The PyeongChang 2018 Bid Backstage Story
Click on the title for the hyperlink to the article
Money Matters
Terrence Burns ©2018
I’ve often said that the IOC’s needs a “new narrative” as it pertains to the Candidate City bidding process. We’ve all read and heard the news: many cities are rejecting the idea of hosting the Olympic Games. Why? Well, the two main reasons are 1) a fear that the Games will be too costly for the Host City with no usable legacy, and 2) the negative image or reputation of the IOC as an institution.
I am not writing to castigate any group, city, or person who cleaves to either or both of the above notions; rather, I am writing to attempt to illustrate that times have changed and there is indeed a new perspective in Lausanne.
My message: the IOC does have a new narrative and part of it is money matters.
Like most things of consequence in life, the idea of hosting an Olympic Games comes down to a number – and more importantly, is that number believable? The truth is, there is really no definitive case study that represents a singular way to measure the true cost of hosting an Olympic Games
It’s not a secret nor is it news that the budgets of Bid Books and the reality of hosting a Games have often been miles apart. Scope creep, budget creep, naivete and the flat-out intervention of something called “reality” are just four of many causes for this gap.
What to do? Well, the IOC have listened, and they’ve acted. Before you roll your eyes, hear me out, please.
I’ve been working with Olympic bids for 18 years. The IOC’s process for most of those 18 years led to cycles of cities over-promising based on the pressure and belief that new venues and new infrastructure was better than existing venues and renovated infrastructure. Who’s to blame? Does it really matter?
So, here we are in the 2026 race for the Winter Games, and cities have dropped out – but often citing the same old reasons. Well, things have changed.
Let’s look at the cost of the Games. Even though some have scoffed at it, the IOC has overhauled the bid city process to make it more inclusive, less costly, more creative, less restrictive and less onerous on the city and its citizenry. The IOC is finally engaging with the “NoOlympics” people and others, as they should, to attempt to set the record straight on the new approach.
Did you know the IOC no longer requires a “Guarantee” from the city to cover any shortfalls in the Games budget? That’s right: no more “blank check” clause.
Did you know that the IOC will provide $925m to the 2026 Host City for its operating budget to host the Games?
Did you know that the IOC will and is sending teams of technical advisors and experts to cities interested in hosting the Games to help them 1) understand if they are capable of hosting an Olympic Games, and if so, 2) what do they need to do in order to prepare to bid?
And, did you know that the IOC does this on their own dime? It doesn’t cost the cities a penny.
Did you know that the Games themselves are actually self-funding? WHAT? Yes.
The balance of the budget beyond the IOC’s contribution is paid for by television broadcast revenues, sponsorship revenues, ticketing revenues, licensed merchandise, and other marketing revenues. Security for a Games in very expensive and that cost is subsidized by the state in most cases; yes, that means the security costs are borne by taxpayers but amortized over the national population, not just the Host City.
What does this mean for the people of a city contemplating a bid for the 2026 Winter Games?
It means that the money for the Winter Games budget is not money diverted from other city projects such as housing, transportation or social services – the money needed for the operation of the Games comes from the marketing of the Games and the IOC. Period.
What about needed infrastructure costs? And by that question, I assume you mean, costs like Sochi’s? Yes, the Russians spent a reported $50b on the Sochi Winter Games, but they did it because they chose to do so, not because IOC required them to do so. Basically, the Russians built a new city for the 2014 Winter Games.
Would the IOC approve a bid like Sochi’s today? Highly doubtful (I should know, I worked on the Sochi bid). We move on…but before we do, I think that citing Sochi’s $50b cost as a reason to say “no” to the Games is disingenuous; it is not comparing apples to apples.
The “new reality” of the cost-of-the-Games bottom line is this:
The IOC are now providing services and expertise to prevent cities from ever building “white elephants” again. Why? Because it hurts the Olympic brand in the long run.
The IOC are no longer just the franchisor in the Olympic equation, they are a true partner. Why? Because they have steadily increased the amount of their own money they put into the Games while decreasing the financial demands on the Host City.
The operating budget of the Games is self-funded by the IOC’s contribution and the Organizing Committees’ marketing of the Games, not from public coffers. And,
The IOC are now insistent that any new venues or infrastructure which may be needed to host a Games must have true and measurable sustainability and be part of a long-term plan for the city. If it is not, the IOC asks the city to look at temporary or facility re-use options.
So, 2026 cities – use your head and do the math.
If all or most of the venues needed to host a Games exist, or are already planned for long-term legacy purposes or will be temporary, you should bid.
If you believe that hosting a Games is good for the development of youth sports long-term, you should bid.
If you believe that the Games can be a unifying experience for your nation, you should bid.
If you can afford the Games without taking public funds away from needed expenditures in health, education, and housing, you should bid.
It’s that simple. Do the math, then make your decision. But make sure it’s a decision made that is based on calculated, prudent, optimism, and not on hysterical, misrepresented fear.
If the Wind Blows, Ride It 27AUG20
The title of this column is an Arab proverb, and a timely one.
The agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates means that there are now three Arab states (including Egypt and Jordan) that have full diplomatic relations with Israel.
But this column isn’t about geo-politics. It’s about offering hope to a region long under-served by that essential quality humans need to both endure and progress.
I believe it is time to start planning for an Olympic Games in the Middle East.
The Middle East has never (and according to some, could never) hosted an Olympic Games. The tropes are well known – history, culture, politics, and religion. These are also the four pillars of segregation that the Olympic Games was designed for in order to overcome.
I believe that when the Games go to the Middle East, no single nation can efficiently host them because of climate, population size, and political, social and economic stability. A Games in the Middle East necessarily must be “multi-national”; not just to work functionally, but to work emotionally.
The IOC have made visionary choices before – Tokyo 1964, Moscow 1980, Rio 2016. These decisions were not taken lightly, and a few were highly controversial. But, true to the spirit of their own ideology, the IOC chose to place the Games in nations that needed them the most.
In terms of human legacy, what better than the first Olympic Games in the Middle East that includes Israel? What better proof about the promise of the Olympic ideals than hosting the Games in a region long under-served by sport and long dominated by war?
Would the dates of a Middle East Games have to be adjusted due to weather conditions? Most assuredly – just like Melbourne 1956 and Sydney 2000. Would some commercial interests be inconvenienced by an autumn programming season? Yes. But, without sounding naive (which is hard to do regarding this subject), what is an Olympic Games in the Middle East, where Arabs and Jews partner to host humanity’s greatest example of respect and friendship, really worth? You tell me.
