New York City, London, Paris, Madrid, and Moscow are the five cities that made the final cut to host the 2012 Summer Games. New York & Madrid have never hosted the Games, London had them in 1908 and 1948, Paris in 1900 and 1924, and Moscow in 1980. The cities that didn't make the cut are Havana, Istanbul, Leipzig, and Rio de Janeiro.

~Adam

Seeing Rio on the cut list piqued my curiosity . . . I couldn't recall any South American cities ever hosting the games, winter or summer. I looked it up (my knowledge of the locales only goes back to the 60's), and in fact South America has not hosted a single Olympics in the now 114 years since the modern games were established. (Mexico City, boys and girls, is in North America, if any of you were thinking along those lines).

Anyone have any idea why that is? I would think that Rio, Lima and Buenos Aires would all make fabulous locales.

I know it would be hard to host winter games in South America, as the seasons there are reversed, and you'd have to hold them in June or July. But then again, since the winter and summer games are no longer in the same year, even that should be doable.

And the tropical latitudes of Rio and Lima would insure that the summer games could be held there even during the traditional Northerh Hemisphere summer months (and I don't think BA, even though non-tropical, gets too extreme for outdoor sports in its winter months of July and August).

I suppose in the early part of the 20th century, most of South America was too underdeveloped to pull it off, and the military reigns of terror in the 70's and 80's were probably a turn-off (although the Soviets hosted in '80), but now I would think at least the cities I've mentioned would be ripe for it.

Actually, the economic feasibility of those SA countries hosting the Olympics is still questionable. Even a country such as, say...Greece is having difficulty with the modern need for security at this level of international competition, so a country less developed would have more difficulty, IMHO. frown

No South American city has ever hosted an Olympics. There are various reasons, with the region's history of military dictatorships and unstable economies probably being the main two that kept the Games away. The political reasons aren't there any more, but the economic concerns still exist. Another possible explanation is that to lots of people outside the western hemisphere, and to the IOC in particular, North and South America are really "the Americas". Almost all of my European friends consider us part of the same continent as South America.

As for the 2012 picks... here are the order I'd put them in:

1. London - last hosted in 1948, Britain is way overdue and London is a great city
2. Paris - has not hosted since 1924 (France last hosted the Winter Games in 1992)
3. New York - after the Atlanta fiasco, the SLC bribery scandal, and Vancouver's hosting of the 2010 Winter Games, NYC will have better luck after some time has passed
4. Moscow - only beats out Madrid b/c many in the west missed out in '80.
5. Madrid - Barcelona hosted in '92, no need to return to Spain when other cities are more deserving.

My 2 cents.

Right now the early front runner is supposedly Paris. They failed on their 1992 and 2008 attempts to get the Olympics. Paris has hosted overwhelmingly successful major events including the 1998 World Cup and the 2003 World Track and Field Championships. With the Summer Games being held in Asia in 2008 and Winter Games being held in North America in 2010, the IOC is going to be looking at Europe again. The decision to award the 2010 games to Vancouver has seriously damaged the chances of fellow North American cities, New York and Toronto (who finished second for 2008), of getting the games until 2016. I would love to see New York host the Olympics, but I have a feeling that they are going to have to wait an extra 4 years.

[ May 18, 2004, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Cattledog ]

I think Buenos Aires can be a viable contender for the Games in 4 - 8 years, once Argentina has emerged from its short-term economic chaos, and the Dirty War and los desaparesidos are a bit further in the past. Also, Santiago, Chile could be a viable contender now - the city is absolutely beautiful, it feels very European, there is now a stable democracy, and while I don't know all the economic statistics it certainly is one of the stronger economies in South America.

As for 2012, we won't get it for all the reasons mentioned, although New York is the only major world city that has not been awarded a Games. I'd love to see the Olympics come to Manhattan, but we certainly don't need a billion dollar-plus stadium on prime waterfront land. We have three stadiums in a forty-five minute mass transit ride from Times Square, and that should suffice. If it doesn't, well.....

Brazil and South Africa seem to have similar gross economic statistics. Wonder if a successful Soccer World Cup in SA will encourage voters to take a risk on Brazil for an Olympics sooner.

The Cup seems to be a less elitist event and probably costs less, but the complexity and overall popularity - outside the US of course - might form some basis for comparison.

Brasilia was one of the finalists for the 1984 Games (staged here in los Angeles) and La Paz was a finalist in 1992 (hosted by Barcelona.) Doesn't mean the IOC took their presentations seriously or ever gave the possibilty of sending the Games to either city, but they were included.

