GB Newswire
Boston 2024 Olympic Games Backers Want State-Wide Referendum
By GBModerator,
March 24, 2015 in GB Newswire
Boston itself as a city was never a threat, and in voting Boston did not stand a chance against Paris. However, I think that If Boston drops the media will not report it as Boston dropping but instead they will report it as the USA dropping. When you say that the US doesn't even want the games you get an entirely different story then just a Beta US city dropping from a race.
The USA dropping is a more dramatic story to tell then Boston dropping, and if you think that the opposition groups in any of the other cities are not going to talk about a Boston drop in the context of the whole nation saying no to the games then you don't understand the tactics of those types of groups.
Just wanted to write more or less the same thing...the international story will not be "USOC's wrong choice dropped out of race", it will be "US bid fails because even Americans don't want Olympics anymore". That's pretty much a scenario the IOC cannot want, as false a perception as it may be.
It's a bit similar to what happened with Munich 2022: The No campaign here was heavily fuelled, not only by the Sochi gigantomania which in fact was a total contradiction to the far more sustainable Munich concept (talking about false perceptions...), but also by the earlier Swiss referendum. It was some sort of a domino effect.
And I don't believe for a split second that a Paris bid would survive if smart No campaigners used Boston as an argument, along with the current socio-economic climate in France, to create a momentum in polls that would be less supportive than it seems now. Same for Hamburg, btw.
This is not just about an internal wrong choice by USOC, it has potential effects for international bids as well.
Not to fear! We'll always have Baku-koo & Doha-hah, where pesky nay-Sayers & "no campaigners" just get shipped off with a one-way to ticket! lol :-D
Quaker2001 13 posts
zekekelso 7 posts
BR2028 9 posts
Nacre 8 posts
alphamale86
All of you make excellent points. I agree it would be humiliating to submit the bid then withdraw. The USOC and the Boston Organizing committee knew from jump that Boston didn't have local support for
At what point does the USOC realize this was a huge mistake? Why spend all the time and money and then have the bid sunk by a referendum the following year? Makes no sense whatsoever. Either the USO
Quaker2001
Location:NYC
If Boston 2024 falls apart, that'll be four games without a US bid. When's that happened before?
Location:near Seattle
Anyone with any knowledge of Olympic bidding is going to know that this is about Boston, not about the United States. The USOC is clearly eager to bid for 2024.
Can't you say the same thing about Norway's Olympic Committee and Oslo, though?
I think the reason so many people in the USA want the Olympics is that they still think the Los Angeles and Atlanta financing models are viable. At least my relatives in Los Angeles think so, which is why they supported LA 2024. As soon as people in Los Angeles realized they would have to pay billions of dollars in taxpayer money, I think that support would have evaporated.
And I think that's why the USOC picked Boston over Los Angeles. California has strict controls over taxation (which is why it almost went bankrupt) while MA/Boston's politicians were more accommodating to avoiding a referendum, stifling inter-government opposition, etc.
Edited March 29, 2015 by Nacre
baron-pierreIV
Nah. That probably wasn't even in the top 5 reasons why Boston was picked.
It's hard to see what else would have attracted them.
1) Boston has MUCH less in place for venues than Los Angeles. Even third tier cities like Minneapolis and Denver have more venues than Boston.
2) Los Angeles is planning to build new sports venues while Boston does not seem to be building new stuff.
3) Boston is much smaller than Los Angeles in both space and population.
4) Los Angeles has far more international prestige than Boston.
5) The public in Los Angeles was far more supportive of the bid than Boston when they made the decision.
The advantages for Boston seem to have been the first east coast summer games and better government support for the USOC vs Californian politicians.
woohooitsme83
Location:los angeles
Boston offered an "insurance" thingy to make sure that no taxpayer money would go to waste. So coupled with Boston's history, location, and brand, the USOC figured that Boston would be better. That's what I'd assume, at least.
zekekelso
Um, we have no idea what the support for an LA games would be.