The UAE has emerged as a thought leader amongst Arab nations and I hope others will follow suit – it’s pragmatic and it’s a start. And given the millennia of enmity, it’s one worth taking.
So, how to seize this opportunity?
If I were part of the IOC leadership I would ask: “Where can we place the Olympic Games where they will do the most good and best serve humanity?”
The answer is obvious. It will be hard. It will take years. It will be complicated. But it will be worth it. And now we have a glimmer of hope of how it could happen.
Another proverb, this one Hebrew says “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best is now.”
Plant the tree and ride the wind.
When a Game is More Than a Game 31JUL20
It’s no secret that the world feels like it’s careening out of control. Covid-19, economic disruption, and social upheaval are touching every corner of this increasingly smaller planet. It’s a confusing and distressing time and, we need each other more than ever. Yet, much of the world seems to be retreating to its respective corners.
I remember the Cold War, and there is something in the air, a tinge of Cold War frost perhaps, that looms on the horizon. It makes me sad (and alarmed) but it doesn’t have to be this way.
Sport can be an antidote for the world. Before you roll your eyes, consider the following.
Many may not recall “Ping Pong Diplomacy”, an exchange of table tennis players between the United States and the People’s Republic of China in the early 1970s.
At the 1971 Table Tennis World Championships in Nagoya Japan, American athlete Glenn Cowan missed the US team bus and boarded the Chinese team bus. Three-time world champion Zhuang Zedong bravely shook Cowan’s hand and gave him a gift – it was a risky move. The next day, Cowan gave Zhuang a red-white-and blue peace emblem T-shirt with the words “Let It Be.”
In April of that year, the US Table Tennis team was invited to play in China. In 1978, China began to open to the world. It started with a ping pong ball.
Once again, sport lowered walls of mistrust and ignorance and opened windows of dialogue and understanding.
This isn’t a new concept. The Games have always been there for the world after times of global strife.
The first Games after World War I were held in 1920 in Antwerp – intended to unify the world. Yet the local Belgian organizers (not the IOC) banned Hungary, Germany, Austria, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire because of their roles in WWI. In fact, Germany did not return to the Games until 1928.
The 1920 Games did however make a difference – they introduced the Olympic flag and symbol (the Olympic Rings for global unity), the release of doves for peace, and the first Athlete’s Oath.
After cancellation in 1940 and 1948 due to World War II, the Games returned to London in 1948. IOC member and Chairman of the 1948 Games Lord Burghley said, “At the end of the worldwide struggle in 1945, many institutions and associations were found to have withered and only the strongest had survived. How, many wondered, had the great Olympic Movement prospered?”
Because of their universal values and ideals that’s how.
So, what can the Olympic Games provide today? More than you can imagine.
One of the most splendid (and difficult) accomplishments of the International Olympic Committee is its never-ending effort to keep the Games apolitical. It is a key reason why the Games are so loved around the world.
Fair Play, Respect, Optimism…these values are the true currency of the Olympic Movement, and they are why the Games remain universal in appeal since their founding in 776 B.C.
It is also why political boycotts have never worked – just ask any athlete who missed the Moscow 1980 and Los Angeles 1984 Games. Nothing was achieved except broken Olympic dreams for young men and women.
The IOC’s century-plus strategy has been to “place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.”
Big statement for sure, but what exactly does it mean? For starters, it doesn’t mean you take the Games only to places that look like you, sound like you, and think like you.
The Olympic Movement’s greatest strength is its diversity – a powerful word that sadly, has often been highjacked by politics throughout history.
So, when I read of the rise of xenophobia and nationalism, I despair. I think of those two young athletes back in 1971, Glenn Cowan and Zhuang Zedong, and how they helped reset the global stage with a simple game of table tennis.
Here is the true secret of the Olympic Games. The Olympic family is the human family, and the Games belong to everyone.
206 nations around the world work together to create seventeen days of glorious sport with respect for each other; a celebration of our common humanity. We rise together, we laugh together, we celebrate together, and sometimes we even cry together. And that’s the point: we need each other.
The Olympic Games may be the last true place where we all belong. And that is worth its weight in gold medals.
Back to the Future for Olympic Sponsorship 11FEB20
Whilst rummaging through boxes of old files, I happened upon my accreditation from the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games (a “G” for those in the know). Those Games were my first foray into Olympic marketing, or sports marketing for that matter.
Two things struck me as I looked at my face from twenty-four years ago: one, where did all my hair go (?), and two, the wonder, excitement, and energy of being a first-time Olympic sponsor is still fresh in my mind.
During the Atlanta Games I served as the “Managing Director – Olympic Programs” for Delta Air Lines, the official airline of the Games. On 5 August 1996, the day after the closing ceremony, I left Delta and joined Meridian Management SA, the then-brand-new external marketing agency of the IOC (co-owned by the IOC).
I had no idea that the rest of my life would be a never-ending embrace of the Olympic Games, their values and ideals. I also had no idea how much I had to learn. I am still learning.
I’ve had the honor to work with many, many, new and existing Olympic sponsors in a variety of roles over the years – from my responsibilities at Delta to advising a new IOC TOP Partner today. And although each brand and industry has been different, they all shared similarities that made them fascinating and rewarding to work with.
New Olympic sponsors are like Olympic bid cities (I have worked for eleven Olympic bid cities) because they share one thing in common: they’re a blank page. They have the same sense of idealism, the same sense of wonder about the Games, and the same sense of “opportunity”.
Time, however, is one thing that is never on the side of an Olympic sponsor. The Games’ dates are set, the countdown has begun, and there are no do-overs in Olympic marketing. Similar to an athlete, one either nails his/her chance at Olympic success, or one doesn’t. It is a high wire act with no net.
IOC TOP Partners benefit from an ongoing, internal machine that produces and implements world-wide Olympic marketing programs for Games every two years. That is harder than imagined, which is why internal turnover at TOP Partners is essential to keep the property fresh and the company’s interest ongoing.
On the other hand, Organizing Committee (OCOG) partners, sponsors, and suppliers are often one-trick ponies. An OCOG is their one and only shot at the Olympics – although Delta went on to sponsor the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City. Therefore, I often find new sponsors are more imaginative and daring. And at today’s OCOG sponsorship fee levels, they have to be.
