Join Now
Why Chicago Olympic loss means absolutely nothing for US World Cup Bids
Posted 02 Oct 2009 at 01:22 PM by Aaron Stollar
Tags chicago, olympics, world cup bidding
Am I shocked that Chicago bombed out of the 2016 Olympic bidding? Not really.
Am I shocked that they bombed out in the first round of voting? Yes, quite a bit.
I should add that I have always been an enthusiast and supporter of the Olympics and, had I stayed a sportswriter, aimed towards someday covering the Olympics as a beat. So I've read and still read a lot about the games, the IOC and its politics.
That said, American soccer fans should not allow Chicago's defeat a moment's worry when it comes to the World Cup bidding process. Here why:
1. The IOC's politics are way more unpredictable and opaque than FIFA's. The IOC has all kinds of influences and stakeholders that might not be as obvious to observers as those within FIFA. Here are some examples.
FIFA's Confederations make for more bloc voting, which both corrupts and simplifies the process. Meaning when Jack Warner or Issa Hayatou promises their confederations' support, they not only mean it, but can get it done too. Have no doubts that CONCACAF will vote as a block (even Mexico) in favor of the US hosting a World Cup. The IOC and any alliances/blocs within it, tend to be harder to read. It's well known for example that FIFA chief Sepp Blatter's powerbase consists of CONCACAF, Asia and the Persian Gulf states especially. If Blatter says he favors "X," it's safer to assume that thus CONCACAF, AFC, and the Gulf States will go with him. Also, look and see where FIFA Goal Program funding is going. You can almost guarantee these countries will side with Blatter. This sounds paradoxical, but FIFA is so obviously corrupt it almost makes it more transparent.
Within the IOC, it's less clear and involves more figures "outside" the formal process. For example, I can guarantee you that both overtly and covertly, former IOC head JA Samaranch will have played a major role in pushing Madrid. Also, I suspect the fact that the IOC has yet to sell the rights to the 2016 games to a North American TV network (either NBC-Universal or ABC/ESPN) hurt Tokyo, whose distant timezone would lower the value of the rights. The unpredictability can wow even the most tuned in observers as evidenced by London's win over what appeared to many as the better bid from Paris.
2. Don't forget that it's nearly a completely different set of people voting for the World Cup. Out of the 90 or so people on the IOC, I only count two (Blatter, Hayatou) who will have anything official to do with the World Cup vote.
3. As bad as the USSF is, the USOC might be in even worse shape. This will be hard for people on here to believe, but the US Olympic Committee might be even worse run than US Soccer. Unlike USSF, the US Olympic committee has been hemorrhaging sponsors in recent years including General Motors, The Home Depot and Bank of America. The committee's leadership has been in flux throughout the late stages of the bid. That is unlikely be the case with the World Cup bid as Sunil Gulati appears secure and Chuck Blazer and his XXXXXXL pants don't appear to be going anywhere. Also, consider this, Former MLS commish Doug Logan is a major player within the USOC as the head of USA Track and Field. As we learned in the early years of MLS, that is no good thing. More than anything else, I suspect the IOC simply didn't want to risk working with a National Olympic Committee that didn't appear to have its managerial ducks in a row.
4. There might be more support amongst average Americans for hosting a World Cup than there was in Chicago for the Olympics. I was stunned to see how "blah" Chicago residents appeared to be about hosting the Olympics. Polls had supporters leading opponents by only two percentage points. I think for a number of reasons, that number amongst Americans would be quite a bit higher for a World Cup. It won't cost individual municipalities too much (police overtime comes to mind, though) to host the World Cup matches at (most crucially) the already built stadiums. Olympics games (especially Summer ones) are extraordinarily expensive ventures. A US World Cup, I don't think is. I don't think we'll see a opposition group nearly as well-organized or vocal to the World Cup as we saw against with Chicago.
5. Technically, a US World Cup bid is better than Chicago's Olympic bid could ever hope to be. Chicago's bid required the funding and construction of an Olympic Stadium, an aquatic center, and the Olympic Village amongst many other venues. A US World Cup bid won't require any of that. Our stadiums are built, and our hotel rooms are plentiful. One other thing that US Soccer won't have to worry about are legacy uses/costs, which are a huge part of bidding for an Olympics. No one has to worry about any of the prospective World Cup stadiums not being utilized once the soccer ends. Most of them will be full yet again just a month or so post-tournament when football season starts up again.