Okay, see what you're both doing here? You're talking about how the story is going to be spun into something that's not as true to the original in order to try and make it more dramatic. I get the idea that perception can potentially take over here, but not with the people involved in these matters who are important. This sounds a lot like our Paris thread where we have a couple of French posters who kept trying to tell us the mood of their citizens based on what the media told them, but that they don't necessarily represent the whole.
If you want to argue what story will be reported, that's one thing. But Boston saying they don't want the games is not the same as the United States not wanting the games. And any story reporting as such is almost obligated to note that there were other cities who were interested and that the USOC chose Boston over them and that's their bad judgment rather than an overriding sentiment from the United States of rejection. You're right opposition groups might use that. So what. EVERY city has opposition, some stronger than others. I don't see groups like that in other cities (certainly outside the United States.. other American cities are a different story) suddenly being emboldened by that anymore than they already have been. Where those movements lose steam is when those in favor of a bid can offer up an argument in favor of bidding for an Olympics, and for those opposed to base their concerns on Boston isn't being true to the problems of their bid in this time and place.
Um, yea we do. And I'm betting the USOC has an idea. Do they have a concrete solid number where support lies? Maybe, maybe not. But to say we have no idea is a stupid claim to keep making, let alone when it's coming from you who told us more than once that LA was an obvious choice over Boston. If that's the case, why do you continue to question their support as if that was not a factor with your saying LA would be a better pick.
He (zekeke...or whatever-his-name is) keeps breeding lies and misstatements.
BR2028
Interests:Olympics
Well to me it does not look like Boston is going to avoid a referendum. Even worse, the referendum will be state wide which could cause the bid to loose its only strength (a dense venue plan). Now in order to win the referendum the venue plan will be spread around the state.
I think we both agree that Boston saying no is not the same as the US saying no, but the 'no' campaigns are not going to care. They are going to spin the story as the US saying no to the games because not only is it more dramatic, but I think that it would probably advance their case to certain extents depending on how the public is already feeling towards the city(s) bid.
However, do we have any polls from LA or anything similar that would give us a more concrete idea of what the support looked like.
Different circumstances there. Krakow is more similar to Boston in that it was a referendum and a lack of support from the people that did them in. With Oslo, it was about the government not wanting to support the effort and to me, that had a lot to do with not wanting to deal with the IOC, which isn't necessarily what is going on with Boston.
The reality of hosting an Olympics in the 21st Century falls somewhere between the success story that was the `84 Olympics and a scenario where you're saddled with billions of dollars in taxpayer debt. So I think that's where expectations need to be set. Part of the problem with the Boston organizers is that they keep promising that taxpayer money won't come into play and that the usual funding sources like TV and sponsorship revenue will take care of it. Unfortunately, no one is buying that (nor should they), so it's tough to support the effort, particularly when it's tough to talk about tangible benefits to the city of Boston. Los Angeles could pull it off better, so the cost/benefit element of their bid would probably work out a lot better.
I could certainly see these anti-Olympics groups gaining some steam that way. But still, to build their campaign based on a false narrative like that isn't going to get them very far. If I'm looking for inspiration, I'm getting it more from Krakow or Oslo. Those were bids that could have succeeded, particularly in Oslo's case (although that didn't get shut down via referendum). That was theirs to win and they said no when they were already well into the bid process.
Let's agree to disagree on this one. As much as you can point to the idea that "OMG, not even the United States wants the Olympics," the economics of an American Olympic bid are so different than they are elsewhere that could can't really draw a good comparison if you're another city bidding. That's why I think this could have implications here, but not so much elsewhere. Either way, to me this is still an isolated incident of the USOC picking the wrong city, and unlike the 2022 mess where we're left with 2 unattractive bids, that's not going to be the outcome of 2024
I still kind of wish the USOC would just say 'Peace' to Boston and either go to LA or just drop the bid.
