Bidweek – I’ll start with a disclaimer, nobody outside of the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) inner circle can credibly predict what will happen Wednesday (November 29) when the Executive Board (EB) is expected to frame the next phase of the 2030 and 2034 Olympic Winter Games bids.
It’s not even clear if we’ll learn any new information that day. This is all unprecedented.
But I’ll make my fearless predictions further below.
The IOC has published the EB’s meeting program for Wednesday in Paris that includes an agenda item to receive an update from the Future Host Commission for the Olympic Winter (FHC) Games. Last month FHC chair Karl Stoss confirmed that bids from Sweden, Switzerland and France are interested in hosting in 2030 and Salt Lake City in the United States is eying the 2034 edition.
IOC president Thomas Bach previously indicated that the IOC will be ready to advance both 2030 and 2034 bid processes during this week’s EB with plans to hold elections next July alongside the Paris 2024 Olympics.
So what happens Wednesday?
We’re now navigating uncharted waters.
The old ways ended in 2019 with the awarding of 2026 Winter Games to Milan-Cortina in Italy. At this point in previous processes a report by an IOC evaluation commission based on technical details promoted qualified candidates to a shortlist if they reached required benchmarks. Dates were published well in advance and applicants were known.
It was all very clear from the outset of the two-year journey, and at this milestone hopeful bidders braced to learn if their scores were among the best, allowing them to move to the final round.
Bid reforms approved in 2019 removed most of the rules and virtually all of the structure allowing the Executive Board and a newly formed FHC a lot of flexibility and less required transparency. In fact, it was almost exactly one year ago that the IOC EB had been preparing for this exact same scenario enroute to a 2030 bid election – with bids from Salt Lake City, Sapporo and Vancouver mooted for targeted dialogue. Instead the IOC suspended the race in order to reorganize, and more importantly buy more time for new bids to enter the race while the Japanese and Canadian projects were struggling.
So here we are again.
Brisbane’s 2032 Summer Games bid was the first elected under the new process when the IOC was able push through a campaign so secretly it was virtually declared the winner before anyone outside of the IOC or Australia knew the race was on. The pending announcement had been leaked to an industry media outlet just hours before it was official and was to be readied for an IOC Session rubberstamping.
The stealth maneuver that sited those Games years ahead of the typical schedule received many complaints from other National Olympic Committees (NOC) that had been preparing to bid for the same edition. There was also a lot of criticism in the media, including from my scathing column where I linked then IOC Executive Board member (Now Vice President) John Coates from Australia who was the architect of the new bid process to Brisbane’s election and a clear conflict of interest and ethics breach.
For that reason it seems that the IOC has left a crack in the curtain this time, even if only a little one, allowing us some prior notice of what might be going on.
Last month IOC members approved the possibility of awarding both 2030 and 2034 Winter Games editions at their next Session alongside the Paris 2024 Summer Games in July. Stoss made the recommendation while he named the three bids for 2030 and only one candidate for 2034 – even as officials continue to insist that those involved in continuous dialogue will never be named by the IOC. Since those regions had themselves revealed their projects, it’s possible that there are other less transparent regions involved that were not named.
But I doubt there are others, even as I remind myself not to assume anything in this uncharted process.
Here is the section I’m sure most of you clicked through to read, my predictions.
This is what I think could happen Wednesday
The first possibility is: nothing. As you already read, the IOC called off the expected start of targeted dialogue this time last year. But with the siting of the Games already months behind the typical timeline and credible bids ready to go it would be surprising if the EB doesn’t act immediately.
Let’s get 2034 out of the way first because it is as close to certain as any expected IOC decision ever.
Salt Lake City will be the only bid elevated to targeted dialogue for 2034 and by March will be declared the preferred candidate to appear on the election ballot for member rubberstamping. Switzerland last week confirmed its bid is for 2030 or 2034 but the fact that Stoss clearly included the nation among 2030 bidders and not with Salt Lake City when he presented to members last month tells us what the decision makers think.
The U.S. city has been developing its project for almost 10 years and was nominated by the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) in 2018 with plans to reuse many of the well maintained facilities from the 2002 Games in the Utah capital area. The Salt Lake City-Utah Committee for the Games (SLC-UT) has been waiting patiently to host a future Games, even offering to host in ’30 if necessary instead of the preferred ’34 Games that would build a larger gap following Los Angeles 2028.
