Picking a Winner for 2016

[Anton Gramscescu]

So...Madrid, Tokyo, Rio or Chicago?

I'm guessing Chicago or Tokyo. Brazil's not getting the Olympics right after the World Cup, and they won't go to a European destination twice in a row.

Decision on Friday....

[Sean of the Shed]

Picking a Winner for 2016

During an economic downturn, the sensible decision would be to go with Brazil, building a dual purpose stadium to cover both events. Unfortunately sensible isn't the first criteria when FIFA and the IOC are making selections, it usually comes down to who plies you with the most champagne and hookers.
There have been a couple of games in America since Japan last hosted, so I reckon they'll go with Tokyo.
Then again, there has never been a South American games, so who knows, that might just swing it for them.

[RobW]

Picking a Winner for 2016

Antonio Gramsci wrote:

So...Madrid, Tokyo, Rio or Chicago?

I'm guessing Chicago or Tokyo. Brazil's not getting the Olympics right after the World Cup, and they won't go to a European destination twice in a row.

Decision on Friday....

Atlanta got the Olympics right after the '94 World Cup, so wouldn't be surprised if it went to Brazil.

[cantagalo]

Picking a Winner for 2016

It seems to be a close race between Chicago and Rio.

I think Rio will edge it for the following reasons. There's the stunning beauty of the city, the strength of the Brazilian economy and the legacy that it will leave in terms of improvements in the transport and sporting infrastructure. Also, Rio successfully hosted the Pan American games in 2007 when saturation policing successfully reduced the incidence of crime. And, Sean, if it comes down to the quality of women supplied to IOC members, that should just about clinch it for Rio.

I'm off to Copacabana Beach for the announcement. Should be quite a party.

[cantagalo]

Picking a Winner for 2016

During an economic downturn, the sensible decision would be to go with Brazil, building a dual purpose stadium to cover both events.

The athletics stadium is already built. It's the Engenhão Stadium where Botafogo currently play there home games and, I have to say, it's less than impressive - nothing like the Bird's Nest in Beijing.



However, I haven't heard it mentioned as a weakness in Rio's bid. The opening and closing ceremonies would be at the Maracanã.

[garcia]

Picking a Winner for 2016

surely barack will swing it for chicago? that he would risk going to copenhagen to be personally associated with the bid suggests he thinks it's all but in the bag.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Picking a Winner for 2016

Germany and Mexico both got the World Cup straight after hosting the Olympics. I don't think the IOC take decisions with any regard to what FIFA does, or vice-versa.

Smart money would perhaps be against Madrid, only because the IOC hasn't given the summer games to the same continent twice on the trot since 1952 (Helsinki following London). Again, though, a long time ago, and who says "rules" aren't there to be broken?

All the cities would be attractive venues. Probably the major pros/cons for each are:

Rio - first time the games will have been held in Latin America. Serious concerns though over security, economic ability to build the venues, etc.

Madrid - very good bidding history, of all the cities virtually has the whole infrastructure ready to go, apart from an Olympic stadium itself. However will the IOC award the games to a European city two times running? On the flip side, will the IOC award the games to an English speaking city twice on the trot, London-Chicago? Madrid could benefit from the Latin vote in that respect, to have a "Spanish-speaking" games again.

Chicago - 20 years since the USA hosted the games, and the IOC know they have to, realistically, recognise the USA's influence in about half the major Olympic sports. I think Obama knows he might be on to a winner in that respect, too. Virtually no existing infrastructure, though, and Atlanta peed off a lot of the IOC in '96 with its commercialism of the games.

Tokyo - almost all pros/cons are geopolitical. Games have been recently held in Korea and China, but Japan's the one with the big corporate money in that region and hasn't had it. But by the same token, Korea and China have just recently held the games, and will the IOC return to the same region 3 times in 8 games at the expense of Europe and America?

I think it will be Chicago, but maybe only after Madrid has maybe taken out Rio in the second round of voting. It will be interesting tomorrow!

[Etienne]

Picking a Winner for 2016

Rio has the advantage of fitting in well with US TV times too. I think it'd be a good choice.

[cantagalo]

Picking a Winner for 2016

Rio - first time the games will have been held in Latin America. Serious concerns though over security, economic ability to build the venues, etc

Most of the venues have already been built. The main investment will need to be in the transport infrastucture, some of which will already have been completed for the World Cup. As for security, the high crime rates can be balanced against the reduced risk of a terrorist attack compared to Chicago.

The Brazilian economy is already out of recession. Over the last year the Brazilian Real has been the strongest currency in the world. Brazil has a solid banking system, the stock market is booming, there's a growing tax base and by 2016 revenues from the massive offshore oil-fields will be starting to flow. A significant proportion of these will accrue directly to Rio. With a further 7 years of 5-6% growth, Brazil will be a very different place by 2016.

I would argue that Rio will be in a far better position to be able to afford to stage the Olympics than London in 2012.