You've said enough times you thought LA was the clear choice ahead of Boston. There are still a lot of unknowns with them, but if the question is what makes you think LA will have more support than Boston? Even though it's probably a moot point, for those here (yourself included) who thought that LA would be a better choice than Boston, certainly the fact they would have support was a big part of that assumption.
Nope. I had no clue what support would be in any of the four cities. I don't think anyone did. (If you think the USOC checked out support before picking Boston then they are even more moronic weasels that I imagined.)
I assumed LA would be the obvious choice based on international prestige and existing venues.
Location:France
That means Boston maybe will cancel its bid ?
It's not yet at that stage, Tulsa. But it might come to that in a few months if the pro numbers don't go up.
Always possible. But go back 4 years ago and find all the threads dooming the Tokyo 2020 bid for lack of public support.
Things change.
I can't see a scenario where Paris does not win this race, but there probably is a greater risk of each bid failing to gain support for each consecutive domino that falls in democratic countries. If even the sport crazed USA can't put forth a bid city in four consecutive races (two summer, two winter) what does that say about the current state of the Olympics?
If Boston, Hamburg and Paris all fail to move forward with a bid, the IOC would still be able to go somewhere like Morocco. But they would have to make real reforms, and not just something on paper. In the long run that's probably for the best. Not only for the western world, but also for the aspiring host cities in places like Egypt, India, etc.
Edited April 1, 2015 by Nacre
/\/\ It's regimes of the Samaranches, the Nebolos, the Blatters ... that allowed the excesses of the Olympics and the World Cups to spiral out of control. The new sports moguls like Bach and whomever Bladders's successor will be at FIFA should realize that their mindless sports spectacles aren't the top priority of a more socially-conscious world where there are GOING to be higher priorities than just glamorizing useless names like Usain Bolt, etc., who haven't really contributed anything of note to humanity.
I can see a scenario where Paris doesn't win.. the one where they don't bid in the first place. If they do bid, then yes I think they're the favorite, but again, it's April 1, 2015. We're well over 2 years before the vote. A lot can change in that time.
And yes, the United States is sport crazed. We have more sports than we know what to do with sometimes. Which makes this country not always the best option to host an Olympics. Think about New York.. there are 9 pro teams between the 4 major sports, not including a women's pro basketball team and 2 pro soccer teams. There's a grand slam tennis tournament and a triple crown horse race every year. Often the area gets a golf major. That's a lot going on throughout the calendar. So to throw an Olympics on top of all of that.. that's a lot to ask for.
That the United States didn't bid for 4 consecutive Olympics is not an issue of "can't" They CHOSE not to bid for an Olympics, in part because of revenue issues, but also because it hasn't been forever since the last time we hosted. That's where the catch-22 comes in where some think the United States has had its fair share of opportunities to host the Olympics, so the USOC shouldn't be so gung ho about bidding all the time. I know we expect this and maybe the United States' proportional share of TV dollars gives us reason to get away with that, but I wouldn't be so alarmed if the United States doesn't bid, particularly in a case like 2024 where maybe it's not the most opportune time.
No question it's not a good sign what's going on with Boston, but again, we're in this scenario because the USOC determined them to be the best of the lot amongst the United States candidates. Clearly they chose wrong. Who knows if another city would have been better off, but either way, I wouldn't look at this as an indictment against the "current state of the Olympics" like we did with the 2022 drop-outs. Oslo had the Olympics all but handed to them on a silver platter and they declined. That says a lot more about the situation than Boston's situation does, IMO.
places like ... India,
Ever heard of the debacle called CWG 2010 -- where they stiffed MANY of the foreign subcontractors? Think again.
I'm not saying that India will or should bid soon. My point is that an expensive Olympics is not a boon for developing countries looking to host either.