LA 2028 has a stated domestic revenue goal of at least US $2.5bn (€2.3bn). Even at Tier 1 deal levels of $400m each ($200m for rights fees and $200m in NBC media inventory), that’s a big revenue bucket to fill. That means there will be a plethora of LA 2028 commercial partners completely new to the Olympic Games, and few with Olympic experience on US soil.
The good news for brands interested in LA 2028 is that there is a much longer Olympic marketing activation runway (2021-2028) than in any other Games in history. This means that sponsorship costs can be amortized over seven calendar years and four editions of the Olympic and Paralympic Games – Beijing 2022, Paris 2024, Milan-Cortina 2026, and LA 2028.
The other piece of good news is that a lot of the leadership team at the United States Olympic and Paralympic Properties (USOPP – the commercial joint venture between the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee and LA 2028) are also new to the Olympics.
Why is that good news? Simple answer: new thinking equals new ideas.
Kathy Carter, chief executive and chief revenue officer of USOPP, and her leadership team bring a fresh perspective to what at times can seem like a dated, formulaic approach to Olympic marketing.
Their fresh strategy is evidenced by the LA 2028/NBC partnership, which includes media rights in certain sponsorship packages. Hopefully these hard media assets will help potential sponsors better evaluate LA 2028 sponsorship ROI.
For example, at Delta we had less than two years to plan and implement our sponsorship of the 96 Games. In those days, Delta was reeling from a struggling economy and poor economic results for the first time in its history. In reality, that was a blessing in disguise because, as we all know, necessity is the mother of invention.
Therefore, we focused on the things that mattered most to Delta’s overall strategy, and then set realistic, measurable business goals to support it. In the end we focused on a revenue goal, a brand metric goal, and a set of internal performance goals for employees. It worked.
So, what does all this have to do with LA 2028? A lot, actually.
Potential LA 2028 sponsors should look at the opportunity through a specific lens in order to answer one question: “How can an LA 2028 sponsorship add measurable value to our overall business strategy?” If a brand cannot answer that question honestly (and empirically), then it has no business spending money on an Olympic sponsorship.
Yet, many new sponsors continue to miss this point entirely. They spend a lot of time and money creating what can only be described as “stand-alone Olympic sponsorship plans” that are often a series of disjointed tactical activations all adding up to…who knows what.
Successful Olympic sponsors begin by determining how Olympic marketing rights fit into their existing, overall marketing strategy. Again, not rocket science but to a brand that is new to Games sponsorship, the sheer size and scope of it all can be bewildering.
Permanent mistakes are often made because for OCOG sponsors, Games sponsorship is typically a one-time event. Even Delta, should it become an LA 2028 partner, will have minimal 1996 and 2002 Games association in today’s consumers’ minds.
For the right brands, LA 2028 offers incredible OCOG sponsorship value because of its unprecedented seven-year activation timeline, the creativity and strength of the new LA 2028 sponsorship team, and the unique nature of the US sports marketplace, perhaps the most innovative in the world.
LA 2028’s challenge is convincing CMOs and boards that an investment of this size for an event seven to eight years in the future makes sense. That is where the 7-year, four-Games offer makes it all possible.
To use an old analogy, a sponsorship fee is a “cover charge” to get into the party, but if you want to dance with someone it takes more money. And, at a conservative sponsorship fee to activation ratio of 1:1, the all-in costs could be close to one billion US dollars for a Tier 1 LA 2028 Partner. A longer activation runway with multiple events makes this much more feasible, especially given LA 2028 OCOG rights are limited to the US territory.
Olympic sponsorship isn’t for everyone. It’s expensive and difficult to grasp from a “traditional” sports marketing perspective – ask any Fortune 100 Board Member to wrap his/her head around the Olympics’ Clean Venue Guidelines, or the Rule 40 and Rule 50 regulations. Good luck.
Moreover, the various levels and players in the Olympic Movement make it hard to prioritize, e.g., “in addition to our sponsorship, should we also acquire NGB rights, athlete rights, special OCOG program rights such as the Torch Relay…and if so, what kind and how much?” In the end, there will probably be 30 or more brands all touting a relationship with LA 2028. One needs to be smart in order to avoid being lost in the wallpaper. But it can be done.
What to do? Get in early, formulate a plan that neatly fits within your existing corporate plan, find a unique positioning or set of Olympic assets that are ownable and relevant, and finally, to borrow a phrase from American football, “flood the zone and smother the competition” because as an OCOG sponsor, you’ve only got one chance to win a gold medal.
When Is A Slogan A Vision 13JAN20
It is the Olympic year 2020, and as Tokyo rushes to get ready for the greatest show on earth in just a few months’ time, I am reminded of the Tokyo 2020 Olympic bid (disclaimer: I worked for Madrid 2020) and its slogan, ‘Discover Tomorrow’, which at first I thought was a recycled slogan from a previous World’s Fair or Disneyland. Having said that, Tokyo won.
Most (not all) Olympic bids of the past did everything they could to differentiate from each other, even when their differences seemed only skin deep. My take on a bid slogan is that if it can be dropped into another bid’s logo, and still make sense, it doesn’t work.
There were many in this category: “Dream Together”, “Live Your Passion”, “Uniting our Worlds”, “Let Friendship Shine”, “The Friendly Games”, “Games with the Human Touch” – I could go on and on. It’s wallpaper.
It’s easiest to write about the bids and slogans I worked on.
Some Olympic bids had great, highly differentiated slogans that said a lot in a few words. Almaty 2022’s (a former client) “Keeping it Real” was a not-so-veiled counter positioning against Beijing 2022’s seemingly virtual Winter Games bid.
My favorite reference for Almaty 2022’s positioning was a remark by IOC member Dick Pound. “It looks to me like they figured out all of the weaknesses of the competitors and they just nailed the differences – snow, water, air, experience,” he said. Beijing won.
PyeongChang 2018’s (a former client) “New Horizons” was a clear counterpoint to Munich 2018’s classic European approach. Vancouver 2010’s (a former client) “Sea to Sky Games” was a functional slogan that captured the unique geography of the city and its mountain cluster.
Some of my slogans weren’t very good – Moscow 2012’s “Imagine it Now” is one I rarely tout as a shining example of my work. Nor was “Inspiring Change” for Doha 2016. I did like “Made in Sweden” for Stockholm-Åre 2026 – it reflected the power of Brand Sweden and the values we felt were important to the IOC at a crucial time – trust, fairness, and competence. Stockholm-Åre 2026 lost to Italy.
