What U.S. Cities Would You Like to See Host the Olympics (metro, areas)

[Queen Palm]

Originally Posted by eskercurve

In my opinion, two things led to an anti-American slant among the IOC:

1) The Atlanta games in 1996: These games were so obviously bought by Coca-Cola's advertising dollars that many people said these were the "Coke Games". In the USA, we are used to this corporate raping of what is supposed to be for the love of the sport and twisting it instead into a profit motive (see the MLB's time outs for commercial breaks). That's the real reason why soccer didn't catch on as well ... it's because no right-minded corporation wants to air a show that has zero commercial time except at halftime. The rest of the world rightly shuns this rampant commercialism and discourages rampant commercialism. The games were also glitchy.

2) Revenue from the games' advertising and air time rights are usually dominated by US firms. This has caused angst before among the IOC, because the way the Olympic Committees are structured, their funding is proportional to the ad and other revenue they bring in. Therefore the US funding is enormous compared to other countries.

Interesting. Thank you Eskercurve. I personally had an issue with the IOC choosing communist China to host the games. I would think that would have more of a negative impact, than the US's commercialism.....but then i'm not on the committee, so.....

[Queen Palm]

Originally Posted by skihikeclimb

How? Where would you ski at. There are no places within a 500 mile radius of those cities that could host decent skiing events with consistent snowfall. I'm not talking about a measly 50 inch base either.

please read my previous post.

[nashvols]

I think a lot of it goes down to logistics and size. Most Summer Olympics cities have to be pretty large to handle the load of visitors and athletes (now averaging 10,000 competitors).

I think it would probably end up being a city/metro of over 5 million people. Los Angeles has hosted twice, and Atlanta has hosted most recently...so I think it would likely end up being Chicago, with NYC, Washington, Philadelphia, Dallas (or Houston), the Bay Area, Miami or possibly Boston (relatively in that order). Seattle, San Diego, or possibly St. Louis would be on the fringe, IMO, but it would be possible.

For the winter games, a decent sized city is required...but the access to mountains/ski areas make it a bit more restrictive. Denver is the obvious front runner IMO...but a possible smaller city on the rise that could make a run, I think Boise could be a possible bet in the future.

[annie_himself]

I'm doubting Boise. Does it's city have the infrastructure?

[nashvols]

Originally Posted by annie_himself

I'm doubting Boise. Does it's city have the infrastructure?

Not right now, but not as much infrastructure is needed for the winter games. At the rate Boise is growing, they could very well have it in a decade or so.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by west336

I agree that Miami or Atlanta seem like bad choices for the summer Olympics. In fact, I believe I had the same question in mind when Atlanta held the '96 Olympics! 90-100 degrees WITH humidity? YUCK! However, some Olympics are held in very hot places (Athens is no slouch to heat). But I think it's the humidity that seems like the major deterant, and I can't see athletes doing their best when it's that oppressive outside.

Let more moderate-summer-temp cities in the North (or wherever) have this advantage. It goes against them for 6 months of the year, just like it's more appealing for Southerners for 6 months of the year.

So hold the games in September instead of July or August. Contrary to popular belief, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, and Dallas can be pleasant starting in mid September. I believe Sydney held the games in September.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by eskercurve

It is clear that the European-led IOC will always have an anti-American slant. They've stated so in multiple press releases, but they don't directly say something as banal as "the US sucks, we ain't going there." They state that their aim is to "take the Olympics and sports to the world."

So it is plainly obvious that any US city will lose. First it is Rio in South America, then it will likely be a city in Africa, then back to Asia again, then likely back to Europe, then the middle east. Doesn't matter how dangerous or backward it is in, if they can appear as "fostering sport" aka being pigs willing to accept any bribe from a country with looser rules and/or being in the fortunate position of being from Europe.

I predict it won't be until 2032 that the USA may, just MAY, have a chance. Until then, cities should just not even bother. It's clear the IOC is frothing at the mouth over anti-Americanism, "fostering sport", and over the television and lucrative revenue rights of airing the Olympics.

Yeah, I shared a similar info on another forum. I don't blame the ioc one bit for it.

[roadwarrior101]

Originally Posted by Spade

So hold the games in September instead of July or August. Contrary to popular belief, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, and Dallas can be pleasant starting in mid September. I believe Sydney held the games in September.

I don't think that Atlanta would get the games again, nor would Dallas or Houston. While they are all large, rapidly growing metros, none of them have the international cache of say a NY, LA, Chicago, SF or even DC. I don't see a tier 2 US city getting the games any time soon.

I would also say that a reason why the US has been shunned lately has been due to politics related to anti GW Bush and America's occupation of Iraq. I think the election of Obama has helped to soften the image of the US abroad, but it still has a ways to go to undue the damage that was done in terms of international opinion. I'd say there's an outside possibility of the US being awarded the Olympics in the next couple selections, but it may be longer than that.

[LauraC]

You should ask what cities can afford to host the olympics.

[Deezus]

Originally Posted by nashvols

Not right now, but not as much infrastructure is needed for the winter games. At the rate Boise is growing, they could very well have it in a decade or so.

You'd have to hold the downhill events at Sun Valley and build bobsled/luge tracks and ski jumps somewhere in the surrounding mountains as well. Not sure if Boise State's arena and the Qwest Arena are big enough for hockey/ice skating events of if you'd have to build bigger facilities. Not saying Boise couldn't have the Winter Games evntually, but the existing infrastructure might be lacking right now. But Ketchum/Sun Valley would be well positioned with Boise to hold skiing events and you could probably hold snowboarding/freestyle skiing events somewhere close by like Bogus Basin.

But really, the only places that have the infrastructure in place in the US for the Winter Olympics for bobsledding and ski jumping are basically locations that have already the games like Salt Lake City and Lake Placid. But even Squaw Valley, which held the games in 1960, tore down most of it's Olympic facilities and even then Squaw Valley alone wouldn't be large enough to hold the modern Winter Olympics. The games has grown in size, which is why the Olympics commitee has been picking larger cities near mountains(Salt Lake City, Torino, Italy and Vancouver, BC recently) instead of large ski villages/mountain towns as sites for the games.

The two US locations mentioned most for potential Winter Olympics sites are Reno/Tahoe and Denver/Colorado Rockies. Both have plenty of skiing opportunities, but Reno would have to build some new arenas to have the capacity for the games. Denver already has plenty of indoor sites for the ice events, a huge international airport, and the distance to international-level skiing venues is around the same distance to Whistler from Vancouver. And there's a lot of different ski areas and mountains you could use as sites. Denver could've had the games in 1976 though and declined, and the IOC might see the location as too close to Salt Lake City, although by 2022, the time might be long enough that they'd overlook that.