USOC and IOC re-target Los Angeles for 2024 Summer Olympic Games

Great. We know that if it wasn't for Hollywood TV the IAAF would not have chosen the suburb of Eugene for the 2021 IAAf World Championships.

The Olympic should return to cities with a great deal of venues and infrastructure in place.

For most cities it's a financial quagmire, and the supposed trickle-down effect never materializes to the extent presented. The residents get stuck with higher taxes, the cities offer suffer financially. The only people who benefit are politicians and developers who get all sorts of kickbacks.

D-Nice wrote:

The Olympic should return to cities with a great deal of venues and infrastructure in place.

For most cities it's a financial quagmire, and the supposed trickle-down effect never materializes to the extent presented. The residents get stuck with higher taxes, the cities offer suffer financially. The only people who benefit are politicians and developers who get all sorts of kickbacks.

No kidding. Lest we forget it is Los Angeles that created and invented global TV new media, social media, supersonic jets, 24 hour news, worldwide live entertainment, deep space probes, 500 channel Cable TV, THE internet, Cable Modem, manned space exploration, global sports empires, ...

Historically speaking, the Olympics have also been used for diplomacy reasons rather than pure economic gain.

Berlin 1936

Moscow 1980

USA 1984/1996

Beijing 2008

Beijing is a perfect example of what the OGs brings to the country. They wanted their opportunity to open up to the world and flex their muscles. With their economy emerging as a major player (2nd biggest in RAW GPD), the $50B price tag is rather a cheap way to advertise its $8T economic status.

What other way could you get 3Billion viewers to pay attention to your country all at once?

For whatever its worth, I think the OGs should be thrown into the country's marketing budget, not on the city's tax burden. They are hard work hosting them, but its also hard work staying #1 on the global power scale. Boston wasn't a strong enough city to carry that burden, good luck LA.

Amerikano wrote:

Historically speaking, the Olympics have also been used for diplomacy reasons rather than pure economic gain.

Berlin 1936

Moscow 1980

USA 1984/1996

Beijing 2008

Beijing is a perfect example of what the OGs brings to the country. They wanted their opportunity to open up to the world and flex their muscles. With their economy emerging as a major player (2nd biggest in RAW GPD), the $50B price tag is rather a cheap way to advertise its $8T economic status.

What other way could you get 3Billion viewers to pay attention to your country all at once?

For whatever its worth, I think the OGs should be thrown into the country's marketing budget, not on the city's tax burden. They are hard work hosting them, but its also hard work staying #1 on the global power scale. Boston wasn't a strong enough city to carry that burden, good luck LA.

Sure, because nobody at all was paying attention to China or was aware of its economic status prior to it having the Olympic games.

Our country doesn't have a "marketing budget." The burden doesn't go the country, it goes to the city and/or state. The US is different from many hosts, where the National government will ensure these kinds of costs. Even so, it may have made sense for China, but it sure didn't make sense for Greece. It doesn't make sense for America either.

Everyone in Southern California will be thrilled to host the Olympics one more time.

And we don't want to have any connection with the California State University, Eugene and the world championships. They got that because Nike paid bribes, just like they paid bribes for soccer teams that the Federal Government is now investigating. Everybody knows that, or they should know that.

coach d wrote:

Everyone in Southern California will be thrilled to host the Olympics one more time.

And we don't want to have any connection with the California State University, Eugene and the world championships. They got that because Nike paid bribes, just like they paid bribes for soccer teams that the Federal Government is now investigating. Everybody knows that, or they should know that.

Great. I think that is a ridiculous, stupid decision for Los Angelos and the people of Southern California, but I don't live there, so it isn't my decision.

Do you really think that SoCal will get the Olympics without paying bribes?

Atlanta had some federal funding in conjunction to taxpayer contribution (for mostly improvements to highways and airports), while the Games was financed by Coke and other sponsorships.

All and all, both LA and Atlanta actually benefitted financially from hosting the OGs. Our economy is big, we can host these events. Boston can't, but LA can.

First, don't ever compare us to Greece. We are the biggest economy in the world, while Greece is tiny. And even Greece actually had a net income benefit from hosting the games. Their bailout problems were more in line with retirement benefits getting out of hand.

Back to hosting to OGs. So are you saying America should stop hosting Olympic Games because people can't afford it? What? We are America, of course we can afford it. What else are we going to do for the next 30 years? Watch China keep making moves while we sit on the sidelines?

It is not whether we can or can't afford it. I believe it is not the best use of money...there are better uses of money for taxpayers. It is similar to subsidies for wealthy NFL owners...it is a stupid waste whether the taxpayers can afford it or not.

Don't know why you think that the only "alternative" to hosting an Olympic Games is to sit on the sidelines or that if we don't do it that is somehow a net positive for China.

The Olympic Organizing Committee will know that the people of Los Angeles and Orange County will not put up with ANY taxpayer money put up to fund the Games. That is also the way it is with the NFL. Both will be 100% privately financed or they won't happen, and that's they way in happened in 1984.

Within that restriction, what they do is what they do. But, there's a difference in that LA is a place that the IOC members WANT to come to, whereas they do not want to go to Boston, and that fact was communicated to USOC many months ago, according to Alan Abramson.