One of my favorite bids to work on, and one I did not think would be, was Los Angeles 2024/2028. I say I did not think it would be because after many, many years working on bids all around the world, I had not worked on an American bid. I watched the New York 2012 and Chicago 2016 bid campaigns, and I felt the USA! USA! messaging was too overt when trying not to be, simplistic, and not little tone deaf. If you are interested in how I finally ended up at LA2028, have a read here. It is a fascinating look at history because Olympic bidding has changed forever.
One of the challenges with LA was that there was so much to work with. Early on I recall asking chairman Casey Wasserman about his vision for the Games. His answer was simple, he said, “I want the 2024 Games to be as transformational for the Olympic Movement as the 1984 LA Games were.” That’s a big idea, a big vision, and one any marketer can sink his or her teeth into.
The LA 2024/2028 slogan was “Follow the Sun”. It wasn’t an invitation; it was a challenge to the movement to embrace change and the future.
I also liked Paris 2024’s slogan (and their logo) “Made for Sharing.” I thought it was a clever update, using a social media context, of the tried and true Olympic concept of “shared dreams”. Unfortunately, The Académie Française, official custodian Pierre de Coubertin’s native language said the Paris 2024 slogan was no better than a pizza advert because, wait for it – it was in English. Paris won the right to host the 2024 Olympic Games, so I think their slogan was fine.
The trick is continuity. The vision and dreams expressed by a winning bid city are essentially accepted by the IOC in its selection of the city. Yet often, there is substantial and immense change in the leadership of a bid and the leadership of the Games. And inevitably, something always gets lost in translation.
The IOC’s last bid city selection process (somewhat) under the old format was for 2026. The “two left standing” candidate cities were encouraged to enunciate clear and compelling visions. Yet, by the time of the vote in Lausanne in June 2019, the messaging, speeches, key talking points for each bid were very similar. At that point, Olympic politics came into play and no one does that better than the Italians. Well played, Milan-Cortina.
It is interesting to compare the slogans and visions of bid cities with the slogans and visions of the subsequent Organizing Committees. Bid cities are naïve, idealistic, optimists by nature (which is why I loved working with them). OCOGs by definition have passed the “vision test” and are motivated by functional reality – get the city ready for the Games. So, it is not unusual for the verve, vibe, and even the vision of the bid to adjust – sometimes dramatically – to something wholly different for the OCOG.
The beauty of the old process was that every city I ever worked for truly believed they could win. When confronted with the reality that no one in the world seemed to know where Almaty was, its then-mayor, Akhmetzhan Yessimov said: “None of this concerns us, we want to win”. He continued, “Once you say you are a mushroom, you might as well get into the soup.”
A great soup is the combination of many different flavors adding up to something more wonderful than its sum of parts. Just like the Olympics.
Here’s to the lowly mushroom, harbinger of many Olympic dreams.
Something's Happening Here - 25OCT19
Quoting a few lines from a 1966 Buffalo Springfield song may not be the most obvious means to address to the incredible changes happening in athlete endorsement, but it’s my column and I’ve always liked the song. So here goes:
There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear… You know the rest.
About the only thing that is clear is that the game has changed (pun intended) for athlete marketing and promotion. And the field of play is called social media and the currency of this new world order is activism.
There was a time when brands used athletes as “endorsers” by using their images or likeness in advertising and personal appearances. That was about it. And honestly, the jury has always been out on the efficacy of this type of promotion. Yet, it was one of the boxes that marketers usually checked when creating and activating a “sports strategy”.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the Forum (again, pun intended). Athletes found their own voices and social media gave them their very own private media channels, which by the way, have proven to be infinitely more effective to delivering messaging to the fans than most brands.
Consider these statistics from a recent study. Athletes’ social channels reach more people (1.7 billion) than publishers (361 million) and properties (894 million) combined. You read that right. It is reasonable to suggest that the most valuable fan-athlete relationship in sports is the social media connectivity driven by athletes’ own channels.
This is reasonable because the same study also measured that most elusive of all social media metrics, engagement. The overwhelming conclusion is that athletes’ social media activity is many times more engaging at 3.36 per cent, than properties at 0.3 per cent, and publishers at 0.51 per cent.
So, the real question is given this newfound power, how will athletes use it? To benefit their own personal brands or to benefit the brands with whom they have marketing or promotional affiliations? The answer is obviously both.
The challenges are not small. Even the IOC’s Rule 40, which was created to protect official Olympic sponsors is not immune. Rule 40, in effect, prohibited Olympic athletes from letting non-Olympic sponsor brands from using the Olympian’s image or likeness in advertising or promotional activities during an Olympic Games.
This all changed, perhaps coincidentally or perhaps not, with the rise of social media. Many Olympians, although heroes all, are most likely never to be heard from again. They struggle, train, and sacrifice or years for one shot at glory at the Games. Why should they be prevented from this one opportunity to capitalize financially, albeit short-term and minimal in context?
The IOC listened to this argument (led at the grassroots level by athletes) and agreed, in principle. Rule 40 guidelines have been adjusted (relaxed) to allow more latitude for athletes at the Games to interact with and promote (slightly and with significant guard rails) non-sponsor brands who support them.
Athletes have also found their voices for causes beyond marketing. Perhaps it started in Mexico City in 1968 with Tommy Smith and John Carlos’ fists raised in the air on the podium. Imagine if they’d had Twitter accounts? But now athletes do.
The most recent and most courageous example of athlete activism is Allyson Felix, the most decorated US female track and field athlete of all time. When Allyson became pregnant, one of her sponsors, Nike, attempted to reduce Allyson’s fee structure by 70 per cent.
Allyson decided to use her voice to address what she felt was injustice. The rest is history. The response to her message was overwhelming. In July of this year she signed a multi-year apparel sponsorship contract with Athleta – and it includes a clause offering “full protection during maternity”.
Well done, Allyson. But with this new “power” comes responsibility, and the simple fact is that most of us in our late teens or early twenties (the sweet spot for most Olympic athletes) rarely possess the judgement to speak unfiltered to the universe. Yet that is precisely why social media is so impactful – it is unfiltered. That gives it authenticity.
The reality is that the athlete-fan connectivity will only grow stronger and more intimate. The key for brands wishing to play in the sand box is to be very careful about which athletes with whom they wish to align and then “let them be them”. Otherwise, it’s just another scripted, forgettable personal appearance adapted to a Tweet.