If I were an Indian who wanted to see Mumbai host the Olympics, I would still be hoping for the IOC to implement dramatic reforms. Same thing for Turkey, Algeria, the Philippines, etc. Those countries need a reduction in the cost and gigantism of the games just as much as the traditional western hosts. If not more so.
LatinXTC
Which is why I'm pretty much done participating in this Boston anxiety that everyone has that the bid will fall apart. Anything can happen between now and September when bids are completely submitted, and even then anything can happen from this September to 2017 when the final vote happens. As the race for the 2022 WOG has shown us, it is futile to get this concerned right now as anything can happen, and that bid right there everything did happen. All the European countries dropped down and the 2 least likely bids to even be shortlisted became the only 2 in the running for the race.
And anything could happen with the 2024 bid. Perhaps Paris doesn't fall through to put in a bid, perhaps Rome's bid becomes the mess that most people predict it will, and perhaps Hamburg's plan makes absolute no sense, or even public support dwindles down. Those Germans are a fickle-minded people and public support, like the Munich bid, could dwindle down the closer it is to the race, while American support for the bid has a great chance of increasing considering how easy it is to rile up people with American pride, even in a more liberal setting like a New England state.
If internet was advanced as it is today back in the late 80s can you imagine how much we would be bitching on the ridiculousness of an Atlanta bid? Yet that bid won, over global cities Melbourne, Athens, Toronto and Manchester! So yea, never count the US out in anything, except for becoming World Cup champions lol. NOT hosting the games, but winning them.
Why does everyone forget that Rome is bidding? I mean seriously the IOC can still go to a democratic country if Boston, Paris, and Hamburg do not bid.
Which is why I'm pretty much done participating in this Boston anxiety that everyone has that the bid will fall apart. Anything can happen between now and September when bids are completely submitted, and even then anything can happen from this September to 2017 when the final vote happens.
As the race for the 2022 WOG has shown us, it is futile to get this concerned right now as anything can happen, and that bid right there everything did happen. All the European countries dropped down and the 2 least likely bids to even be shortlisted became the only 2 in the running for the race.
Doesn't mean though, that there shouldn't be any need for concern. And I'm sure the USOC isn't taking this lightly with an "anything can still happen attitude between now & the vote". It could also still all blow up in their face (again [see New York 2012]) only a month or two before the vote.
Yeah, Tokyo 2020 was able to turn it around, but as you just illustrated with the 2022 race, Oslo - which did afterall PASS a referendum (& a set of Games that were virtually theirs for the taking), in the end still said hell NO.
Some people may be making a mountain outta a molehill for the time being. But I think the molehill warrants cause for concern, at the very least, & not just be blown off non-chalantly as if it'll all go away simply bcuz there's still 2-1/2 years away 'til the vote.
If internet was advanced as it is today back in the late 80s can you imagine how much we would be bitching on the ridiculousness of an Atlanta bid? Yet that bid won, over global cities Melbourne, Athens, Toronto and Manchester!
For starters, while Melbourne & Toronto are "global" cities, they're still no London, Paris or New York. As has been pointed out before, put Atlanta in the 2012 race instead, & there's no way in the world that they would've won. And Athens just wasn't ready for 1996. Heck, they were barely ready for 2004. And Manchester a "global city"?! Yeah, okay, whatever on that one.
Another major thing that's totally different between Atlanta then & Boston now, Atlanta wanted to put themselves on the global stage. They had the "little engine that could" syndrome. And they saw the Olympics as their coming out party. That, plus the success that LA 84 was & Atlanta selling themselves as a modern, progressive city where one of the greatest civil rights leaders resided, made them that much more appealing against they're competition.
On the contrary, what we have here with Boston is totally opposite. Many of the residents there don't view the Olympics as a "coming out" opportunity (Boston doesn't really need that, per se). They just view the Olympics as a money-sucking & resource draining endeavor. And quite frankly, if the Olympics were as gargantuan & mega-expensive back then as they have become today, Atlanta most likely would've said "fuggetdabutit", too!