~Adam

Of the South American cities mentioned here, I think Munson Man's suggestion of Santiago probably makes the most sense, given Chile's economic stability and higher per capita income as compared to Brazil and Argentina. I wouldn't rule out Buenos Aires or Rio, but I'm not so sure about Lima, as mentioned by Skiguy. Besides the fact that Peru is not one of the wealthier countries in South America, Lima has a high crime rate and is shrouded in fog about eight months of the year. I was surprised to read Adam's post about La Paz...I didn't know it was a finalist for the 1992 Summer Olympics. Not only is Bolivia among the poorer nations on the continent, but La Paz is much smaller than the other cities and I should think its very high altitude could be detrimental for the athletes.

The seasonal differences in South America are not really a major factor. July and August are perhaps a bit too cool for Santiago or Buenos Aires (daytime average temp is about 14C/58F), but if the Olympics were delayed until September or October (as was the case in Sydney in 2000), weather conditions would be close to ideal. In fact, back in 1956 the Summer Olympics were held in late November and early December in Melbourne, the only other time the Games have been held in the southern hemisphere. However, that late in the year might cause a lot of disruption for athletes in their training schedules.

A few people mentioned that New York's bid for the 2012 Summer Games could be jeopardized by the fact that Vancouver is hosting the 2010 Winter Games. But there certainly have been cases in the recent past where the same continent has hosted back-to-back Olympics (eg, Los Angeles '84--Calgary '88; Albertville '92--Barcelona '92--Lillehamer '94). I read last week that if New York is awarded the '12 Games, the Jets will finally have a stadium to call their own.

IIRC, didn't S. Korea come surprisingly close to getting the 2010 games? I think it got more votes than Salzburg. If it had won, that would have meant back-to-back games in east Asia: China in 2008, Korea in 2010. Apparently there are plenty of people in the IOC who don't view that as a problem.

Much as I would love to see the games in South America, I don't think I'll live to see it. They've gotten so expensive that they seem to be limited to a few corners of the world: US, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, Japan, Korea & China.

In my opinion, and as much as I'd love to have it where I would have a great opportunity of going, I think it would be absolute hell to have the games in NY.

I think London and Paris would be good locations. Paris has great facilities and some other creative ideas (including beach volleyball on the grounds of the Eiffel Tower).

In the hopes of broadening the the possible host nations for the Olympics, Kenya has announced it will make a bid to host the 2016 Summer Games. This is the first time any African nation will make such a bid.

~Adam

Hasn't Cape Town put in bids to host an Olympics?

I also thought South Africa had put in a bid for the Olympics awhile ago, and a quick search showed that indeed Cape Town had bid to host the 2004 Games. Although Kenya is tourist-friendly, and a little better-off than some African countries, it is still one of the poorest nations in the world, where the life expectancy is just 45 years old. I can't imagine Kenya being able to afford such a massive undertaking as the Olympics, and it would be morally wrong when so many of its people live in extreme poverty.

Sorry, guys. I was citing a report in the Los Angeles Daily News, and though Kenya has, indeed, announced it will submit a bid for 2016, the rest of their information was incorrect. I should have double-checked it with a more reliable source (the Daily News has incorrectly spelled the last name of USC QB Matt Leinert as Leinart on more than one occasion) so I should have taken all information there with a grain of salt.

~Adam

[ January 14, 2005, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Adam ]

this should be interesting. since it was just in Europe, then Asia its probably due to come back to the Americas, eh? NY would be tough from a security standpoint though I guess.

Perspective, Olympics are viewed together, both summer and winter, when determining locations.

The next winter Olympics is in Italy and then the next is in Vancuver. So the Olympics are coming to N. American before 2012. As for NY, it's really not thought to be very much in the running, Paris is the favorite and London is up there too. NY's plan is a disaster waiting to happen and like you said, security costs out the wazoo.

Mick Jagger and Elton John support London.

NYC's biggest problem is no plan for a stadium despite Bloomberg's best wishes. Without at least some commitment from NYC of at least a solid location the IOC is probably going to have a hard time seriously considering it when you have both Paris and London with solid plans.

I give the bid to Paris with the most sound bid. If the IOC is going for flash, then I'd give it to London.

In a new poll, New Yorkers favor the Olympic bid but NOT the new stadium that would be needed. The site that is up for grabs has had bids much higher than the amount the Jets have offered in order to build the stadium. Seems to me it would be fiscally irresponsible to take $100 million for the land when you can get $700 million.

[ March 04, 2005, 07:26 AM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

As RBear said, if there are questions surrounding the bid (and questions over the actual Olympic Stadium are pretty major) when there are 2 other very capable cities with support and backing, it's going to be hard for NYC to get the Olympics.

But of course I'd hate to sound anti-American like Lance Armstrong.

