After Annecy, Munich and PyeongChang make final presentations in Durban on July 6th – they will hand their fate to the 110 members of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) who will then vote for the host of the 2018 Olympic Winter Games.
This secret ballot election requires a clear majority of votes in order to name a winner; so if the first ballot doesn’t produce a majority, the city with the least number of votes is dropped from a second – and in this case final – ballot. If the bottom two cities have an equal number of votes, there will be a run-off ballot to determine what bid moves to the second ballot. If on the final ballot the cities draw an equal number of votes then the IOC President will cast the tie-breaking vote.
Sounds dull, right? It could be – but remember – the only thing you can expect in an Olympic bid election is the unexpected. One of the most shocking Olympic bid moments of recent Olympic history came in the previous Summer Games bid, and on the first ballot of a three ballot election.
Chicago seemed to be the leading bidder with Rio close behind. A majority of international bookmakers picked Chicago as the favourite; and the fact that U.S. President Barack Obama and the First Lady attended the presentation in person was an indicator that the bid team had some intelligence that Chicago was a clear contender.
But after a long day of emotional presentations the IOC members gathered to vote and President Jacques Rogge, who is responsible for delivering the results, glanced at the page with the first ballot tally and prepared to announce the bad news to the eliminated city. He seemed unusually nervous, probably because he knew the unusual weight of his impending message. After a deep swallow and with only a short glance at the camera he said:
“The City of Chicago having received the least amount of votes will not participate in the next round.”
Clearly audible gasps filled the press centre adjacent to the auditorium in Copenhagen; followers in Chicago were confused; and CNN’s news production was thrown into immediate disarray.
“Chicago is out? Chicago is out? Chicago is out? Madrid is still in? Tokyo is still in? Wait a minute. Chicago is out?” remarked stunned veteran CNN news anchor Tony Harris as show producers were unsure what to do next.
Suddenly, after two years of campaigning and only minutes left – it was a brand new race. Nobody knew what to expect next.
This is drama that no one can predict.
PyeongChang created some drama of its own in 2003 as the outsider in a three-bid race for 2010. Most had expected a tight battle between Vancouver and Salzburg, Austria but were shocked when Rogge announced that Salzburg had been eliminated first. The real drama was revealed later when the votes were disclosed and showed that PyeongChang was merely 3 votes from a majority victory on the first ballot and fell only three votes short on the final ballot.
The latter case reflects the reality that a Winter Games bid – such as the one for 2018 – is far more vulnerable to unexpected results. Of the 110 IOC members, only a handful represent countries or disciplines that are directly involved with the Winter Games, and their focuses are set on the Summer Games. As a result, votes are often cast on what they believe will further them most in their summer pursuits.
Several European cities were lined up to bid for the 2012 Games; a Games in Europe in 2010 would make it less likely that the IOC would want to return to the same continent only two years later, so supporters of the 2012 bids would probably prefer to have the 2010 Games elsewhere. And that desire showed up in the balloting.
The solid competitive bid from Salzburg was virtually annihilated by receiving only 16 of 107 cast votes, ensuring that the window would remain open for Europe in 2012. Call Salzburg’s demise “collateral damage” to what would eventually be a London victory for 2012.
Could the future 2020 Summer Games bids cause collateral damage to any 2018 contenders?
For 2020, only one bid has officially entered the race – Rome, Italy. The Japanese Olympic Committee (JOC) has indicated that Tokyo is set to enter the race on an emotional platform of recovery and rebuilding from the devastating earthquakes and tsunamis that hit earlier this year. The rest of the potential bids are waiting upon the results of the 2018 election before committing intentions – but these could include Madrid, Doha, Dubai, Istanbul and perhaps others.
Interestingly, although the bids have until September 1st to declare their intentions, Japan has taken an aggressive stance shortly before the 2018 election. If PyeongChang was to win the 2018 bid, the door would likely slam shut on Tokyo because two consecutive Games in Asia would be unlikely.
This opens up two possible scenarios. Tokyo might be taking a pre-emptive strike at PyeongChang – indicating that they want the 2020 Games and the timetable is critical for the rebuilding efforts (meaning they don’t want to wait until the next opportunity in 2024). The JOC wants the IOC to take this into consideration before they elect PyeongChang and hope they will leave the window open.
The second possibility is that the JOC has made a fatal miscalculation. Supporters of Rome and other countries who are considering bids might (and probably should) see Tokyo as a significant threat for 2020 – and might throw more support behind PyeongChang to shut the Japanese bid out.
There is definitely possible drama here.
Taking another look at the technicalities of the election – there will be 110 IOC members during the session in Durban. The IOC President will not vote in the election – he participates only if a tie-breaking vote is required. Additionally, representatives from National Olympic Committees (NOCs) that have candidate cities on the a particular ballot may not vote; on the first ballot there will be two from South Korea, two from France and two from Germany who may not vote.
That makes 103 eligible voters on the first ballot – it will take 52 votes to win a majority.
Last year Denis Oswald declared that he would abstain from voting in order to avoid a conflict of interest resulting from a sponsorship deal last year between his International Rowing Federation and PyeongChang supporter Samsung.
That means there will be a maximum of 102 votes on the first ballot – but likely less due to no-shows and further abstentions.
PyeongChang has set a trend over its past two campaigns – winning the first ballot, short of the majority – then barely losing the second and final ballots as a majority of the eliminated bid’s votes go to the remaining opponent. It happened against Vancouver for 2010 and Sochi for 2014. PyeongChang needs to be going for a first round majority and victory this time around.
Why? Because the pattern here and the history of this campaign is that a member will either support PyeongChang or they won’t. If Annecy loses the first ballot – many of the votes will probably go to Munich, also in Europe (and this might also fulfill the geo-politics with Tokyo).
Typically, some IOC members cast courtesy votes – first round votes for bids that the member believes will not win but they want to provide some support so the candidate NOC isn’t humiliated. When that city is eliminated, they’ll make their “real” choice on a subsequent ballot. This scenario happens more often when there are more candidates, but I wouldn’t rule it out in this election.
In this case – those votes would go to Annecy, the outsider in this race. If the French bid can garner enough sympathy, Munich or PyeongChang could be the bid derailed in the first round.
If Annecy gets courtesy votes – but not enough to stave off elimination – those votes will be critical in determining the final round winner. They could be headed toward Munich if they are to stay in Europe and if PyeongChang’s history repeats.
You may have noticed that the technical fundamentals of the bids aren’t mentioned in this analysis. That’s because at this point, they don’t really matter. The technicalities of the bids have already been examined and evaluated by the IOC evaluation team and the details have already been review by those members who care. The evaluators found that all three bids are capable of hosting the Games and Rogge described the bids as “excellent”.
In short, if any bid was not considered capable, they would not be in the election – either having been eliminated after the initial questionnaire evaluation, or by being excluded from the final ballot. At least, that’s how the process is designed.
Now, it comes down to lobbying, politicking and sales – and drama begins.
Rob Livingstone is the producer of GamesBids.com and has been closely following the Olympic bid process for over 20 years. He will be blogging through the final days before the election on July 6. Rob will bring you first-hand observations from the scene in Durban. Follow him on Twitter.
