. cities, including Chicago, about the prospect of being awarded future Olympic Games?
I don’t agree. I think Prof. Mitten shows clearly why we didn’t get the bid. The USOC has been everything but stable. Our National Governing Bodies are confused and upset with the USOC and it appears that IOC doesn’t have confidence in us either. When the USOC leaders (Probst & Streeter) didn’t attend the first technical bid presentation in June to the full IOC, they did not help Chicago’s bid.
The US has hosted 4 times since 1980. It is another country’s turn and thank goodness they will be held in Brazil.
I have noticed that the second round of media commentary has shifted its focus away from anti-americanism toward criticism of the USOC and the Chicago Organizing Committee.
As today’s Sports Business Daily put it, “The blame game and finger pointing over Chicago’s failed bid for the ’16 Games are in full gear, and the fallout will be one of the most closely watched stories for the rest of the year. The USOC is facing heavy criticism … [and] … Chicago 2016’s leadership team does not escape the criticism.”
Hard to add anything after Prof. Mitten summed up Chicago’s loss about as well as you can, but I think Friday’s result shows that while a U.S.-hosted Olympics would be great for TV revenues, clearly the U.S. is behind in how a candidate bid and national Olympic organization is run.
While Rio gained an upper-hand in the Brazilian government essentially guaranteeing to underwrite the costs of the Olympics, U.S. bids are basically fueled by private and city investments. Therefore, it looks like the U.S. government may need to take a more active role in overseeing Olympic sports if it wishes to host Olympic events, to say nothing of being able to stay at the top of the heap in actual athletic competition with nations such as China, which has spent millions on making its teams more competitive.
Ultimately, I have to say as a Chicago-area resident that while it may be comforting to hear people related to the Chicago bid still keeping the door open for future bids, I am far from optimistic of actually seeing an Olympics gracing the great Windy City.