OT – L.A. to get the 2028 Olympics
The International Olympic Committee judged the Los Angeles and Paris bids as equal for the 2024 Olympics. Budapest, Hamburg, Boston, and Rome chose to drop out of the competition for the 2024 Games. Paris really wanted the 2024 Games since it will be their 100 year anniversary of the 1924 Paris Olympics.
Rather than flip a coin between the two cities, the IOC negotiated a deal for Los Angeles to host the 2028 Summer Games. The IOC will advance $1.8 billion to the Los Angeles Organizing Committee, plus make another $180 million in compensatory payments for the four-year delay. Plus, LAOC gets another $160 million to pre-fund local youth sports and the IOC also agreed to forfeit its standard 20 percent of any “surplus revenues” (profit) generated by the local organizing committee.
Giving up 20 percent of profits would normally be considered a joke, because every host city over the last 5 decades, except Los Angeles, has lost money. But, L.A.’s bid claimed they did not have to build any new permanent facilities to host the games.
Coincidentally, the only other time that a pair of host cities was named at the same time was 96 years ago, when Paris was awarded the 1924 Olympics and Amsterdam was awarded the 1928 Summer Games.
Hopefully, we don’t have #CaliExit by the time these Olympics roll around!
Learn to swim
I'll see you down in Arizona Bay
Didn't this bankrupt Greece?
Apologies if I'm taking an LOL Greece is broke post overly seriously, but LA's in a much better position than most cities to host, owing partly to already having hosted in 1984 and still having a bunch of necessary infrastructure around, and owing partly to just being a big city with a bunch of sports venues. I don't have a super well-informed opinion as to whether this will net out as positive or not for LA city/county coffers, but I'm pretty confident in saying that it won't be ruinous.
Should we really be lining up to jump on the "I don't think this will be ruinous" train ?
Seems like the Olympics are routinely a losing effort. I'm not saying shut them down, but maybe we could all collectively agree that they are a money pit and just have one agreed upon spot for them going forward?
I love watching, but to build these expansive billion dollar facilites to host while countries are going bankrupt and people are starving is, I don't know... kind of stupid?
Again. LA has an infrastructure far different than Athens, London, etc. They can draw on USC, UCLA, the professional teams, and the fact that it's Los freaking Angeles. New construction costs will be comparatively minimal.
This is a safe pick. Fearmongering a decade out is pretty dumb.
What facts did you state? That the olympics bankdrupted Greece? Not a fact my friend, and while I'm sure that the olympics were not th ebeacon of light they were sold as, they were far from the root cause or even a primary driver of Greece's bankruptcy.
I think the argument is that it's not fair to compare Athens to LA. But I think you know that and are arguing for the sake of it.
You are correct. LA already has all the facilities it needs and will be adding a brand new football facility by 2020. LA is an obvious choice. The only downside is that our homeless popoulation has EXPLODED over the last three years and tent cities are all over the city. They need to do something to address this as it is a disgrace.
Not actually true. The Supreme Court had something to say about that . . . now, its the meth.
Gotta be a corellation between drug addiction and mental health...somehow. I don't have any fancy statistics but I'm sure there's something there.
Yep, I'm already standing in the "not ruinous" line. The cities that totally screw themselves fiscally with the Olympics are the cities that have little pre-standing capacity to host. That's not LA. There's relatively little that the city/region is going to need to build in terms of new venues, and the city has a track record of handling the process well (http://gizmodo.com/how-l-a-s-1984-summer-olympics-became-the-most-success-1516228102). 1984 will have been 44 years ago, so obviously it won't be the same set of people planning for the event, expectations change, old infrastructure is old, etc. But LA is in a much better position than most to host, and the argument that the Olympics have been really bad for other places isn't particularly persuasive in arguing for the risks here.
The event still needs to be planned for carefully, and there are real risks in terms of things like housing displacement if the planning goes poorly. But I see little reason to believe that fiscal ruin is at all a likely outcome.
(That said, I agree with your point that the IOC choosing one or a handful of host locales would be a good idea; it's just that I think that LA would be a promising contender to be one of those locales)
Get the right people to run it, like Billy Payne in Atlanta, and it can be a success. People may complain about too many vendors, or whatever, but it was a tremendous success for the entire metro Atlanta region.
as the OP mentioned, the only profitable Olympics in the modern era for these simple reasons:
1) As you mentioned, big city with lots of existing infrastructure so no need to sink a ton of extra money into building new stuff. What also gets forgotten here is that when most cities have to build new venues they incur massive additional costs to maintain or tear them down after the games. That's what gets a lot of cities into trouble. There's a massive tail cost. But since LA's venues are already sustainable, there's little to none of that necessary.
2) Olympics hosted in the US tend to have far higher revenues than other Olympics because we're a big, rich country. Events are well attended at higher ticket prices.
Revenue > Cost = Profit!
Greece had none of the above conditions. Dropped a ton of money they didn't have into building the infrastructure, and they still pay too much for it today.