Driving While Dreaming - 20SEP19
The ever-evolving IOC Candidate City process reminds me a lot of driving while listening to Google Maps’ excellent guidance instructions; often, I just barely miss the turn because I am driving just a tad too fast. Admit it, it happens to you, too.
We’ve just witnessed the end of the 2026 Winter Games Candidate City campaign. A campaign that began with multiple hopeful cities, yet again dwindled down to only two: Milan-Cortina and Stockholm-Äre. Maybe the two most important parts of the 2026 campaign were the use of hyphens in the bid cities’ names (a no-go in the past), and the IOC’s encouragement and acceptance of it.
Both Candidates “bent over backwards” to devise new concepts that just a few years ago would have been rejected outright; not only by the IOC, but by the powerful International Federations as well. And, even for the 2026 campaign (disclaimer: I worked for the Stockholm-Äre bid) the continued power of the IFs was both apparent and real. But that’s another column for later.
Each city spent tremendous energy touting their “unique” adherence to Olympic Agenda 2020 as well as the “New Norm”. And in most instances, they were genuine. Each capitalised on extensive use of existing facilities, each proposed competition venues “spread out” in an unprecedented fashion, and each had super-minimal operating budgets (we will see…). And of course, each Candidate globed onto the hottest issue of the IOC’s “New Norm”, assuring the IOC and its local populations that taxpayers would not be on the hook for the cost of the Games – until one didn’t. “Game over” for the other one, pun intended.
What to do? Well, our Aussie friends may have a better idea, and one in fact that the IOC may gravitate towards because it may be inevitable.
The Summer Games of 2032 offer a unique opportunity. Australia is keen to host the Games again (the Sydney 2000 Games remain, far and away, my favorite Games of all time – well done, Australia), but this time in Queensland. In fact, a delegation from Queensland, led by Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, visited Lausanne a few days ago to lay out their case to IOC president Thomas Bach and his team.
What? Has the 2032 Candidate City “process” already begun, you might ask? Good question. And the answer is “no”, sort of, because the IOC’s Candidate City process as we knew it is no more.
In the immortal words of Monty Python, “the process has ceased to be…it’s expired and gone to meet its maker…it’s a stiff…bereft of life, it’s kicked the bucket and shuffled off its mortal coil and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible!”
The King is dead, long live the King.
The Aussies may be onto something rather obvious and definitely important. Why shouldn’t a city/nation do some forward thinking about hosting the Games and approach the IOC with a “deal too good to ignore”? Well, it’s been done. Look no farther than LA 2028 (disclaimer, I worked on that bid, too).
Using that template, Queensland 2032, and note it is not a city but a region just like the hyphenated Candidates of 2026, has everything to win and nothing to lose by telling the IOC “we don’t care about the process or the timing, we want 2032 and here’s what we can offer you right now”.
Bold. Logical. Prudent. Everything the IOC needs to really, and this time I mean really, make Olympic Agenda 2020 (by 2032 it will be 12 years on) and the “New Norm” the transformative change the IOC set out to achieve.
Water finds its own level and the Candidate City process may have found its own level as well.
What if the “new” Candidate City process isn’t a process at all? What if word has gotten out that the IOC will entertain a bid from any city at any time if that city provides something bold, logical, prudent and a tangible lasting legacy to the Host City/Region/Nation. What if the IOC really does somehow evolve the “Games Guarantee”, not letting it revert to a financial one, as it did for 2026?
That may be exactly what is unfolding in front of our eyes. Or not.
But I am an optimist. I believe there are great cities and nations who do believe, as I do, in the power of the Olympic Games to positively change the world. By the way, most bid cities past and present do believe this – that’s not the issue – the issue is they generally had no idea how to do it efficiently, affordably, and in a way that mitigated risk for the IOC.
I also believe there is certainly more than one city/nation which is figuring out how to host the Games efficiently, affordably, and with the greatest of care and justice to the Olympic brand.
The key for the IOC to make this happen is to slow down, listen carefully, and take the turn.
What A Difference Seven Years Can Make
Seven years ago, PyeongChang and Munich (and to a lesser degree, sorry, Annecy) were in a pitched battle to win the 2018 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.
It was a heated race in some aspects, but also one tempered by an aura of friendship and respect. It had none of the nastiness or pettiness that began to creep into latter Olympic bid campaigns.
I do recall (I worked for PyeongChang) it being a challenging campaign to work on. We were the underdogs…a long shot. At the beginning, I wondered, more than once, if the Koreans had learned anything from their two consecutive losses in the 2010 (to Vancouver) and 2014 (to Sochi) Winter Games campaigns.
It turns out they did learn a lot and adjusted course and strategy for 2018. You can read about that campaign here. But that’s not what this post is about.
This post is about how the Olympic spirit really works.
I’m headed over to PyeongChang in a week or so for the last half of the Games. I can’t wait to see what it looks like now after all these years. I have many friends there already, and everyone is writing to me, raving about the quality of the venues and the genuine hospitality of the Korean people. I hate to say, "we told you so..."
What is interesting to me now is looking at the smiling, happy photos of IOC President Thomas Bach in PyeongChang this week.
It’s interesting because President Bach was the head of the PyeongChang bid’s number one competitor: Munich 2018. And looking back on it, I think that his presence and influence on that campaign is the number one reason for my thoughts up in paragraph two of this post.
IOC President Bach inspecting PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Village - Olympic.org
Munich 2018 conducted a great campaign. I have said many, many times, Munich 2018 was Olympic Agenda 2020 before Olympic Agenda 2020 was cool. But it was more than the technical aspects of Munich 2018 that made it a great bid, it was the bid's leadership's desire to compete fairly and with honor and grace. They achieved that.
Korean NOC (then) President Y. S. Park and IOC Member Thomas Bach, Togo, June 2011
Although Bach was not the IOC president during the 2009-2011 campaign for the 2018 Winter Games, he certainly knew how to comport himself as one. A student of the Movement, an accomplished attorney, a worldly figure in IOC politics, and a Gold medalist to boot; he was (and still is) a man to be reckoned with.
If I’ve learned one thing over the 25 years working in the Olympic Movement, it is this: Olympians hate to lose. And President Bach hated losing the 2018 Winter Games. It was palatable in the aftermath.
So, seeing the pleasant photographs of him in PyeongChang, I cannot help but wonder if he is thinking “this could be happening in Munich right now…”. Honestly, he would not be human if he were not thinking that, at least once.
But here’s the thing. I believe that he believes in the power of the Olympic Games. I believe that he understands that PyeongChang 2018 has given him and the Movement, almost by accident, a new proof point on the power of Olympism thanks to the (some would say “opportunistic”) participation of North Korea.