[E10 Rifle]

Picking a Winner for 2016

Wouldn't these all be reasons for Rio to not get it though, given the tendency of Olympics to burden their host cities with after-the-event debt?

I probably want them to win it though, on balance. Them or Madrid.

[cantagalo]

Picking a Winner for 2016

Rio's initial budget is US$2.82bn compared with Chicago's US$3.8bn. I know that budgets usually overrun but both seem very reasonable compared to London's, what, US$16bn at current exchange rates.

Most of the infrastructure projects have been on the drawing board for ages and, as Brazil's economy grows, would have to be paid for whether they get the Olympics or not. There seem to be relatively few potential white elephants here.

Selfishly, part of me wants Rio to fail because I don't want the place becoming a more popular world tourism destination but I reckon the 2014 World Cup will have already achieved that.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Picking a Winner for 2016

Chicago's bid relied a little too much on the first lady, if you ask me. All that homely nonsense about growing up in a "poor" neighborhood, never imagining Chicago could host such a great event - you're bidding against Rio de Janeiro, for heaven's sake! I hardly think much of the rest of the world will think "ooh, yes, all those poor American children whose lives we can enrich".

Tokyo were very heavy on the "green" element, again an important concern but hardly at the forefront of many IOC members, I would imagine, most of whom will never have turned right on a plane in their lives.

Rio's up next.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Picking a Winner for 2016

Rio seem to have taken it as read that people will expect fun and carnival, because the main thrust of their bid - that it will be entirely underwritten by government funding and not reliant on marketing revenue like other three - is being presented by a sombre little man in a business suit, not a semi-naked dancing girl holding sparklers on a float.

[cantagalo]

Picking a Winner for 2016

Good presentation. I reckon Lula's just about nailed it.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Picking a Winner for 2016

Madrid's bid going to both benefit from being the last, yet suffer from being the "after lunch" - or possibly "when's lunch?" one.

Bit like being interviewed at 2 o'clock.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Picking a Winner for 2016

$14.4bn for the Rio bid, as well, cantagalo, not $3bn as you said earlier. I did wonder how Rio could have promised a games for a fraction of the cost of the London one.

[Wyatt Earp]

Picking a Winner for 2016

Rogin the Armchair Fan wrote:

Chicago's bid relied a little too much on the first lady, if you ask me. All that homely nonsense about growing up in a "poor" neighborhood, never imagining Chicago could host such a great event - you're bidding against Rio de Janeiro, for heaven's sake! I hardly think much of the rest of the world will think "ooh, yes, all those poor American children whose lives we can enrich".

I dunno, have you ever been to the South Side? Seriously. I mean, people are hungrier in Rio, but there's plenty of wretchedness alongside the Dan Ryan Expressway, there really is.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Picking a Winner for 2016

If Rio gets the games will beach soccer be a demonstration sport? It's every bit as worthy for inclusion as beach volleyball was.

[evilC]

Picking a Winner for 2016

If Chicago get it, they will forever be known as 'The Twat Olympics':

1203: A little aside, by the way - U2 lead singer Bono could have an indirect say in where this afternoon's vote goes. Chicago employed U2's "Where the Streets Have No Name" in their presentation (leading one wag to comment: "Well that will make it difficult getting to the stadia"), while Tokyo also displayed a picture of Bono in their presentation. He gets everywhere the little fella doesn't he?

(From the BBC coverage of the event.)

[cantagalo]

Picking a Winner for 2016

$14.4bn for the Rio bid, as well, cantagalo, not $3bn as you said earlier. I did wonder how Rio could have promised a games for a fraction of the cost of the London one

So did I! Thanks for the correction. Globo is obviously an unreliable source.

They apparently expect a result by 6pm UK time.

[Wyatt Earp]

Picking a Winner for 2016

evilC wrote:

If Chicago get it, they will forever be known as 'The Twat Olympics':

1203: A little aside, by the way - U2 lead singer Bono could have an indirect say in where this afternoon's vote goes. Chicago employed U2's "Where the Streets Have No Name" in their presentation (leading one wag to comment: "Well that will make it difficult getting to the stadia"), while Tokyo also displayed a picture of Bono in their presentation. He gets everywhere the little fella doesn't he?

(From the BBC coverage of the event.)

In Tokyo, most of the streets do actually have no name. At all. Or any kind of designation whatsoever. In Chicago, they all have actual names except the South Side cross streets, which have numbers.

So Tokyo wins the Bono fight there.

[jason voorhees]

Picking a Winner for 2016

I don't have much love for Chi-town, but what will the temperature be in the summer ? I mean South Africa sounded real cool, until I saw how cool it was for real. People in winter coats ? No thanks.

I mean are we talking 20C or 10C ?

[Gangster Octopus]

Picking a Winner for 2016

Chicago out first.

[Guest]

Picking a Winner for 2016

'Ooh baby, what a big surprise'.

Here's to Rio.

[Gangster Octopus]

Picking a Winner for 2016

Tokyo out.