The city hosting 2012 is going to be announced in only a few hours -- Wednesday at around 7:30 a.m. EST.

My pick: France hosts a second Olympics in 20 years (after Albertville's wonderful 1992 Winter Olympics).

Agreed -- my money is on Paris.

I hope Paris gets it just cause it seems like they've tried so hard and listened to everything they have been told to do. They're due anyways.

Plus, if you look at the many times in recent history (Lake Placid 1980, Los Angeles 1984, Atlanta 1996, Salt Lake City 2002), I think that really works against New York getting a chance. Just as Barcelona in 1992 works against Madrid's chances. Allez Paris!

JACQUES CHIRAC is a f**kin moron! After his idiotic, inappropriate, and undiplomatic slap at the UK and Finland (Finland?), I hope France does NOT get the dirty Olympics. f**k 'em.

Irrespective of Chirac's blunder Paris still has the best bid. You can watch the selection process live at the IOC session in Singapore (click on the live feed).

London is the only city that really has a competitive bid to the Paris bid and all odds have them neck and neck. London has really come forward in the past few months to mount a challenge to Paris, who has the most technically sound of the bids. The dual cluster is a very innovative idea for the Olympics, providing an easy method to arrange transportation.

The biggest challenge will be Paris' constant struggle with labor disputes, as evidenced by the transportation workers during the IOC site visit. But that is so unpredictable it is unclear if it will factor into the vote.

NYC is up next so we'll see how well they can rearrange their bid with the stadium issue.

[ July 05, 2005, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: RBear78240 ]

If London hosted the Olympics, would Wimbledon host the tennis tournament? wink LMAO

[ July 05, 2005, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: kick ]

New York's offer for sport development with each of the NOCs and ISFs is some new and interesting. It's something to consider for even the Gay Games, albeit in development of sports within cities (the equivalent of NOCs) and sport leagues (the equivalent of ISFs). Bringing a collective expertise to help foster and develop sports within the movement can only be good.

Even though NYC had a good presentation the stadium question still lingers. Bloomberg had to address it in his presentation which shows that it remains an issue. The clustering of venues is not as good as what is available in Paris.

NYC may have kept itself above Madrid and Moscow but it is definitely not of the caliber of Paris or London.

Time to go to bed and get up tomorrow in the morning to see who won. My bet is still Paris but I would be pleasantly shocked if London gets it. Either would be great.

And the winner is ... LONDON.

London's efforts in the last few months have paid off. London will host the 2012 Olympics. I knew they had really improved their bid through some changes and improved transportation plans.

London also brings a deeper media market with it, something critics said might sway the IOC towards their bid.

In the end I would say the Commonwealth vote might have sealed it for London.

Sorry for Paris after so many tries. I would hope they would bid again but probably the soonest they could see the games would be 2020 or 2024 (most likely). 2020 is being evaluated for an African continental Olympics.

[ July 06, 2005, 05:00 AM: Message edited by: RBear78240 ]

Wow...I am shocked...and disappointed. Hopefully, William will be King by then.

[ July 06, 2005, 06:23 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

I am totally shocked, but not disappointed. France has the climate and topography to bid on winter games, and Britain cannot. If Britain is ever to host the games again, it would need to be a summer games. Also, the upgrades to London's transport system will be a lasting legacy to the games. I trust that the IOC made the right decision, all factors considered.

A disappointment for Paris, bridesmaids in 3 recent bids. Toronto was a bridesmaid in 2 recent bids... and after a while you have to just throw in the towel.

I think London will be a big success. A good choice for the English-speaking market, also the timelines should be good for North American audiences: afternoon events can be televised in the morning, evening events in the afternoon, recaps at night.

Wow, the vote for the 2012 city has to have been one of the most volatile votes I've ever seen. Apparently Madrid took the lead on the second vote. The first vote was neck and neck.

My bet is that when NYC was eliminated, the Carribean Commonwealth vote went to London for the third ballot.

In a London / Paris vote on the fourth round, I should think that France having hosted the Winter games in '92 while the UK hasn't staged a games since '48 would have played some part. It's a city v. city contest but other considerations must play some part. I'm sure Paris will win out eventually.

The French will blame Chirac, who just recently insulted the British (again) and the Finns. Must have been those Finnish votes that tipped the balance.

It's always possible that London just had the better proposal.

I'm not that familiar with the voting process but it appears the total number of votes increases each round: round one, total votes 97, round two 100, three 103 and four 104. Were there people voting for other candidates during early rounds, or abstaining?

[ July 06, 2005, 06:41 AM: Message edited by: Torgauer ]

Perhaps the Commonwealth vote did go in favor of the London bid, but you forget that there is also a group of countries known as La Francophonie which repesents the former French empire and other French influenced countries that presumably lined up behind the Paris bid. Anyway I think we can all look forward to an excellent Olympics in London in 2012. Book now.