We can debate North Korea’s motivation forever. We will know soon enough and by the way, what’s the point?
The media have to be pleased to have something interesting beyond the Games to cover.
The fans have to be happy to see something different and new – and unexpected.
The athletes have a new, historic twist on their own Olympic legacies to tell for the rest of their lives.
The IOC has to be happy that the Games are being held up as an instrument of peace and reconciliation in one of the most dangerous locations - and times - in history.
And the Korean people’s hearts will burst with pride and emotion in ways we can never truly understand.
Elvis Costello once wrote, "What's So Funny About Peace, Love, and Understanding?" It's a fair question. I loved Elvis by the way; he was never a big star in America, though.
Perhaps somewhere down deep in his heart, President Bach might whimsically think about walking around Munich 2018’s proposed Olympic Village this week; he's entitled to it but I doubt very much that he will dwell on it. I know that once he – or indeed anyone – gets onsite at an Olympic Games, the magic takes over and the world seems fresh and new, if only for 17 days.
Go ahead cynical friends, roll your eyes about now at my Olympic naiveté - but people will be talking about, writing about, and loving the Olympic Games long after you and I are gone. I guarantee it.
Seven years ago, Thomas Bach was heartbroken; I get that becuase I know how it feels to lose an Olympic bid, too.
Yet now, seven years later, I can only imagine the pride that he and his fellow IOC members must feel as the world turns its attention, finally, to the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic & Paralympic Winter Games – for all the right reasons.
During the bid, our tagline “New Horizons” had nothing to do (on purpose) with the reconciliation of the Korean people. The moral of that story? Keep on believing, but stay flexible.
Funny what a difference seven years can make.
The Irrefutable, Undeniable, Irresistible Logic of “Yes”
©2018
Much has been written in this space and a multitude of others concerning the state of Olympic bidding, and it seems as if we are approaching a confluence of many factors; some are opportunities, and some are challenges.
I’m in the business of creating and telling stories, but I also love numbers. Do you know why? Because they don’t lie – but we’ll get to that in a minute.
The new IOC mantra, called Olympic Agenda 2020, is a set of forty reforms aimed at modernizing and strengthening the Olympic Movement, Games and brand. One of the reforms targets improving the Olympic bidding process because, as in the words of IOC President Thomas Bach, it “produces too many losers.”
I always found that an odd turn of phrase given there can only be one winner in an Olympic bid campaign. But that’s taking the man literally, and I’m sure that’s not how he meant it. I think he meant that since the 2020 Games campaign (roughly), bid cities started dropping like flies before they ever got to the finish line.
So, I believe this is what he meant by “losers”: these great cities lost out on their chance of hosting the Games...not that they are “losers”. An unfortunate phrase, but in all fairness, the phrase probably began in his mind in his native language, German, and came out in English.
Let's look back just a few years for some context.
In the 2020 Campaign, Rome, with an excellent bid, dropped out at the last minute (our fingers were literally poised on the button to give the go ahead to deliver our beautiful Application File to Lausanne when we got the call to stop...heartbreaking) because the new government said Italy could not afford the Games.
In the 2022 campaign, Oslo (low public support), Stockholm (low political support), Krakow (referendum), L’viv (Ukrainian crisis) dropped out.
In the 2024/28 Campaign, Hamburg (referendum), Boston (low public opinion), Rome (low government support), and Budapest (referendum) dropped out.
That’s quite a list of great cities whose people or governments decided, “No thanks, Olympics.”
So, where to begin?
Well, at first the IOC decided the real problem with the process was the cost of bidding for an Olympic Games. Those of us in this business tried to point out that the cost of bidding, while an issue that certainly needed reviewing, was actually pennies on the dollar and wasn’t the core issue for these cities saying “no”. The real issue is and has always been the cost of hosting the Games.
To put it bluntly, it's comparing millions of dollars (bidding) with billions of dollars (hosting). That’s right, millions versus billions.
Now, however, I believe the IOC is on track addressing the core issues. The new Candidature Process (bidding process) is attempting to take aim at lowering the costs of hosting a Games (and yes, they’re still trying to lower the cost of bidding as well - as they should).
It’s a new attitude. It’s a new focus on fiscal prudence, sustainability, and maximizing the use of existing or temporary venues - no more “Cathedrals in the Desert” to borrow a phrase (I think it’s more elegant than “White Elephants”).
I believe the IOC will get there. Why? Because they have to. Humans can accomplish amazing things when left with no other choice.
I’ve always said the IOC should approach their bidding process from a brand perspective; their brand, The Olympic Brand. By that I mean they should treat the awarding of their great celebration of humanity in a logical, targeted, and dare I say it - businesslike manner.
They should ask themselves where do we want the Games to be in the next twenty years (five cycles of Games) to best meet our objectives as an organization (and yes, this calculus does include revenue because it has to), and to best deliver on the values of Olympism?
I will say that for all the criticism, sending the Games to Sochi and Rio was the right idea, but perhaps under the wrong circumstances. But that was then.
A new model like the one I proposed is very different from the beauty pageants of the past, which led to an arms race in Games expenditures (which Bid Cities over-promised, the IFs encouraged, and the IOC voted for), which led to what economists call the “point of diminishing returns” as it pertains to hosting an Olympic Games for many Western democracies. And here we are.
Which leads me to a core issue beyond the data, spreadsheets, P&Ls, and ROI discussions.
It leads me to the central question: Who really wants the Games?
Are there any cities out there confident enough, professional enough and informed enough to understand and accept the undertaking of bidding for and hosting a Games?
I know one that is, and it currently enjoys over 80% public approval to host the Games. And, it wants the Winter Games, a brand in need of a friend if there ever was one.
The city I’m referring to is Salt Lake City (and no, before you ask or assume...I do not work for them). They've done it before (in 2002) and they did it exceptionally well.
Two issues affect the delivery and legacy of an Olympic Games: geopolitical and economic risk.
So how does Salt Lake City stack up?
- They want it and they can do it cheaper and as well or better than anyone before.
- They can do it in a stable, open democracy with a free and muscular press.
- They can do it in the world’s largest consumer market.
- They can do it in a city that’s a poster child for a successful (and provable) Winter Games legacy. And,
- They can do it in a city that is practically begging for the Winter Games at a time when the IOC needs everything that I just described above.
But, timing is everything, isn’t it? Here’s the dilemma.