Yes, "legacy" costs are the biggest problem. Cities build these venues and have no tenant for them afterwards, ending up with a herd of white elephants.
London was pretty smart about this, building temporary structures for the sports that didn't have a local following, and dismantling them afterwards. They still lost some money on the Olympics, but not a back-breaking amount - and this was arguably made worthwhile by the intrastructure improvements they ended up with. (That's one of the big reasons cities still bid for the Olympics - it gives them a reason to get things like airport renovations and subway line extensions finally done.)
Because Michael Phelps took all their Gold back to the States!
Here's a click through list of 10 cities that "almost" went bankrupt.
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/10-olympic-games-bankrupted-host…
The Olympics cost a lot of money, but that's not what bankrupted Greece. At most it caused the country to go broke slightly ahead of schedule.
The combination of 1) having lots of people retire in their 50s and 2) massive tax evasion is what bankrupted Greece.
I was at the '96 Olymipcs in Atlanta, it was a blast (even with the unfortunate event that one night). Highly recommend it for anyone that enjoys sporting events as well as a multi culture pool of people having a great time......
Definately will be there again....... Better start a savings account now to afford it......
I went to at least a dozen events in '96. It was hardly a blast. I enjoyed the competition, but the number of street vendors made the whole thing look hokey. Then the opening ceremony with the redneck pickup truck thing was embarrassing, especially after Barcelona put on quite a show. The final straw was the horrible transportation situation. Buses brought athletes late to events which is excusable. Not to mention that MARTA (subway) was a joke with all the delays. Traffic though was never better those two weeks.
Regarding LA, it's uniquely positioned to host a very good Olympics. I read today that the Clippers are looking at building an arena next to the NFL Stadium, plus you have Staples, the Coliseum, StubHub Center, Rose Bowl, a new soccer stadium, and The Galen Center. We just passed Measure M for improving roads and subways, and Measure H to work on the growing homeless issue. We are already improving LAX with spending billions there (it desperately needs it). They won't be building an athlete's village (using dorms at UCLA and/or USC?). It's really a question of building temporary facilities for swimming, cycling, etc. And you know the TV audience will tune in.
The only major thing that could go wrong is a massive earthquake to destroy facilities. I think all the preparation brings more gifts to the city than the actual events.
It is so they can sell luxury boxes/suites. Between the Lakers, Kings, and concerts, it is pretty full.
They really don't NEED it, but it's all about the $$$.
How much profit will the Olympics make? Feel it's more likely in a place like the US that is sports-crazy and already has infrastructure available. I know some cities contribute to the cost of the Olympics, but how much of the profit goes back to the city?
a percentage of any profits, my guess is the LAOC will show some profits just to show they were financially successful. Just for bragging rights if nothing else. 'Merica!
This dude stole the show. Long before he was a punchline for his national anthem debacle Carl Lewis was the MAN. I was living in SF in 84 and got down to LA for some of the party (none of the events sadly) and he owned the place.
Kinda sad, to me anyways, that he's never really thought of in the same vien as Phelps, Spitz when in fact he's won nine gold and one silver and dominated track and field for the US in the 80's.
He should light the torch IMO when it returns. He earned it.
I think he's certainly thought of on the same plane as Spitz. Phelps? Well, Phelps is unique, but then by breaking records he brought Spitz memories into focus. Perhaps the problem is that track is underappreciated and the US sprinter du jour is typically not well liked. Usain Bolt has unquestionably been the biggest track star to Americans despite a variety of American sprinters medalling in the same era.
Conversely, one tiny girl wins the gymnastics all around Gold one time and she is a hero for life.
that swimming does. So the medal counts for elite sprinters are typically much lower.
Sad because being the Fastest Person on Land should be at least equivalent to, but probably more celebrated than, the Fastest Person in Water. I say more celebrated than because 99 percent of the world can and has run before. The pool of runners is larger than the pool of swimmers (no pun intended) so it's more impressive to be the fastest runner. Very few people have access to pools in a way they would need to be an olympic swimmer (which is why rich countries dominate). You're just getting the "fastest person who had parents rich enough to send them to the country club to swim a lot."
And then we let the people in the water do four different strokes, so medal count gets inflated. Imagine having a 100 meter dash, running backwards! Oh and how about the 100 meter kareoka! The 100 meter crab walk! That's exactly what we have in the butterfly, backstroke and breaststroke events.
There's hurdles. Nothing stopping the sprinters from doing hurdles. And part of the reason Michael Phelps is so hugely celebrated is that consistently kicking ass in all four strokes is really hard and really rare. Medal counts are not inflated in swimming because of the existence of the breaststroke. Freestyle sprinters are typically terrible at breaststroke.
medal counts are inflated because of the butterfly and backstroke. Plus, there's the medley in swimming! And medley relays! So many events.