Go to Green Bay and ask if they'd rather live in the city WITH or WITHOUT the Packers. Please do that.

"Hi guys, I am the new mayor of Green Bay. We are not investing in the Green Bay Packers because we need to do a highway project. As of next year, Green Bay will be moving to Madison. That taxpayer dollar really needs to go somewhere else instead of renovations to Lambeau Field." -Mr Obvious

I am of course joking, but as it stands, I promote us hosting to OGs because of national pride. The comment about China was a comment about gamesmanship. Like I said, the OGs have historical ties to diplomatic and nationalistic statements, its more political than any other sporting event in the world...including the World Cup. We don't see it that way anymore but some countries do, and they are showing off.

Besides, the taxpayer money spent is netted in tax revenue gained. The "private sector" just hires normal people to build stuff like engineers, middle-class labor, city planners. Then the OGs come into town where the service industry and retail industry see a big boost. Then everyone leaves, but not without improvements to highways and airports. Will LA have a few excessive sports facilities? Yeah... but then the NFL moves into town and boost the economy even more. It can be a good move.

I don't live in Green Bay. I think that is a dumb move for the people of Green Bay to put money into a sports team. Their choice. I wouldn't want to live in Green Bay with or without the Packers--too cold, although I'd love to catch a Northern Pike on a fly line.

Yes, OGs have had historic links to political movements. Again, that isn't a good reason for taxpayers to be on the hook for improvements.

Taxpayer money spent on sports stadiums are notoriously poor uses of public money. They do not result in a net positive in terms of tax revenues generated vs. monies expended. There is a very large and conclusive body of academic research on this point.

coach d wrote:

Everyone in Southern California will be thrilled to host the Olympics one more time.

And we don't want to have any connection with the California State University, Eugene and the world championships. They got that because Nike paid bribes, just like they paid bribes for soccer teams that the Federal Government is now investigating. Everybody knows that, or they should know that.

Interesting. Do you believe L.A. taxpayers will approve the 10 billion dollar tax burden for hosting the games? That's billion with a B. And the burden is 100% on the taxpayers. All the risk, no reward. This isn't 1984.

What's the issue with the CSU system? Cal State L.A. is nearby, Dominguez Hills a rail trip away.

Anxiously awaiting the construction of Zil lanes for IOC royalty like Sepp Blatter.

pop_pop! wrote:

Interesting. Do you believe L.A. taxpayers will approve the 10 billion dollar tax burden for hosting the games? That's billion with a B. And the burden is 100% on the taxpayers. All the risk, no reward. This isn't 1984.

Exactly, I don't think the issue is whether the games are theoretically privately funded or not. That was going to be the case w/ Boston, at least that was the plan. The issue is the city/state wouldn't issue guarantees for cost overruns, etc. The IOC is very, very unlikely to approve a bid without those guarantees--socialize the risks, privatize the profits. Good work if you can get it.

coach d wrote:

The Olympic Organizing Committee will know that the people of Los Angeles and Orange County will not put up with ANY taxpayer money put up to fund the Games. That is also the way it is with the NFL. Both will be 100% privately financed or they won't happen, and that's they way in happened in 1984.

Within that restriction, what they do is what they do. But, there's a difference in that LA is a place that the IOC members WANT to come to, whereas they do not want to go to Boston, and that fact was communicated to USOC many months ago, according to Alan Abramson.

#1 you don't have a clue about the incentives local governments put on the table for the pro sports. Lots, and lots and lots of backdoor deals, and institutional support is on the table. Money too.

#2 1984 wasn't 100% privately financed. The city pitched in millions of dollars in services. They also guaranteed the project. Privatized the profits, socialized the costs.

There is so much to do in L.A.

coach d wrote:

Everyone in Southern California will be thrilled to host the Olympics one more time.

And we don't want to have any connection with the California State University, Eugene and the world championships. They got that because Nike paid bribes, just like they paid bribes for soccer teams that the Federal Government is now investigating. Everybody knows that, or they should know that.

Hey, don't knock Track Town USA especially if you live in L.A. Most of the international teams competing at 2016 Portland and 2021 Eugene will have their base and training camp in Southern California, and tour Santa Monica, Golden Gate Brodge, Disneyland, Hollywood, Berkeley, etc. Be happy for the tourist industry at least.

L.A. already has the facilities from the previous Olympics, not to mention the new football stadium slated to go up. So, of any site in the country, L.A. has to be the cheapest place to host a Summer Olympics. Not too exciting to go back to a place that's hosted twice before, but the 1984 LA Olympics was probably the most successful of all, and proved that it was not necessary to bankrupt a city or country to hold one. Many since have not learned that lesson. I'd be more excited about NYC or Chicago and I am glad that Boston's very ill-thought out plan did not go through, but L.A. would do it well and I hope that they will use the money wisely for needed public infrastructure, particularly rail.

You guys never been to So Cal have you? In So Cal nearly every the Olys sports facilities are used by real teams year around. Venues don't need to be built because they already are constructed. The parking lots as well. Amateurs leagues have been established and have been playing yearly for what seems 100 years. There's no other place in the world for sports than So Cal.