LA was just awarded the 2028 Games in an ideal compromise with the IOC, the USOC, and Paris 2024. A good deal for everyone (and yes, I did work for LA 2028).
Now we’re entering the first phase of the 2026 Winter Games Candidature Process. And once again, it's proving a bit interesting.
Two European cities, Stockholm and Sion have committed or expressed interest (we’re in the new “dialogue” phase, where a city can now walk away and not be a “loser”). Innsbruck was in, then out with a referendum in October of 2017. Now, two other Austrian cities, Graz and Schladming, are working on a "financial plan" to be presented in March, then a feasibility study and an infrastructural plan in June. Schladming Mayor Jurgen Winter said no referendum would be held. Sounds hopeful; great food and beer in Austria, and a beautiful, traditional Alpine setting is just what the Winter Games need.
Sapporo is in (which, if it won, would mean the 2008, 2018, 2020, 2022 and 2026 Games would be in Asia...but who’s counting?). Calgary is probably close to committing after an IOC visit there last week.
Where is this all leading? To a single phrase: public support for the Games.
European bid cities haven’t fared very well in obtaining public support for recent bids; one hopes that both Sion and Stockholm can avoid this. Actually, I don't think it's that hard. All I will say is that people in these cities and nations still love the Winter Games...the Games themselves aren't the issue.
Calgary? Who knows, maybe. The people of Calgary fondly (and rightly) remember their 1988 Winter Games, but things have changed. There isn't a lot of infrastructure from those Games that's still viable - and there are a lot more events now to build for.
Sapporo...it doesn’t matter, if Japan wants Sapporo to bid, they’ll do it.
And maybe, my old clients from Almaty, who came within four votes of hosting the 2022 Winter Games, are standing by quietly, watching and waiting for another chance. I don't know.
Salt Lake City has publicly stated that they are interested in bidding for 2030, but if no current 2026 Candidate City survives, or does but isn't "viable", Salt Lake would happily take 2026.
The obvious sticky issue here is how Salt Lake 2026 would impact LA 2028's marketing and revenue plans. But I also remember a time when a dual award of 2024 and 2028 seemed crazy, and when the thought of an eleven-year OCOG seemed nonsensical. But arguments were made, deals were cut, logic prevailed, risk was mitigated, and the collective upside for all was celebrated. It happened, and the world kept turning.
If the IOC wants to hedge its bets like it did with Paris 2024 and LA 2028, how does it construct a similar scenario for 2026/2030? Does it even want to? Do members want to give up another chance to vote for a Host City? I have no idea.
People much smarter than me are already pondering this. And there’s a lot to ponder, such as the USOC’s publicly stated preference for 2030 because of LA 2028. And in the end, it's the USOC (and to an extent, LA 2028) that holds the cards in this discussion. I get that - I really do.
But I also lived through the 2024/2028 bid process and it proved one thing to me: it’s not “business as usual” anymore in Lausanne. And that’s a good thing.
It means that there are deals to be made but you have to be in the Game to make them. All it takes is imagination, accommodation, and some courage; well, maybe a lot of courage. But just look at Paris 2024 and LA 2028; the Movement proved it has an ample supply of all three.
I’d start with a city that says “yes”.
The Heart of the Matter - Lessons From the Base of the Olympic Pyramid
With the PyeongChang 2018 Games around the corner, it's easy to forget the Olympians and Paralympians that you will see are mostly young kids with big dreams and little resources to get there, to the podium. I joined the Board of Directors of USA Luge in August 2014, in an attempt to give back to this Movement which has given me so much - and it was a humbling experience. Here were my thoughts after my first board meeting - the emotions are even stronger today.
Last weekend in beautiful Lake Placid, New York (Host City of the 1932 and 1980 Olympic Winter Games) I attended my first USA Luge Association Board Meeting as a newly minted volunteer Independent Board Member.
I’ve had the pleasure and honor to work within virtually every level of the Olympic Movement these past 20-plus years. So when offered, I jumped at the chance to work at the National Governing Body (National Federations for my non-USA friends) level of sport, as this is an area in which I have little-to-no experience. I realized quite quickly that this is where I should have started my Olympic journey many years ago.
Here is the most important lesson reinforced from the weekend: the Olympic Movement is a fragile, elegant and eternal dream knitted together by thousands of people who will never see the limelight, whose names will never be mentioned in a press release and who may never even attend a Games. They toil countless hours with very little resources, they will never sit in a T-3 car or complain about “important things” such receiving the desired Games Accreditation or gaining access to the IOC hotel (or lounge).
No, these are the people who constantly wage an exhausting, invisible, seemingly never-ending battle to keep the lights on and train the athletes at the local level.
This is the real Olympic Movement; the one you never see.
The Olympic mantra states that “Athletes are the heart of the Games”; that is correct, they truly are, and forever will be. But it is the organizations and the people working within them at the bottom rung of the Olympic pyramid, at the National Federation level, who represent the Olympic Movement’s soul.
As I sat through a day of meetings focused on the long-term survival of Luge in the United States (remember, Olympic sports in the USA receive no government funding), I was surrounded by no fewer than four Olympic medalists and World Cup champions.
Each of these people was giving their time, energy and yes their hearts and souls to the cause of the sport they loved and that changed their lives. Was there a “prima donna” among them? No. Were they living or relying on past accomplishments or success? No. Was anyone taking credit for anyone else’s work or accomplishments? No.
Was I moved? Yes – beyond words, actually.
Admittedly, my own Olympic experience has been a charmed one and I am very thankful for it. But this past weekend in tiny, humble, yet magnificent Lake Placid did more to open my eyes to the beauty and magnificence of the Olympic ideal than any gold medal finish or Opening or Closing Ceremony I’ve ever witnessed. Why? Because I saw sacrifice, desire, honor, persistence and that grandest English noun of all – hope – manifest right before my eyes.
I have no idea where my volunteer Luge odyssey will end or what it will accomplish, but I can tell you this: working alongside these good, honest people who view their sport through the lens of love instead of personal gain is exactly what I needed to see, hear and feel.
So, the next time you receive that inevitable call or email request to donate a few dollars to grass-roots sports, dig deep my friends, dig very deep; for without a solid financial foundation at its core (and you would be very surprised at how much impact just a few dollars can make), future Olympic podiums will be absent of the young men and women who inspire us with wonder, who make us cry with pride and who challenge us all to be better than we really are.