6. The passion will be there for the World Cup bid. Only a few minutes after Chicago's loss, we're hearing that Chicago's bid didn't have enough "passion" behind it. Well, I can see how that might be the case if you can barely muster a plurality of local support behind it. The World Cup bid is one of the ONLY things in American soccer that EVERYONE in the sport here supports wholeheartedly. It doesn't matter which faction of American soccer you participate in or which corner of American soccer fandom you reside in, you support the US getting a second World Cup. Even me, king of the cynics, is hugely excited at the thought of hosting a World Cup in the US.
I'll have more on this later as more of the fallout develops.
Am I shocked that they bombed out in the first round of voting? Yes, quite a bit.
I should add that I have always been an enthusiast and supporter of the Olympics and, had I stayed a sportswriter, aimed towards someday covering the Olympics as a beat. So I've read and still read a lot about the games, the IOC and its politics.
That said, American soccer fans should not allow Chicago's defeat a moment's worry when it comes to the World Cup bidding process. Here why:
1. The IOC's politics are way more unpredictable and opaque than FIFA's. The IOC has all kinds of influences and stakeholders that might not be as obvious to observers as those within FIFA. Here are some examples.
FIFA's Confederations make for more bloc voting, which both corrupts and simplifies the process. Meaning when Jack Warner or Issa Hayatou promises their confederations' support, they not only mean it, but can get it done too. Have no doubts that CONCACAF will vote as a block (even Mexico) in favor of the US hosting a World Cup. The IOC and any alliances/blocs within it, tend to be harder to read. It's well known for example that FIFA chief Sepp Blatter's powerbase consists of CONCACAF, Asia and the Persian Gulf states especially. If Blatter says he favors "X," it's safer to assume that thus CONCACAF, AFC, and the Gulf States will go with him. Also, look and see where FIFA Goal Program funding is going. You can almost guarantee these countries will side with Blatter. This sounds paradoxical, but FIFA is so obviously corrupt it almost makes it more transparent.
Within the IOC, it's less clear and involves more figures "outside" the formal process. For example, I can guarantee you that both overtly and covertly, former IOC head JA Samaranch will have played a major role in pushing Madrid. Also, I suspect the fact that the IOC has yet to sell the rights to the 2016 games to a North American TV network (either NBC-Universal or ABC/ESPN) hurt Tokyo, whose distant timezone would lower the value of the rights. The unpredictability can wow even the most tuned in observers as evidenced by London's win over what appeared to many as the better bid from Paris.
2. Don't forget that it's nearly a completely different set of people voting for the World Cup. Out of the 90 or so people on the IOC, I only count two (Blatter, Hayatou) who will have anything official to do with the World Cup vote.
3. As bad as the USSF is, the USOC might be in even worse shape. This will be hard for people on here to believe, but the US Olympic Committee might be even worse run than US Soccer. Unlike USSF, the US Olympic committee has been hemorrhaging sponsors in recent years including General Motors, The Home Depot and Bank of America. The committee's leadership has been in flux throughout the late stages of the bid. That is unlikely be the case with the World Cup bid as Sunil Gulati appears secure and Chuck Blazer and his XXXXXXL pants don't appear to be going anywhere. Also, consider this, Former MLS commish Doug Logan is a major player within the USOC as the head of USA Track and Field. As we learned in the early years of MLS, that is no good thing. More than anything else, I suspect the IOC simply didn't want to risk working with a National Olympic Committee that didn't appear to have its managerial ducks in a row.
4. There might be more support amongst average Americans for hosting a World Cup than there was in Chicago for the Olympics. I was stunned to see how "blah" Chicago residents appeared to be about hosting the Olympics. Polls had supporters leading opponents by only two percentage points. I think for a number of reasons, that number amongst Americans would be quite a bit higher for a World Cup. It won't cost individual municipalities too much (police overtime comes to mind, though) to host the World Cup matches at (most crucially) the already built stadiums. Olympics games (especially Summer ones) are extraordinarily expensive ventures. A US World Cup, I don't think is. I don't think we'll see a opposition group nearly as well-organized or vocal to the World Cup as we saw against with Chicago.
