International Olympic Committee numbers

[Jim3k]

First, as an American I regret Chicago's losing the bid. But I do like the Rio site. Could be a lot of fun.

I know there's a lot of talk about Chicago's loss. But Nate Silver clearly demonstrates that the IOC's numbers favoring an American site never added up in the first place. Fivethirtyeight. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/disband-ioc.html) The US only had two members on the committee, less than 2% of of its membership of 108. Starting right there, I think it's clear the US was behind the 8-ball.

Beyond that, Europe has 43%, Asia 21% and Africa 15%. And South America has never hosted an Olympics. Does anyone realistically think any American city was in the running?

I didn't think so.

Silver has lots more to say, but I think this is the most important observation.

[hurleyfor3]

I'm glad we didn't get it. Richard Daley is not exactly the person you want presenting to the IOC. Maybe now people will finally vote for someone else for mayor.

[OldPhiKap]

I'm glad we didn't get it. Richard Daley is not exactly the person you want presenting to the IOC. Maybe now people will finally vote for someone else for mayor.

He'll carry the cemetery ward for another 20 years.

[hurleyfor3]

He'll carry the cemetery ward for another 20 years.

Yeah, this was one vote he couldn't rig.

[hc5duke]

no offense to any chicagoans, but chicago being eliminated first seemed like a no-brainer. when i saw the four finalists, my first thought was "which one of these does not belong" - chicago is a very unexciting city compared to the other three options. i never understood how it was (wrongly) thought to be a front-runner, at least according to the articles I read yesterday and this morning before the announcements.

somewhat related question: didn't it used to be a rule where the same continent cannot host two consecutive olympics? i was very confused by madrid's candidacy, as london is hosting the 2012 olympics. or do the winter olympics count in the consecutive picks thing? actually, just looked it up and the 2014 winter games is in russia, so that's not it either... am i imagining things or did that used to be a rule?

[Bluedog]

no offense to any chicagoans, but chicago being eliminated first seemed like a no-brainer. when i saw the four finalists, my first thought was "which one of these does not belong" - chicago is a very unexciting city compared to the other three options. i never understood how it was (wrongly) thought to be a front-runner, at least according to the articles I read yesterday and this morning before the announcements.

I don't think "excitement" is necessarily the key criteria for the olympic committee. Infrastructure and money seem to be more important. Although I agree it certainly plays a role as Rio was the heart-inspired pick. But, I mean, Atlanta hosted in 1996. You think Atlanta is more exciting than Chicago? No, it's not.


somewhat related question: didn't it used to be a rule where the same continent cannot host two consecutive olympics? i was very confused by madrid's candidacy, as london is hosting the 2012 olympics. or do the winter olympics count in the consecutive picks thing? actually, just looked it up and the 2014 winter games is in russia, so that's not it either... am i imagining things or did that used to be a rule?

I don't think that was ever an official rule. Oddsmakers say the IOC doesn't like to choose the same continent over and over again, but it's an unspoken rule that might affect voting results as opposed to a hard rule that must be followed, as I understand it.

[Jim3k]

I'm glad we didn't get it. Richard Daley is not exactly the person you want presenting to the IOC. Maybe now people will finally vote for someone else for mayor.

I'm not sure what your point is here. You think Daley is corrupt? Certainly he's not as corrupt as the Salt Lake City Olympic efforts were. (Reminder from C&L (http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/olympic-flashback-2002-salt-lake-game)) And, of course, SLC prevailed and got the games.

Are you happy that Chicago lost out? And in doing so lost all of the economic benefits and jobs which would have come with it?

Frankly, I don't see why you are so happy about it.

[Cavlaw]

I'm pretty iritated by the cynics in Chicago who carry the negative attitude. The games would have been a huge boon to the city, and it is a shame that we did not win them.

[hurleyfor3]

I'm pretty iritated by the cynics in Chicago who carry the negative attitude. The games would have been a huge boon to the city, and it is a shame that we did not win them.

You're welcome.

[hurleyfor3]

I'm not sure what your point is here. You think Daley is corrupt? Certainly he's not as corrupt as the Salt Lake City Olympic efforts were. (Reminder from C&L (http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/olympic-flashback-2002-salt-lake-game)) And, of course, SLC prevailed and got the games.

All I'll say is it's funny what people in the other 49 states think qualifies as corruption.


Are you happy that Chicago lost out? And in doing so lost all of the economic benefits and jobs which would have come with it?

I'm thrilled my taxes won't be going up to pay for some two-week-long sporting event. I'm overjoyed the city can instead focus its resources on the myriad other problems facing it rather than worrying about the Olympics. I'm ecstatic we might actually get a new mayor in a few years. (Blago is gone and Stroger will be soon enough; Daley is the last man standing.)

