Boston out as possible 2024 Olympic host, but LA interested

Good for Bean Town! Common sense, and fiscal sense prevailed.

Come off it. Los Angeles has already hosted two Olympics. So has Lake Placid. And Atlanta had the games recently (1990?)

Time for a break from America. Why not somewhere interesting like Iceland or Mongolia?

Maybe they should have a interesting location like Havana or Mogadishu. They both have nice beaches.

It'd be interesting to see what happens when every major city wises up and starts boycotting the Olympics. Ah, one can only dream...

The fact that the city would have to guarantee any cost overruns pretty much says it all. There wouldn't be any if this were a true moneymaker. For once Boston counted their beans correctly.

Let North Korea take the healm.

@lucabrasi - Atlanta was 1996. I had made a trip home from Japan, and have a faint memory of watching coverage of the bombing that had occurred during the games.

California has the 8th largest economy in the world. It recently surpassed Italy and Russia and Brazil is next. It has the most Fortune 500 companies in the US, it leads the US in technology, agriculture, and manufacturing, and a GDP of 2.2 trillion dollars. And California's economy is growing faster than the US economy.

That's the good.

The bad, California has the second highest unemployment in the US, nearly two dozen cities (as large as Stockton and San Bernandino) have either declared bankruptcy or are in dire financial situations, and California is going dry. Abysmal snowpack and below-average reservoir levels could exacerbate the overpumping of already depleted groundwater reserves. Californians are the highest taxed and in a recent survey, California was voted the worst state to do business with because of “quality of living” factors including the quality of public education, health, cost of living, crime and housing affordability.

Oh, and California has the largest debt in the US, 778 billion dollars by some estimates and has the worst traffic in the US.

In short, there's a lot right and a lot wrong in California. Fix what's wrong and don't bother with the money pit of the Olympics.

Thanks, Kurobune, of course. There weren't any Olympics in 1990....

America and NBC alone pay for a about a fifth of the Olympics, and they haven't even hosted the games or seriously competed to host the games. There are 22 other international broadcasters out there and they don't even come close to the 700-800 million dollars NBC pays for TV rights.

Without NBC's TV money, 50-60% of the IOC's entire broadcast revenue, the IOC couldn't operate. The US TV money amounts more than tickets, concessions, licensing, sponsorship.

What the dollars and sense shows is that without American money, the IOC couldn't get the games they want. So giving the games to the US wouldn't be such a blasphemous act to get the 2024 Games, 22 years after the last Olympics held in the US. Plus, it makes more sense to give the games to a country like the US, one that obviously has the money.

Of course though I'm against the US having the games or any country carrying the games without the obvious cash rich IOC paying for a bulk of it. They're making money hand over fist and doling out little of it for the games themselves.

@harvey

Surely if the IOC awarded the games to the States on account of the money it receives from NBC, that would be a straightforward case of bribery?

I'd like to see all participating countries pay into a central fund which could be used to pay for the games wherever they're held. That way poorer countries would be in with a chance.

Olympics are a money loser. They should pay us not us to them

Time for a break from America. Why not somewhere interesting like Iceland or Mongolia?

Break from America? Nearly 20 years have passed, and while Iceland sounds interesting for a summer games who is going to fit the bill?

I think no city in any country should bid anymore, this process puts too many places into debt and leaves huge facilities in their path that just suck public funds and are wasted.

The Olympics should be more realistic with the cost. They should follow the example from the 1984 Olympic that was held in Los Angeles. L.A. didn't build new areas or stadium. They used all the existing sports facilities and used the college dormitory housing for most of the athletes to keep the cost down.

Hi @lucabrasi,

What would the point be of giving a poorer country the Olympics? If it's a poor country, obviously they don't have the facilities, the infrastructure, the ideal civic leaders to even handle something the size of the Olympics. Poorer countries can never benefit from having the games and rich countries can only just not lose as much to handle the games.

My point is, host countries and the IOC should handle the games together, not just one or the other fit the entire bill. Makes no sense. And a poorer country can't fit any bill and any facility or structure built for them by the IOC for example would be a complete waste once the games are gone.

@harvey

I wasn't thinking of completely messed-up countries, more of places like,say, Peru or Kenya or Cambodia. I'd have thought they'd all benefit and put on a decent show.

Lucky Boston.

Not CA but LA is interested? That area has many large stadiums Olympic can rent. In summer no rain. Many sport fans and Oceans. The area include Orange County.

Seriously don't want to sound anti-American, but they've had four Olympics out of twenty-five. That's a lot. If you include Montreal and Mexico City, that's six in North America. Out of twenty-five. Too many. Time for east Europe, north Africa and south-east Asia to have a chance. Pay for it with a mutual fund.

Too many in America: I agree. Are there any city in the world that either have or willing to create stadium?

Berlin, Paris, Istanbul, Warsaw, Zurich, Vienna, Budapest, plus another dozen or more, just in Europe. Forget about almost all of the Middle East, almost all of Africa, almost all of South America, unless you want to hold the Summer Olympics in a dangerous environment or in Winter weather. Use the Los Angeles model that sfjp330 mentions above - every city has the facilities (maybe with the exception of media infrastructure and mass transit) to host the events and house the athletes. Build a media center and bring in a fleet of electric buses, and you're good to go.

Take the Olympics back to being a gathering of athletes, not a profit (and loss) center.

We shouldn't be allowed to host any Olympics if our government debt to GDP ratio is over 50%. Nor should holding the Olympics cripple a nation's economy. That would instantly improve both the validity and viability of any bid.

LA is not US Gvmt. Not even CA Gvmt. If it wants it will invite if no competition but it might have Orange County as competitor,

"Academics have long argued that hosting the Olympics isn't a wise financial investment. The economic effect is consistently overstated, the cost almost always exceeds the original budget, and the venues used for niche sports instantly lose their functionality the minute the games are over."

source: http://www.businessinsider.com/olympics-entering-new-era-of-host-cities-2015-7#ixzz3hJkR8cpW

The seventeen days of sport saddles host cities and citizens with fiscally unsustainable venues and lingering debt. The enthusiasm of Olympic fever breaks after the closing ceremony. The Olympics then become a financial case of herpes whose virus supports wild speculation at the start and a dormant debt that takes decades to retire. Good on Boston for avoiding a hot date with debt.

@JohnBecker

Take the Olympics back to being a gathering of athletes

I'd go one step further. The ancient Greek Olympics was largely a gathering of warriors demonstrating their proficiency at the skills necessary to keep their cities from being destroyed. The closest thing to the spirit of the original Olympics would be modern day Special Forces competitions. The infrastructure requirements for these competitions are significantly lower than the ridiculously extravagant spectacles we have now. The training of the "athletes" is already being paid for by the various national militaries. And they are interesting because the contestants have dangerous, exciting real-world jobs beyond just "getting paid to play a physically demanding game for no reason".

Imagine news feeds like: "The Olympic team from Japan had their training interrupted because they were rescuing Japanese hostages from Somali pirates."

or "The US Olympic team's roster has changed after 2 members on loan from Delta Force were injured during a HALO drop into the Islamic State. They've since been replaced with 2 men from Seal Team Six. Last Olympics the US took the Gold medal in HALO jumps but only the Bronze in the rigid-hull inflatable boat race, so the addition of Navy Seals is expected to make them more competitive in this event."