On May 18 in Lausanne, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) will release their Candidature Acceptance Report that represents a technical evaluation of the 2012 bids based on their questionnaire responses and other data acquired by the IOC such as public opinion polls.
In the past, the IOC has set a benchmark score and they have short-listed each bid that surpasses this score, however they are not committed to this model. Additional bids may also be included at the discretion of the evaluation commission.
The IOC will announce the list of short-listed bids, and these bids will continue their campaigns and provide the IOC with full candidature files, or bid books, in November of this year. A final evaluation report will be published based on city visits and other information submitted and the evaluation commission will choose which bids to put on the final ballot in July, 2005.
This is how GamesBids.com rates the chances of each bid. The bids are color coded and ranked in confidence order.
GREEN = WILL BE ACCEPTED
AMBER = MAY OR MAY NOT BE SELECTED
RED = WILL NOT BE SELECTED
PARIS (GREEN)
Paris has a well-developed and feasible plan, lots of recent bid experience and recognition and has recently hosted top events such as the World Cup. The proposed use of many existing venues and a mix of temporary venues will show the IOC that Paris will limit the costs and associated risks of organizing the Games.
If the 2012 Games do belong in Europe, France offers a politically friendly choice. There is no doubt that Paris will present an excellent bid.
NEW YORK (GREEN)
While New York’s bid may be costly and politically challenged, the IOC will still want to take a closer look at it – and they won’t dare embarrass the nation that provides a huge share of their operating revenue.
There is no doubt that NYC will meet the requirements of a bid city or that they will have the means to prepare an excellent bid. The IOC will reap the rewards of the goodwill created by a New York bid and the associated marketing campaign across the country.
LONDON (GREEN)
London is very serious about winning these Games and they are clearly capable of running an excellent campaign and meeting the minimum requirements that the IOC is looking for in a bid city.
While London may still have a black eye after withdrawing as host to the 2005 World Athletics Championships, considered to be the biggest London sports event in over 30 years, the IOC should be willing to give London a second chance.
The IOC won’t want to miss the marketing opportunity of a London campaign.
RIO DE JANEIRO (GREEN)
While Rio isn’t an obvious choice to win the Games, or to make the shortlist – they will likely qualify based on geography alone. With most of the strong bids representing Europe, Rio offers a compelling alternative on a continent that has never hosted the Games.
The progress on the 2007 Pan-Am Games and a promised compact venue plan for 2012 are added incentives that Rio will hope the IOC considers.
IOC president Jacques Rogge has talked about his commitment to having a Games hosted in South America in the near future. Allowing Rio the opportunity to develop and present their plans now will be a critical stepping-stone.
ISTANBUL (GREEN)
Istanbul’s hosting of an Olympic Games is inevitable, at least according to the Turkish Olympic Committee who are arguably the most committed bidders for the 2012 Games.
Turkey passed an Olympic law in 1992 that provides funding and support for a perpetual Olympic bid, which means they will continue to bid until they win. Their plans are well developed and the Olympic stadium that was part of their original 2000 bid proposal has already been built to show their relentless commitment.
While Istanbul fell just short of the technical requirements required for the 2008 bid, they were included on the shortlist by special recommendation of the evaluation committee. The bid performed well in the election by outlasting Osaka and defeating Paris on the first ballot, but placed fourth in the final tally.
It wouldn’t make sense for the IOC to deny Istanbul a chance this time around.
MADRID (AMBER)
Madrid has a well-developed bid after taking over where national rival Seville left off when they failed to make the shortlist in their 2008 campaign.
There are many aspects of Madrid’s bid that have improved Spain’s offering for 2012 and it would very difficult for the IOC to deny them this time around. However, in a campaign that is already saturated with strong European candidates, Madrid may suffer if the shortlist is limited to five as it was for the 2008 Games.
Since Rogge has hinted many times that the number of accepted candidates will be high this time, Madrid will likely be selected.
LEIPZIG (AMBER)
Leipzig will suffer the same problem as Madrid, it’s European and not all the European cities will be selected to the shortlist.
Since receiving the controversial German nomination last year, Leipzig has faced many obstacles and many have wondered why larger and possibly more capable cities such as Hamburg or Berlin (a city that didn’t even seek nomination) weren’t selected instead.
Leipzig claims they are capable and that their Games would symbolically represent Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall. But this may not be enough for the IOC who will have to make their cuts somewhere and will probably tell Germany to apply again in four years.
MOSCOW (RED)
Moscow has a compelling story to tell, but it will be hard for the IOC to hear it in this overcrowded 2012 race.
Moscow held a difficult Games in 1980 that was boycotted by the West – but bid organizers claim that today’s Moscow is not the same as the old Soviet Moscow. And for this reason they believe they should have another opportunity even will only be 32 years later.
The IOC will likely take a pass on Moscow.
HAVANA (RED)
Cuba’s bid will not qualify for the shortlist for many reasons, and each of those reasons alone would be enough to disqualify Havana.
The Havana bid committee has made no useful attempts at communicating their bid either in the sports communities or even locally, according to some reports. While all of the other bids have updated Web sites and have published their questionnaire responses, Havana has kept their plans secret in a competition where often the best marketing strategy wins.
At a recent meeting of the Pan American Sport Organization, Havana representatives did not attend due to travel Visa problems which only emphasizes the obvious – how can Cuba host the Games if they have no trade relations with the United States, the largest source of funds for the IOC?
GamesBids.com plans to release an updated BidIndex early next week that will evaluate how close the applicant compare to past winning Olympic bids.