This is getting public policy-esque and will prolly get shut down... but you did incite me.

[Shammrog]

It would have been great for Chicago, and Chicago is a very cool and exciting town. But, the taxpayers inevitably been screwed (Chicago, Illinois, and Federal) - to the tune of billions if not tens of billions of dollars. Best to blame this one on Rio.

[Shammrog]

I'm not sure what your point is here. You think Daley is corrupt? Certainly he's not as corrupt as the Salt Lake City Olympic efforts were. (Reminder from C&L (http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/olympic-flashback-2002-salt-lake-game)) And, of course, SLC prevailed and got the games.

Are you happy that Chicago lost out? And in doing so lost all of the economic benefits and jobs which would have come with it?

Frankly, I don't see why you are so happy about it.

I love how C&L labels it "Glen Beck's Mormon Church." Could we please be a little more blatantly partisan? Give me a break.

As for Romney, he in large part cleaned up the corruption/scandals that plagued the Salt Lake bid. And C&L knows this, which is why they lamely try to tar and feather him with the "scandal" of having the Olympic team carry a flag from the ruins of 9/11. Oh the horror...

[Cavlaw]

It would have been great for Chicago, and Chicago is a very cool and exciting town. But, the taxpayers inevitably been screwed (Chicago, Illinois, and Federal) - to the tune of billions if not tens of billions of dollars. Best to blame this one on Rio.
Except they wouldn't. Only the most negative projections estimate any need for taxpayer money. The package the city put together to pay for the games was solid.

C'est le vie.

[Indoor66]

Except they wouldn't. Only the most negative projections estimate any need for taxpayer money. The package the city put together to pay for the games was solid.

C'est le vie.

And I have some land available about 25 miles west of Miami - believe it is high and dry!

[Jim3k]

I love how C&L labels it "Glen Beck's Mormon Church." Could we please be a little more blatantly partisan? Give me a break.

As for Romney, he in large part cleaned up the corruption/scandals that plagued the Salt Lake bid. And C&L knows this, which is why they lamely try to tar and feather him with the "scandal" of having the Olympic team carry a flag from the ruins of 9/11. Oh the horror...

Way to pick up on their meaningless non sequitur jab and ignore the remaining factual stuff. I was not trying to be political here.

[Mal]

hc5, offense taken, thanks. What exactly is so "exciting" about Madrid, for instance, to your mind? Ignore the fact that it's inherently more interesting to us as American visitors due to its location, and it's mostly just another European capital. One in an up and coming economy, yes, but it's certainly not London or Frankfurt yet.

As a Chicagoan, I'm disappointed but not crushed. I think hurleyforthree's prediction of doom for Daley is way off base. He wanted this as a legacy, but he certainly didn't pin his electability on the Olympics. He was, however, undoubtedly not the most impressive point man for the bid. I also don't think the Chicago way of politics is on its last legs or anything.

And agreed with Cavlaw; having seen the numbers and a lot of the plan documents, it was solid, regardless of what the Reader might have been reporting.

Not at all a sour grapes thing, but hasn't anyone on the IOC seen "City of God?" The security effort for those Games will be monumental. Literally half of that city is like "Escape from New York."

[Shammrog]

Way to pick up on their meaningless non sequitur jab and ignore the remaining factual stuff. I was not trying to be political here.

The "remaining factual stuff" consisted of $1M in gifts made by Romney's predecessors to IOC members, an alleged $8M in loaned property and cash from the LDS church, and some 9/11 controversies. All of this is absolute trivia in relation to the corruption in Daley's Chicago.

As for the claim that no taxpayer money would be used - I cannot recall (with the possible exception of SLC) the last time that an Olympic games did not go billions of dollars over budget. Atlanta, Sydney, Beijing, Athens, London (already!) - hugely in the red...

BUT - to clarify and AGREE WITH MAL :-) - I think Chicago, corruption aside, is an incredibly cool and often underrated city. I would encourage anyone who hasn't been there to visit.

[Jim3k]

BUT - to clarify and AGREE WITH MAL :-) - I think Chicago, corruption aside, is an incredibly cool and often underrated city. I would encourage anyone who hasn't been there to visit.

So after all the backtracking you are doing here, why were you going along with the people who were glad Chicago lost out? I think it's too bad they did, but, as I said in the beginning, the US didn't have the numbers and has been an Olympic site many times. South America has not. So I am not all that concerned. But some are gleeful that Chicago lost. Seems a bit unpatriotic to be gleeful about it. Why join that group?

[BD80]

All I'll say is it's funny what people in the other 49 states think qualifies as corruption.

Here in Detroit we know corruption, and it sure ain't funny.

