The competition for the United States nomination to bid for the 2012 Olympic Games has arguably been the most intense and costly battle for any Games at any level, ever. All of this despite the fact that the U.S. winner will still have to face another two-year campaign against high-profile bids from around the World.
Why is the U.S. Olympic Committee election so important? Because they want the Games in 2012 and they know they have a good shot at getting them. There are two critical factors that could fortify any U.S. bid:
– Television. Up for grabs are the broadcast rights for the 2010 and 2012 Games. The International Olympic Committee derives a huge portion of its revenue from the sale of these rights and they are far more valuable in North America, specifically in the United States. It is no coincidence that IOC President Jacques Rogge hasn’t committed to any television contract negotiation schedule, only saying that a contract will be awarded before the end of 2005, possibly after the 2012 host city election takes place, or possibly before. Rogge will be watching the bid candidacies closely to see how things progress.
– Geopolitics. By 2012 it will have been sixteen years since the Games were in the Americas – that’s a long time for an area that the IOC relies on financially. With the IOC’s interest in having the Games hosted in South America or Africa and with such potential candidates already lining up for 2016, 2012 may be the final U.S. opportunity for some time.
For these reasons, the USOC has made it well known that their goal is to choose the bid that will compete best internationally. But unless the 123 voting USOC members have undertaken the impossible task of studying the international field (of which most bids haven’t even organized yet), these are just words, and as you’ve read here before, the vote becomes a popularity contest.
With GamesBids.com’s BidIndex we’ve put things into the context of an international race. BidIndex ratings evaluate how San Francisco and New York live up to IOC criteria and how they compare to successful international bids in the past (contrary to what some people believe, BidIndex does not try to predict the winner of the USOC race or identify the best technical bid).
San Francisco currently has a BidIndex score of 66.64 and New York rates 62.85, the difference largely attributable to risk factors in New York’s bid that the IOC would likely want to avoid. By using the final top three BidIndex results calculated for the 2008 race, we can make international comparisons.
San Francisco would have been strong competition for Beijing (the winner of the 2008 race) which was on top with 75.44 powered by strong endorsements, geopolitics and a financially secure proposition. In fact, the California bid rates above Toronto’s (63.79) technically sound 2008 bid and potential candidate for 2012. New York was marginally behind Toronto but still ahead of Paris 2008 (58.71), another 2012 prospect.
Of course, it’s still very early to speculate on a 2005 decision, but it’s reasonable to say that both San Francisco and New York would compete well on the international stage. Considering that both of these bids already have sophisticated organizations, plans, branding and local awareness it’s fair to say that international bids already have some catching-up to do.
BidIndex shows that San Francisco might be the stronger candidate internationally – but for a USOC member living in the United States it will be difficult, if not impossible, to be objective about the election. The bids are spending millions of dollars on marketing and playing on the emotions of the members who are only human, and predictions on the winner of the race will be as certain as a coin flip.
