2018: The Test for Big Cities

An undercurrent of the race for the 2018 bid cities that I don't think is really being discussed is the comparison between big cities and smaller villages as Winter Olympic hosts. Before the 2000's, the Winter Olympics were mainly focused on small mountain communities (Albertville, Lillehammer, Lake Placid) with a few exceptions (Calgary, Sapporo). Starting with Salt Lake, the Olympic hosts were metropolises that got bigger and bigger. Vancouver will be the most populous host of the Winter Olympics yet.

The 2018 bids place a large city (Munich with 5M in the metro area) against less populous regions (Annecy and Pyeongchang- each with about 50k residents). While the construction of the bids and quality of presentation and messaging will play a large role, the size and infrastructure of each candidate may help or harm it.

The 2018 race will be a vote of confidence for how well the larger cities handled the games and how well the IOC felt that the larger cities reflected the Olympic brand, environment, and culture. Smaller cities can be more comprehensively and intimately involved in the Olympic experience, but might lack the efficiency of a Vancouver, Denver, or Munich. Once the politics have been sifted through and analyzed, there should definitely be a message to future hosts of what the IOC is looking for in the next few bids.

No Loyalty from Event Holders

It seems that there is less and less respect for host cities from events rights-holders.

The USGP does not exist anymore because the Indianapolis Motor Speedway didn't want to kowtow to Bernie Ecclestone and pay $30mil every year after spending hundreds of millions on the track. So places like Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and China now host Formula 1 races but the "Racing Capital of the World" doesn't. Even though car manufacturers (at the time the largest sponsors and team owners) wanted two races in the US. Spa-Francorchamps, one of the most storied tracks on the calendar, was left off a couple times in the past decade. Silverstone, the vaunted host of the British Grand Prix consistently since 1950 (Britain is arguably the capital of Formula 1), almost lost their slot to Donington Park.

Melbourne is spending $336mil to refurbish their tennis complex so that they keep the Australian Open instead of it going to Sydney. Melbourne has hosted the Open for over 20 years.

Is it so easy no to up and move such an established event as a Grand Slam? Isn't Melbourne itself an integral part of the brand of the Australian Open? The city is famous for its love of sport and the Open viewed as perhaps the most accessible of all of the Grand Slam tournaments. Indianapolis had the largest attendance of any Formula 1 race for most of the years there was a race there.

What message is there to possible host cities if rights holders only go for those who are willing to pay for the short term benefits? Is there no establishment anymore?

The IOC's Obsession with Youth

Has anybody noticed how obsessed the IOC is with capturing the attention of youth? Recently in Copenhagen, they held a Congress (a pretty big deal in the Olympic Movement), and some of the biggest topics of conversation were social media, and youth in sport.

The IOC seems to have this huge fear that in 40 years, nobody will care about the Olympics anymore. That everyone will watch skateboarding instead of track and field or swimming. That the Olympic Movement will be lost in a sea of tweets and MySpace.

I wonder if they really have a grasp of the real public, and real youth. Last year, everybody stopped to watch Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt. Including high schoolers. Why is there such a fear of irrelevance? If the IOC keeps the programme rolling, if Olympic Solidarity creates storylines, and if sports like Rugby and Golf (new to the programme, but still traditional sports) take off, the Olympics will do just fine.

The Rio Precedent

Welcome to my blog. Here I'll discuss things that I'm interested in professionally- namely: The Olympic Movement (bids, planning, etc. for the Games and other major events), Economic Development, Ski Resort Development, Airlines, and other Marketing trends.

My first post involves what I'll call the "Rio Precedent." When the IOC selected Rio De Janeiro over Tokyo, Madrid, and Chicago two weeks ago, I wasn't upset. I think it is a bold move that sets in motion the IOC's intentions to move to new locations. South America has never hosted (nor has Africa), Brazil has a top 10 economy (by some measures), and Rio definitely has cultural draw. It also has great potential for developmental impacts and legacies from hosting the Games.

What I wonder about, though, is the sort of precedent that Rio 2016 might set. Some are predicting that the 2020 Games will go to a much "safer" candidate than Rio. Jacques Rogge acknowledged that the "big money" was in Chicago. But the vote for 2020 comes in 2013, 3 years before Rio has a chance to execute. The vote for 2024, however, will be decided in 2017. If Rio is even marginally successful, will the IOC take up a self-imposed mandate to develop cities and regions?

Make no joke about it, the IOC is not as neutral or apolitical as it likes to purport. If Rio is a success, will the IOC look to Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia as destinations? I think there is a danger here for developed, western cities here. Chicago, Madrid, and Tokyo have great cultural and sporting environments. They also have relatively stable and established economies. With Rio's selection, does its success apply a "so what" factor to major, developed cities in "wealthy" nations? Why bother with a city like Toronto when there's the option of Cape Town?

I'm not saying that this shift in priorities and criteria is good or bad. If this is the direction the IOC chooses to go, though, it definitely changes the game.