Our ex-mayor went to jail, and is still paying millions in restitution to the city.

His license to practice law was revoked, but he will be eligible to run for office again in a couple of years.

And he will be reelected mayor when he runs.

OK. Maybe that is a little bit funny, if you don't live in Detroit.


Getting a few thousand corpses to vote? Now that is funny.

[bdh21]

And he will be reelected mayor when he runs.

OK. Maybe that is a little bit funny, if you don't live in Detroit.



As a DC resident familiar with that sort of thing, I'd say that's pretty funny no matter where you are!

[Shammrog]

So after all the backtracking you are doing here, why were you going along with the people who were glad Chicago lost out? I think it's too bad they did, but, as I said in the beginning, the US didn't have the numbers and has been an Olympic site many times. South America has not. So I am not all that concerned. But some are gleeful that Chicago lost. Seems a bit unpatriotic to be gleeful about it. Why join that group?

What have I backtracked on? Not one single thing.

I am not "gleeful" that Chicago lost. But I think its a good thing for the country as a whole (and fiscally for Chicago). That notwithstanding, Chicago is a great city.

[YourLandlord]

I am not "gleeful" that Chicago lost. But I think its a good thing for the country as a whole (and fiscally for Chicago). That notwithstanding, Chicago is a great city.

I disagree. Hosting the Olympics is a wonderful thing for a country. The fiscal side might be risky, but actually hosting is good.

[allenmurray]

It would have been great for Chicago, and Chicago is a very cool and exciting town. But, the taxpayers inevitably been screwed (Chicago, Illinois, and Federal) - to the tune of billions if not tens of billions of dollars. Best to blame this one on Rio.

Should we end the olympics altogether? It costs a lot no matter where it is held. If everybody says it is too expensive . . . On the other hand the enormous cost of needed infrastructure is a good argument for a permanant site (or sites).

As a source of national pride hosting an olympics is a bit hard to put a price tag on. If one of the only real superpowers in the world wants to say, "we don't want it because it is too expensive" perhaps the world has outgrown Olympic games. :( Because if we can't do it is it realistic to think anyone can?

[InSpades]

Should we end the olympics altogether? It costs a lot no matter where it is held. If everybody says it is too expensive . . . On the other hand the enormous cost of needed infrastructure is a good argument for a permanant site (or sites).

As a source of national pride hosting an olympics is a bit hard to put a price tag on. If one of the only real superpowers in the world wants to say, "we don't want it because it is too expensive" perhaps the world has outgrown Olympic games. :( Because if we can't do it is it realistic to think anyone can?

I don't think it should ever come to that. The reason that Olympics lose money is because of grossly excessive expenses (the Bird's Nest?) or hosting where it shouldn't be held (Athens?). There are plenty of places where hosting an Olympics wouldn't require building so many new stadiums and whatnot. I remember when NYC was putting in an Olympic bid and there were so many projects attached to it that it would have cost a fortune. There's no reason the opening ceremonies couldn't have been held in Giants Stadium for example. It seems like people use the Olympics as an excuse to build things that aren't needed.

Also I don't think nations are really saying it is too expensive anyway. Maybe they should be saying it but they don't appear to be. Possibly they just need to be scaled back a bit. Every Olympics doesn't have to be bigger and better than the one before it.

[allenmurray]

I don't think it should ever come to that. The reason that Olympics lose money is because of grossly excessive expenses (the Bird's Nest?) or hosting where it shouldn't be held (Athens?). There are plenty of places where hosting an Olympics wouldn't require building so many new stadiums and whatnot. I remember when NYC was putting in an Olympic bid and there were so many projects attached to it that it would have cost a fortune. There's no reason the opening ceremonies couldn't have been held in Giants Stadium for example. It seems like people use the Olympics as an excuse to build things that aren't needed.

Also I don't think nations are really saying it is too expensive anyway. Maybe they should be saying it but they don't appear to be. Possibly they just need to be scaled back a bit. Every Olympics doesn't have to be bigger and better than the one before it.

I agree with you - I don't think it should or needs to end because of cost - but if folks here in the good old USofA are going to cite cost as a reason that the US shouldn't host, then that is the logical extension of their argument - if we can't afford it, who can?

I also agree that way too much building goes on. Chicago, NYC, LA, even a combined Washington DC/Baltimore could host with little new construction needed. They all have multiple professional stadiums already in place, a number of universities with large stadiums (that could be turned into housing during summer months), multiple airports, etc.

[blazindw]

Here in Detroit we know corruption, and it sure ain't funny.

Our ex-mayor went to jail, and is still paying millions in restitution to the city.

His license to practice law was revoked, but he will be eligible to run for office again in a couple of years.

And he will be reelected mayor when he runs.

