Sweden is the most decorated Winter Olympics nation never to have hosted the quadrennial event.
With 176 total Winter Games medals, Sweden ranks seventh in the world – ahead of Switzerland (167; 8th) and France (138; 13th) who were both positioned by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Wednesday to host the 2038 and 2030 Olympic Winter Games respectively. Sweden and other nations could now be locked out of the running until 2042.
France has hosted three times with Chamonix 1924, Grenoble 1968 and Albertville 1992.
The Swiss have staged the Games twice in St. Moritz in 1928 and 1948.
Sweden?
Sweden has dreamed a lot, an awful lot, with eight failed attempts to convince the IOC to invite the world to their Winter Wonderland.
It’s a long list: Gothenburg 1984, Falun 1988, Falun 1992, Östersund 1994, Östersund 1998, Östersund 2002, Stockholm 2022 and Stockholm-Åre 2026.
And now the count is nine after the IOC said Sweden’s multi-cluster bid among Stockholm, Falun, Åre and Östersund, as well as a sliding venue in Sigulda, Latvia, “presented an impressive vision to stage the most sustainable Games in history, but did not have all the elements required to be taken further at this stage.”
“I am very surprised and very disappointed,” Swedish Olympic Committee (SOC) president Hans von Uthmann said, adding “We had a vision of being able to organize the Olympics and Paralympics in a completely new way, unfortunately the IOC’s new process was not ripe for a candidacy that wanted to be sustainable, cost-effective and democratic.”
The IOC’s Future Host Commission for the Winter Games (FHC) identified lackluster support and guarantees, as well as overstated potential revenues as the roadblocks for the bid. A published IOC feasibility assessment on Sweden’s bid identified conditional expressions of support “with the national government and the City of Stockholm only willing to support the Games if other stakeholders formalize their support.”
“The guarantees would still need to be approved by the Parliament. Therefore, the Commission expresses its concerns with regard to essential political support.”
A statement by the SOC read “the message from the IOC is that the Swedish bid should have had financial guarantees in place at an earlier stage, even though that work was the largest part of phase three.”
Indeed, IOC documents on the informal bid process state that those selected to targeted dialogue – or “phase three” – have until the end of March 2024 to submit formal guarantees.
But the IOC report further stated “The strategy to securing a Games Delivery Guarantee from a public authority was not sufficiently substantiated to provide comfort to the Commission that the guarantee would be provided in Targeted Dialogue.”
Following the second day of the IOC Executive Board meeting in Paris Thursday, IOC Executive Director Christophe Dubi clarified “We did not ask for the guarantees themselves but a strong expression of support so that is a fundamental distinction, there was nothing that was not provided however we wanted to have the comfort … that the government will be supporting and what the process would be.”
He added “when you have to make a choice between the lineup that we had it’s not necessarily to give extra opportunities but it’s to decide on the basis of what we had and the technical work plus the convictions that we have trusted partners that will be in position to deliver.”
So the IOC’s choice to move French Alps to targeted dialogue for 2030 is clear, if all they’re concerned about is a committed government partner. And that is the case, especially with shorter-than-usual timelines and a recent history of lost bids due to elusive guarantees and lost referendums. France launched its bid in the Summer, guns blazing, and has provided written and unconditional commitments from relevant government stakeholders. It also doesn’t hurt that many of the same entities are currently delivering the Paris 2024 Games.
As promised, the IOC are also sticking to plans for a double allocation and moved Salt Lake City’s 2034 bid, with 100 percent government guarantees and 80 percent public support to targeted dialogue. After the submission of bid dossiers in February and full guarantees in March, the two bids will likely be elected together at the IOC’s next all-members Session in July alongside the Paris Games.
But this is where it gets weird, and that’s saying a lot after covering the IOC for more than 25 years.
The IOC Future Host Commission, or the Executive Board – I’m not entirely sure – just invented a new phase of the bid process named “privileged dialogue.” From what I can tell its basically a bid waiting room for one that’s locked from the outside. Switzerland was granted this exclusive invitation to either comply with the IOC’s requests by 2027 and move to targeted dialogue, or exit the room – leaving the door open to others.
In the IOC’s feasibility study for Switzerland, the FHC states “Given the outstanding conditions in Switzerland which should enable sustainable Olympic Winter Games to be organized in the Olympic spirit, the Commission is embracing the approach of Olympic Winter Games in 203x; it offers more time to fully confirm the support of the Swiss people and institutions in line with the Swiss democratic culture.”
FHC Chair Karl Stoss said Wednesday that “Olympic spirit” means he’d like to see venue clusters pulled closer together and provide centralized Olympic Villages for the athletes – something that is omitted from current plans in order to comply with IOC’s Agenda 2020+5 that insists only existing venues be used.
So step one: redesign the entire venue plan.
On the second part, confirming the support of Swiss people and institutions Stoss said “We will encourage them, go for a referendum then it’s a situation that will be clear for all of us.”
Step two: win a referendum.
In case you haven’t followed Swiss Olympic bids and referendums in the past decade or two, here’s some insight. You’ll get more ‘yes’ answers if you ask “do you want to go to the dentist today?”
Swiss Olympic referendums do not pass.
Sweden’s plans already include “Olympic spirit” and a poll demonstrated as many as 70 percent support the project.
So then why is Switzerland offered this opportunity and not Sweden? Or why not both? The reports say both bids could use more time.
Swedes are asking themselves this same question. You can understand why it may seem personal to them, seeing the door for 2038 slammed in their faces.
During press conferences Wednesday and Thursday, the IOC officials were not clear on why Switzerland was given this special consideration and not Sweden.
The same issue came up in the Stockholm-Åre bid for 2026 that was lost to Milan Cortina by a vote of 47-34. At the time IOC evaluators assured the bid team that the Stockholm government offer to lease venues for the events and not provide further financial guarantees would be sufficient. They also said the public support, measuring around 55 percent, was acceptable. Then, after the contentious loss IOC President Thomas Bach blamed the defeat on just that.
Sweden’s 2026 bid chief Richard Brisius told me that day “we have looked deep within ourselves and see what kind of Games do we want, how do we want to work and what’s okay for us. And they weren’t according to their [IOC] standards…”
The distraught bid team conveyed that they were unlikely to ever bid again.
But they did, and seemingly in the service of the Olympic Movement.
Last December the IOC was forced to call a delay in the 2030 bid process after projects from Spain, Canada and then Japan bowed out due to domestic issues leaving only Salt Lake City in the race – but the U.S. city was really only interested in hosting in 2034. The IOC was desperate to fill the void.
In February, Sweden was first to jump in the race offering the IOC a solid option should others not emerge. They didn’t have to.
In return, it seems the IOC is doing whatever it can to keep Sweden away once-and-for-all.
“We were in no way looking to use Swedish taxpayers to finance the Games” von Uthmann said.
“We were clear about that towards the IOC, towards the government and towards business. We remain convinced that the Games could have been a catalyst for the whole of Sweden.
“Now, unfortunately, that will not be the case.”
Should Switzerland not come up with feasible plans or the required proof of public support by the end of 2027, the door may swing open for Sweden. But I’m not sure they’ll want to go back in.
“Now we take the good dialogue with us to strengthen Swedish elite sports instead,” von Uthmann said.