I'm not taking anything away from Phelps. He's the greatest swimmer of all time and as good at a sport as any individual has ever been. He has more than twice the medals of any other swimmer. That is staggering.
But of the top 18 olympic medal winners ALL TIME in winter and summer, 7 are swimmers. Only one is a track athlete. Do you really think those 6 (non-Phelps) swimmers were just unusually elite at their sport? No, they just competed in a sport with tons of opportunities.
Sprinters are typically terrible at hurdles too. They could potentially be good, if they worked very hard at it (which I'm sure could be said of freestylers and breaststroke). While Being Fast is a good start, hurdles require a lot more technique and flexibility than pure sprinting. So you definitely can't count hurdles for sprinters if you don't count breaststroke for swimmers.
Just as long as he doesn't have to sing the National Anthem.
Oh, wait...
LA will be, as always, extremely hot for the Olympics.
It is in most other ways the ideal choice to host not only for the US, but the entire world. Having existing facilities ready to go was a selling point for the 1984 games, nevermind the 2028 edition. And it's true, they do have the facilities.
I read the proposal a few months ago, it seems pretty sharp. The only facility challenges they have are the facilities for the new sports that need lots of infrastructure, like kayaking. Meanwhile they've got an abundance of options for the big stuff, especially with the NFL stadium finally breaking ground (prior to this LA had the bizarre issue of having lots of legendary stadiums that were all extremely old).
Personally I kind of hope they move aquatics away from UCLA (a perfectly adequate place to hold them) and into a full-sized arena, since swimming is so popular. What about basketball? Do what Atlanta did and split the football stadium, instance 30k + capacity. I doubt they do any of this, but the demand for seats is there.
What's crazy about this is that I'll be approaching 50 when these games actually take place, and my preteen daughters could conceivably be in college nearby.
Pardon me while I freak out for a few minutes.
The 2028 version of Carl Lewis could be one of your daughters' classmates (or one of your daughters).
games had the opening ceremonies and closing ceremonies plus track and field at the Coliseum again (as in 1984). Is there a chance that would be moved to the new NFL Stadium? I guess maybe not since capacity is only 80,000 compared to 90,000+.
As for weather, it'll likely be cooler and certainly less humid in LA than in Chicago, Boston, Atlanta, NYC, etc. as is usually the case during the summer, especially near the beaches (the UCLA events, volleyball, anything at the new stadium, etc).
The Olympics would be an awesome beginning/kick-off to the new country of Californioregonseattlevegas.
Most people I know from Oregon hate California. It's not quite Michigan/Ohio hate, but for whatever reason, Oregonians don't care much for Californians. (Speaking very generally of course.) Nevermind the SoCal/NorCal divide.
Yeah - when I lived in Washington for a bit I was quickly introduced to the idea of Californication, which besides being a RHCP song was defined as Californians moving to Washington and fucking the place up by being Californians and trying to turn it into California. Not real popular.
They left California and moved north because they didn't like being in California anymore.
The only people who didn't like people who moved to Washington and Oregon were the crusty "get off my lawn" people. People moved to Washington, mainly Seattle, because of the tech boom due to Microsoft and various tech spinoffs. The jobs they provided were typically well-compensated either with real money or stock options. I didn't see caravans of old retirees from California in RV's moving to Washington and buying up hip condos because it was significantly cheaper. Oregon had less of a tech boom, but Intel is still the largest private employer. Both places still attract a bunch of young people from all over the country who end up making artisanal whatever and open up interesting restaurants and food trucks and produce art that make life more interesting.
Sorry for your loss, Los Angeles.
around 4 cities: Tokyo, LA, Paris, and London. These cities can support it and maintain the facilites.
Have you seen how rundown the Rio venues are now? Its very sad.
but would like to see it expanded. Add an "eastern" US city (Atlanta), Sydney, Rio, and Seoul or Beijing to make it 8 cities spread across a number of continents.
Then take the cold countries that complained they got screwed and give them the Winter Olympics. 4 - 6 venues should be enough. Russia could do it again along with Vancouver and two in Europe. I'm missing some to make it 6.
Fixed the title.
Cool? I guess??
1. Suprised, but not surprised, that this is seemingly not big news after the debacles of Sochi and Rio.
2. LA is MUCH better equipped to handle this (as are most US cities, TBH) than recent hosts. And it looks like other cities are starting to realize that hosting the Olympics is a money pit, so the IOC is going to have to do something to convince other cities to bid for 2032.
Very exciting! The Paris / LA compromise somewhat redeems the IOC in my eyes (well...it's not hard to go up when you are at the rock bottom).
I think LA's decentralized village idea will be very cool; and, the existing infrastructure in the city makes IOC's decision pretty obvious. I'll be curious though to see what they do with the transportation infrastructure. Hopefully LA can leverage the Olympics as a rallying cry to make much-needed investments in new transportation infrastructure, particularly downtown and West LA. I know the Expo Line was just completed, but they need an onslaught of planes, trains, and automobiles to ease daily gridlock.