Found the answer to my question:

"About 100 IOC members will be eligible to vote in the first round of balloting. The current IOC president, members from potential host countries on the ballot (France has 4 members and 3 attending, United States has 3, Russia has 3, UK has 3 and Spain has 2) and absentee members are not eligible to vote (there are 116 total members available to vote – at least 1 has already confirmed his absence)."

HA HA, good for that piece of shit Chirac!! sorry felt the need to say that. Glad London got it.

I don't think France would 'settle' for a winter Olympics bid. The Summer games is very much more prestigiuos.

This just shows the difference in true patriotism and enthusiasm between several countries, including the U.S. The U.S population pretty much didn't give a crap - well they would probably say they were strongly for the NYC bid, but wouldn't do a thing about it. The U.S. was pretty much the only one that didn't send a national figure to the final presentation week. If you saw when the announcement, French people that were gathered to watch the announcement showed a lot of emotion when they weren't picked.

A lot of us watching the bid process starting with the US Candidate City thought the NYC bid was a flawed bid to start with. SF had a much better plan but the NYC sentiment kicked in and we ended up with Bloomberg's folly (aka the stadium).

Hopefully the USOC will learn from this and make sure a city truly has a plan and not a bunch of political promises to boost someone's ego.

On another speculation note, there is now a question about the 2011 Pan American Games. San Antonio was denied it in deference to Rio but was promised 2011 by PASO should the USOC put San Antonio up as candidate city. The USOC was holding that offer until the announcement of the 2012 games to see if NYC would lose out. They didn't want to host two international games in consecutive years.

There is speculation that Mexico will push for 2011 or that Houston will push for US Candidate City to show the IOC they can host a multi-national, multi-sport competition, much like what Rio is doing in 2007. The IOC has started to examine more factors in their selection process than the infamous "gift vote."

I hope Texas doesn't end up with any international competitions. Geez, the Lone Star ego will be going thru the roof...you have to live here to know what I'm talking about.

I was strongly rooting for Paris since I went there last year. Ah well. I'm glad London got it because I love that city too. If Paris couldn't get it, I'm glad another European city did. I just wanted to see hunky pole vaulter Jean Galfione run through the streets of Paris with the Olympic flame on his way to their stadium! Heck, they still have 2016 and 2020. Congratulations London!

I was happy that London got the games since they (the UK) haven't hosted an Olympics in quite some time.

England is one place I really want to visit someday, so I'm pleased that London was selected. It'll serve as incentive if I haven't made it over there before 2012.

I'm not surprised London got it. The heavy favourite (in this case Paris), often does not win. And London really had gotten their act together over the last few months and supports for their efforts kept growing. I was over in London in early May and you could not go anywhere without seeing London 2012 billboards, ads on busses, in newspapers - everywhere!

And I agree I'm sure Chirac did not help Paris with his idiotic comments. Plus Blair probably gained some points for London by flying to Singapore to support the bid even though he immediately had to turn around to HOST the G8 meetings starting tonight.

Pat

Joe- Good luck on that trip. England is already a pricey trip with the exchange rate (of course that could obviously change by 2012), and the Olympics will only drive up prices! I'd start saving now...

Yes, London is very expensive, almost prohibitively so. It's been years since I was there, but was in Scotland more recently, and was just shocked by the prices. A good pint is easliy over 8 dollars. of course you just have to forget all that and enjoy your stay. But the pockets drain quickly and the VISA bill at the end of the month ain't a pretty one.

Apparently the politics of the vote really got interesting. It appears that in the last votes the head of the IAAF switched from Paris to London.

Also, the Finnish votes were decidedly for London after Chirac's blundering comments.

There was also some comments about three missing votes in the final round. Even with those three Paris would not have passed the 50% + 1 required to win the vote.

I think the core of London's win was based in the love affair of the IOC with Lord Seb Coe. His charisma and the overall demonstration of love for sport helped carry London to the win.

Judging from the various video presentations, London's stole my heart. We launched a similar video for San Antonio's bid for the Pan Am Games portraying everyday people in athletic activities around the city. Ours differed from London's in that we incorporated a torch relay through the city showcasing the venues. It ended with David Robinson walking into the hall with the torch. The other difference - London won, we didn't but that's politics for you.

[QUOTE}If London hosted the Olympics, would Wimbledon host the tennis tournament? LMAO[/QUOTE]>>

Yes, of course. Where else would they put it? It's already an international standard facility, and it's in London.

Philly in 2024! Or 2028! Well, maybe. wink