OK. Maybe that is a little bit funny, if you don't live in Detroit.


Getting a few thousand corpses to vote? Now that is funny.

Kwame will not get re-elected again. He probably won't even move back to Detroit...he lives in Dallas right now and I doubt he returns. Even if he did, no way he gets re-elected...if he came back and ran, I would move home and run against him in a second.

[-jk]

Interesting article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/01/AR2009100103891_pf.html) in the Post yesterday, "Myths About Landing the Olympics" by Stefan Szymanski, "a professor of economics at the Cass Business School at City University London and the author, most recently, of Playbooks and Checkbooks: An Introduction to the Economics of Modern Sports."


[S]ince Los Angeles in 1984, there have been no cases where the Games can show a net profit.


It's hard not to be skeptical, though, about claims by any organization whose major sponsors are Coca-Cola and McDonald's that what it does is good for your health.

-jk

[AtlBluRew]

I have to disagree with those who assert that the Chicago taxpayers would have been left covering a loss. In Atlanta, with no government assistance and with government services (trash removal, police, police overtime, etc.) being paid for by the private organizing committee, we: retired the debt on the existing Atlanta/Fulton County Stadium, built a new stadium, built and/or refurbished athletic venues at high schools and universities throughout the city (and in Athens, GA), built and donated the Athletes Village to the state university system for use as dorms for Georgia Tech and Georgia State, and built a park that is now a hub of economic development (including being the site of the Georgia Aquarium and numerous hotel/condo buildings) ... and we made a profit. Granted, the profit was only in 5 figures and not the millions that were hoped for, but the Oympics were unquestionably a boon to Atlanta.

While the NBC and European broadcast contracts were the largest ever to date for the Atlanta Games, the current contracts are much larger still. It's my impression that Chicago's got more infrastructure in place that Atlanta did when it was awarded the Games. I would expect Chicago to turn a profit on the Games, and to reap economic rewards for years to come, as Atlanta has.

[Shammrog]

Should we end the olympics altogether? It costs a lot no matter where it is held. If everybody says it is too expensive . . . On the other hand the enormous cost of needed infrastructure is a good argument for a permanant site (or sites).

As a source of national pride hosting an olympics is a bit hard to put a price tag on. If one of the only real superpowers in the world wants to say, "we don't want it because it is too expensive" perhaps the world has outgrown Olympic games. :( Because if we can't do it is it realistic to think anyone can?

Noooo.... but given the state of our economy I think we might be best off getting our fiscal house in order before paying to host the Olympics. That's all I am saying.

[BD80]

Noooo.... but given the state of our economy I think we might be best off getting our fiscal house in order before paying to host the Olympics. That's all I am saying.

Will there still be Olympics in 2416?

[Indoor66]

Will there still be Olympics in 2416?

I doubt it. The ancients don't give us much beyond 2012.

[Shammrog]

Will there still be Olympics in 2416?

Yes, but you are an optimist if you think we'll have it together by then. :D

[allenmurray]

Yes, but you are an optimist if you think we'll have it together by then. :D

I'm always an optimist about my country. I remain convinced we can do great things. I've always been puzzled by the marriage of pessimism and patriotism by some.

[Shammrog]

I'm always an optimist about my country. I remain convinced we can do great things. I've always been puzzled by the marriage of pessimism and patriotism by some.

Like most anything, you have to take the bad with the good. And we haven't exactly been fiscally responsible... at any point in my lifetime.

[YourLandlord]

Like most anything, you have to take the bad with the good. And we haven't exactly been fiscally responsible... at any point in my lifetime.

This post will be deleted in 3...2...1...

[JBDuke]

Folks, I've deleted a number of posts in this thread that discuss the PPB and have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Let's keep this thread about Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics, the fiscal merits of hosting the Olympics, and other similarly related topics.

Thanks.

[throatybeard]

I'm particularly dismayed at some of the PPB usual suspects trying to turn this into a fight. For that reason, I haven't acted as a mod in this thread, but it really illustrates why we gave up on the PPB as a place that could be civil.

[allenmurray]

Folks, I've deleted a number of posts in this thread that discuss the PPB and have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Let's keep this thread about Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics, the fiscal merits of hosting the Olympics, and other similarly related topics.

Thanks.

Any debate about Chicago's bid for the Olympics will involve arguments about the appropriateness of our president traveling to present to the IOC, and thus will take a strong Public Policy direction. Any debate about the fiscal merits of hosting the Olympics will take a strong Public Policy turn very quickly because hosting any Olympics always will involve tax money. If you really want us to stay away from PPB material I suggest that the thread be closed. It s difficult to know where the new lines are, this one seems to actually be tempting folks to try to walk the tightrope.