5. Technically, a US World Cup bid is better than Chicago's Olympic bid could ever hope to be. Chicago's bid required the funding and construction of an Olympic Stadium, an aquatic center, and the Olympic Village amongst many other venues. A US World Cup bid won't require any of that. Our stadiums are built, and our hotel rooms are plentiful. One other thing that US Soccer won't have to worry about are legacy uses/costs, which are a huge part of bidding for an Olympics. No one has to worry about any of the prospective World Cup stadiums not being utilized once the soccer ends. Most of them will be full yet again just a month or so post-tournament when football season starts up again.
6. The passion will be there for the World Cup bid. Only a few minutes after Chicago's loss, we're hearing that Chicago's bid didn't have enough "passion" behind it. Well, I can see how that might be the case if you can barely muster a plurality of local support behind it. The World Cup bid is one of the ONLY things in American soccer that EVERYONE in the sport here supports wholeheartedly. It doesn't matter which faction of American soccer you participate in or which corner of American soccer fandom you reside in, you support the US getting a second World Cup. Even me, king of the cynics, is hugely excited at the thought of hosting a World Cup in the US.
I'll have more on this later as more of the fallout develops.
Share
Post a Comment
Total Comments 28
Comments
-
Indeed. When its a city vs. city competition, there are no guarantees the American venue will come out on top. But for something like the World Cup, the size and quality of our stadiums is unparalled and our cities as a collection of 10-12probably beat any other country in the world. These bids are apples and oranges.Posted 02 Oct 2009 at 02:33 PM by Celtigo 
-
The US hosting a World Cup gives CONCACAF a default 4th automatic bid. The US gets in as host nation leaving us out of qualifying for the 3 auto slots.
Posted 02 Oct 2009 at 02:36 PM by Mullet&Talon 
-
All, good points and I do think the US has a very strong bid and chance of 18 or 22. Otoh, one factor in common between the two bids is the Cuba fiasco in the '06 World Baseball Classic. Although they were eventually permitted to play (after agreeing to donate their earnings to Katrina victims, money which the US government later confiscated!!) , the IOC indicated through its comments that it wasn't exactly impressed by the US's conduct. Throw in the fact that there is a strong perception in many parts of the world that the US has become a very uninviting country to gain entry to, and there are some headwinds that the US is up against too. Enough to sway a vote though? Probably not.
Posted 02 Oct 2009 at 03:28 PM by M
-
When I think of Olympic hopefuls, I think of what the beauty shots would look like when they are running billbaords on TV. It was a no-briainerPosted 02 Oct 2009 at 04:02 PM by John Jagou
-
Brazil gets to host the 2016 olympics and the the 2014 world Cup? What the hell?!Posted 02 Oct 2009 at 04:12 PM by Socrates_81
-
The US gets to host the 1996 Olympics and the 1994 World Cup? What the hell?!Quote:Originally Posted by GammaTec
Brazil gets to host the 2016 olympics and the the 2014 world Cup? What the hell?!Posted 02 Oct 2009 at 04:25 PM by M
-
Haha, I too was like WTF about Brazil's Olympic/World Cup tandem. Didn't even think about us in the 90's.
Good point!Posted 02 Oct 2009 at 04:42 PM by karlomarx
-
And we might still host the Olympics/WC again in 2020/2022.Posted 02 Oct 2009 at 05:05 PM by Stan Collins
-
I do think that barriers to entry present one of the bigger hurdles to the US hosting these tourneys. Every once in a while some bigwig wants to jet-set to the US and faces a long wait to get in, or gets that little something extra from airport security, and it causes a bunch of ill will.Quote:Originally Posted by M
All, good points and I do think the US has a very strong bid and chance of 18 or 22. Otoh, one factor in common between the two bids is the Cuba fiasco in the '06 World Baseball Classic. Although they were eventually permitted to play (after agreeing to donate their earnings to Katrina victims, money which the US government later confiscated!!) , the IOC indicated through its comments that it wasn't exactly impressed by the US's conduct. Throw in the fact that there is a strong perception in many parts of the world that the US has become a very uninviting country to gain entry to, and there are some headwinds that the US is up against too. Enough to sway a vote though? Probably not.
Posted 02 Oct 2009 at 05:06 PM by Stan Collins
-
Please don't allow the U.S to get the bid....the last time they held the world cup it was terrible.Posted 03 Oct 2009 at 09:32 AM by busbyboy74
|
Post a Comment
|
Total Trackbacks 0
