The IOC is voting tomorrow on which city will host the 2016 Summer Olympics. Madrid and Tokyo have the highest shortlist scores, but I wouldn’t bet on either of them. Tokyo’s already hosted one games and Madrid would mark the 2nd games in a row to be held in Western Europe. Chicago’s pulling out the big guns (the Obamas, Oprah, etc) and has great infrastructure, but Chicagoans don’t really seem care about the games. My money’s on Rio de Janeiro, the dark horse. Not only has it never hosted an Olympic games, no other South American country has. It would be only the third time the games have been hosted in the Southern Hemisphere and Rio’s climate will allow the games to be held in August (Sydney’s had to be held in Sept-Oct). It’s also in an ideal timezone for North American viewers to watch the games live (which will certainly please NBC).
Chicago will win. Time to give the US another chance to make up for Atlanta. Won’t be Tokyo, a bad time zone for NBC and Beijing is too recent. Won’t be Madrid with London hosting. Rio? Nope, the IOC won’t want another Mexico City debacle.
I would say either Rio or Chicago.
Chicago is pulling out the celebrites but I think that’ll backfire more than help. It looks like the rich nation using famous people to buy the games and the IOC has had enough of that. If Chicago does get it, it’ll be like “Well if we had famous celeb we could have gotten them”
Pros for Chicago are:
Had them once before and got them yanked out from under them
The Olympics in the USA tend to attract more money and publicity than other nations always a good thing
Chicago is certain to be able to pull them off, profit or not
Cons:
Most of the Olympic events are on the South Side which has a bad reputation worldwide. It will displace the poorest people. It already was listed for a reason for closing “Michael Reese Hospital” (It was 99% sure to close anyway but this killed any chance of making it sellable. Reese served the among the poor"
Too much power celebrities, smacks of effort and attempts to buy the Olympics. OK not through money but through fame.
I like Rio simply because it’d be a first for South America. The IOC is under intense pressure to allow games in developing nations and on continents and places they never have been held. It’s argued it’s not truly international. African and the Middle East also hold the same argument. But Africa is written off as not yet being able to finance it and the Middle East to the heat and women’s sports. (At least that was the major argument against holding them in Qatar, Bahrain or the UAE).
I read in Vegas the odds are
Rio: Chicago: Tokyo: Madrid
Madrid pulling it off would be a huge deal. Having already hosted in Barcelona in 92 but 24 years is a good bit of time. The real problem I see is having them in two EU countries in a row. (London in 2012)
Tokyo proved it can be done, but as always other Asian nations like India would perfer to get a shot before going to a country that already hosted them.
I think Rio or Chicago
Chicago is the strong betting favorite, with Rio the only serious challenger. The betters think Tokyo and Madrid are out of it.
Current odds:
Chicago 1.69
Rio 2.9
Madrid 10.5
Tokyo 34
Betting aside, I do think Chicago will get it, and as a Chicagoan, I think it’s great.
I’d bet on Rio personally.
A lot of times cities get it on their 2nd try, some people predict Rio will get it in 2020 after Chicago gets 2016. (Athens wanted 96 but got 04 is one recent example.)
I think it’ll be Rio just since Brazil’s overdue though Chicago won’t shock me.
My opinion is probably not very popular here with all Chicago dwellers around, but I would really like to see another country get it. The US has already hosted 4 summer olympics, and even 2 in my lifetime. I would like to see Rio get it, as South America hasn’t hosted a single olympics ever. It just makes no sense to host another in USA for a long time to come. There are so many other countries that deserve a chance.
Challenge Rio has is that it is a royal pain in the ass to get to from most of the world. Although I guess the time zones keep it in the America/Europe live time slots
It might be more popular than you think. Lots of Chicago-area residents, including yours truly, are hoping that we don’t get the Olympics. The Olympics will be a golden opportunity for Daley’s mobbed-up contractor buddies to get even richer than they already are, and for the already over-burdened (10% sales tax) taxpayers to get stuck with the tab for the inevitable cost overruns.
Go Rio!
Every four years or so I feel obligated to bring up the Dick Lamm option.
In the 70’s the rich idiots and politicians won the Winter Olympic bid for Colorado. One of the state legislators, Dick Lamm, was against it. He started a grass-roots campaign to convince people that we didn’t have, or want the infrastructure to handle it(at the time the plan was to drive everybody up from Denver to the western Slope ski areas every damn day over Loveland pass). Ultimately the people didn’t need much convincing, and rejected all public funding of the stupid thing, and pretty much said “If You rich asses want it, and plan to profit from it, then you pay for it.”
So it is possible to just not pay for it, regardless of what the public faces want.
I would love to see them in Chicago, but honestly I think it will/should go to Rio.
Can’t imagine it going to either of the other two cities for the reasons already mentioned.
This might be of interest if there’s anyone constantly refreshing webpages looking for an update.
From the wikipedia article:
“Members start voting at 5:10 p.m. (11:10 a.m. EDT). Voting finished by 5:40 p.m. (11:40 a.m. EDT). And the announcement ceremony is scheduled from 6:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. (12:30 p.m. to 1 p.m. EDT).”
I think it’s going to be Rio.
The IOC is bound to be impressed that Chicago is home to the SD.
Ok, seriously I think Chicago will win. Obama is wildly popular in Africa and I expect those contries to vote for Chi-town.
It makes for an interesting discussion who* should get it, but I always trust the bookies. They put their money where their mouth is!
*Chicago has the infrastructure and will attract the audience, whereas Rio has a high crime rate…
Last I heard, that had already been rammed home here, though I may not understand the whole complexities of the thing. The IOC had been concerned about the financing, overruns, etc., and last I heard the citizens will definitely be stuck with any extra bills. I’ll be glad to hear that I’m wrong, though.
Rio is the more attention-getting choice and Chicago is the safer choice. Tough call but I keep thinking they are going to go with Rio.
Chicago is out of the running, I’m afraid. Headline just ran on Bloomberg.
Looks like Chicago got bounced first. That’s rather surprising. I wonder how that played out in the IOC discussion.
Tokyo is out as well.