Good luck to all the Olympians and Paralympians in PyeongChang 2018, and a special prayer of good wishes good luck, and thanks to the USA Luge team.
What About 2026?
NB: This is an updated post from 2014 when the 2022 Winter Games race began to fall apart. For 2022, I worked for L'viv until Ukraine fell apart, literally, and then for Almaty where we got very cost to "keeping it real."
With only 30% voter turnout, 70% of the Polish voters say “no” to the 2022 Winter Games. Krakow 2022 withdraws from the race.
Frantisek Chmelar, chair of the Slovak Olympic Committee blamed the costs involved in staging this year’s Games in Sochi and problems with preparations to host the 2016 Games in Rio de Janeiro, saying: “In people’s minds, there probably was the negative role of the widely broadcast huge expenditures in Sochi, as well as the known difficulties accompanying the preparations for the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio.”
“Probably?”
Why is this “news” to anyone? In my blog post from January of this year, “The Olympic Brand Challenge”, written before the Sochi Games I (along with many, many others) cautioned that the ongoing problems (both real and perceived) surrounding the build-up to Sochi and Rio were spreading rock salt on the Olympic bidding landscape, killing the seedlings of the Olympic forest.
President Bach’s new “Olympic Agenda 2020” has a working group pertaining to Olympic bidding. For sure, one item that will be discussed is the cost of bidding. I understand that and it seems an obvious place to begin, but the cost of bidding is not what is keeping cities away; it is the perceived cost of the Games, dubious legacy planning and the image of the IOC itself.
Recently (while in Norway), President Bach started to punch back with a few key messages about Sochi’s actual cost as it pertains to the Games budget, not the overall cost for everything else. It was a good start to begin framing the argument, but the problem is that opponents of the Games have years of examples of waste (again, some real, some not) to use as fodder, whereas the Movement has very little solid data on the positive impact, economic or otherwise, of hosting an Olympic Games.
As we think about “fixing” the problem we need to understand exactly what it is we are trying to “fix”. I would humbly suggest the following as starting points for the Bidding Study Group:
1. “Where do we want the Games to be and why?” I believe that the IOC has entered a new era of brand stewardship and the bid process can no longer just be a “game of chance.” In the past prior to the global economic meltdown, there were plenty of potential Bid Cities; now, not so much (in the 2022 campaign alone, Munich, Stockholm, Krakow have backed out –possibly Oslo soon and Lviv, Ukraine is a non-starter for obvious reasons).
I think the IOC should revise the bid process but not only on cost parameters. I believe that they must review and identify where and when they believe the Games should be held over the next four bid cycles. They should be reviewing a) where in the world the Games can help develop sport (such as emerging economies), b) where do the Games have to be every ten years or so to keep the brand relevant in the first-world economies and c) what is the true risk basis for each city and its bid.
They should then make a list of the cities/nations “most likely and most desirable for the Olympic brand to succeed”, and implement a long-term plan to assist those cities and nations to be prepared to bid when the time comes.
- This means fully engaging the public and private sectors early on in the process
- Teams of IOC experts, IOC members, and former OCOG executives should visit the potential bid cities with advice, encouragement and above all, facts about bidding for and hosting the Games
- This means laying the groundwork by helping create a rational, long-term venue development (use of existing facilities, more temporary facilities, only new facilities as a last resort) plan tied to their city’s long-term municipal or regional planning.
- This means implementing a communications plan foundation around the potential bid to illustrate the “what’s in it for me” rationale to the general population and local, regional and federal governments.
- This means engaging the National Olympic Committees to be part of this process and every National Federation.
- This means making International Federations a working partner in the process. To be honest, and I’ve been there, in the past many IFs placed inordinate demands and expectations on Bid Cities.
And Bid Cities being Bid Cities have no choice but to try and comply in order to attempt to obtain votes. This process is upside down and it leads to ever-increasing and often illogical venue commitments.
I understand that many IFs want gleaming new, state-of-the-art venues at every Games, but that is just not sustainable and in the end, it is not good for sport because it inevitably leads to White Elephants, which scares away future potential Bid Cities.
NB - From 2015-2017 I worked for LA 2028 in the most recent bid cycle and now IFs are participating in the process...I wish I could say the problem evaporated...it didn't in my opinion.
2. The IOC has to take control of the image and reputation of the Olympic brand. The Games are too complex, too expensive and too subject to geopolitical machinations for the brand to be left in the hands of amateurs (Organizing Committees) every two years. They need help. As a current example, PyeongChang 2018 won the Winter Games in Durban in July 2011 – they almost disappeared for seven years.
The IOC should send in a team of experts in Games Operations, Communications, Marketing and Sponsorship to help new OCOGs (not the Coordination Commission; they need a real Olympic Games SWAT team on the ground 24/7 until it is working). The IOC cannot leave “success” up to a group of people who have never done it before – and only in seven short years. And, I mean “success” in a context that is far beyond the 17-day hosting of the Games.
3. The IOC can no longer afford to say “sport was great, so the Games were a success”. It’s more complex than that. Many more variables are now at play. Look at Sochi, for example. The venues were perfect and sport on the field of play was successful by virtually any measure. But in the end, what did the negative reports cost the Olympic brand? Well for starters, we know negative media reports around Sochi & Rio (again, real or imagined) have cost us two, possibly three European first-world capitals as bid cities. We cannot hide behind the shield of sports success as the sole arbiter of an Olympic Games’ effectiveness. The Games have to make sense for local communities.
A thriving and healthy Organizing Committee preparing for the Games creates a positive media environment and help stimulate interest in hosting the Games instead of fear of hosting the Games.
Today I read that there are seven potential US cities now ”interested” in bidding on the 2024 Olympic Games. If that is true, it is great news. But I am mindful of President Bach’s statements from November 2013, only six months ago – he was “delighted” that twice as many cities submitted initial bids for 2022 than the 2018 Winter Games – and he was correct to be delighted. He stated, “These cities and their supporters clearly understand the benefits that hosting the Games can have and the long lasting legacy that a Games can bring to a region”.
Well, apparently a few changed their minds about the benefits but they sure understood the perceived risks. Only Beijing and Almaty made it to Kuala Lumpur.
What difference six months can make.
Author's note January 2018: five great 2024 Candidate Cities dwindled down to two, Los Angeles and Paris. The Movement dodged a bullet.
Now, what about 2026? Well, it has to begin with tangible, provable, positive facts for the Candidate Cities' citizenry, and a great, moving, and emotional story for the Olympic Movement. It should be interesting.