A Salt Lake City Games will be an opportunity to improve and extend the winter sports legacy in the region, solidifying Utah as one of the possible permanent Winter Games hosts in a climate capable region – something the IOC has proposed in order to guarantee the future of the event amid climate change. Full political backing and public support measuring as high as 80 percent make America’s bid one of the most sought after projects by a Western nation in Winter Olympics history.
SLC-UT expects the Games themselves will be 100 percent privately funded.
There is also a huge possible economic upside for the IOC. The current broadcast contract with NBC ends after 2032 leaving a 2034 agreement open to negotiation. A Winter Games in the United States would attract many more domestic viewers driving up the potential value of the broadcast deal, meaning more revenue from the IOC’s historically most lucrative partnership.
Remember, the IOC could name Salt Lake City for targeted dialogue for 2034, but if other bids fall through pivot the project to 2030. SLC-UT officials say they’re prepared for either scenario.
So bet the house on Salt Lake City.
The race for 2030 is a bit more complicated, but actually quite simple to predict.
Sweden is unequivocally the frontrunner here.
Despite plans that were lauded by an IOC evaluation commission in 2019 the 2026 bid was defeated by only rival Milan-Cortina in Italy with IOC President Thomas Bach suggesting low public support and only lukewarm municipal support the reason for the defeat. Both have improved for 2030 with public support moving from the 50’s to as much as 70 percent in recent polls and municipal backing announced last week.
The bid adheres to IOC rules by promising not to build new facilities for the Games using existing or temporary venues across compact clusters with the Stockholm area staging many of the events. A sliding track in Sigulda, Latvia has been proposed for bobsleigh, skeleton and luge since no facilities exist in Sweden.
Sweden is the most successful Winter Olympics nation never to host the Winter Games despite eight previous bids. Stockholm hosted the Summer Games in 1912.
And there’s this. Long time Swedish IOC member Gunilla Lindberg is well admired among leadership. She has served twice on the Executive Board and once as Vice President and has served on numerous Commissions including those to evaluate bids and coordinate Games. Last year Lindberg resigned from the FHC to avoid a conflict of interest after Sweden disclosed it was conducting a bid feasibility study.
Much like Coates enjoyed the awarding of Brisbane 2032 after his years of loyalty to the IOC, it will be difficult for the EB to ignore Lindberg’s desire for Sweden’s first Olympics and the years she has spent working towards that goal.
But approvals and guarantees are still required from the Swedish government by March next year, posing a real risk to the IOC that will force the FHC and EB to include a backup choice or two.
Enter Switzerland.
For the reason mentioned above the proposed Swiss bid will be part of targeted dialogue, especially after the nation’s Sport Parliament resoundingly approved the project last week. Though Switzerland is literally the backyard of IOC’s international headquarters in Lausanne, public support for past projects has been tenuous with local referendums often upending fledgling bids.
But that might not be a problem for the current bid that is labeled as decentralized and sustainable with the use of existing venues throughout the nation the core of the plans. The Games estimated to cost 1.48 billion Swiss francs (USD $1.65 billion) has the support of about two-thirds of residents according to a recent poll.
The Swiss bid could usher in a new reality for the Winter Olympics where following IOC mandates has resulted in the removal of the Olympic Village from plans.
But again, Switzerland will have to provide government guarantees that are all but assured. So while the IOC will likely include Switzerland in targeted dialogue it needs to further hedge its bets.
Will France be included?
This is the tricky question.
The so-called French Alps 2030 bid will check the boxes for the IOC. Reliable climate, existing venues, regional concept, reasonable public support and a good partner NOC. It seems a little hastily put together as the most recent addition to the race but there are months of possible targeted dialogue ahead to smooth that out.
These are the problems and risks for the IOC that might move it to sever the bid sooner than later:
The French Olympic Committee (CONSF) is currently organizing the Paris 2024 Games. Will work on a competitive bid to host the 2030 Winter Games shift some focus from the critical final preparations for the Summer Games? The IOC might think so.
The organization of the Paris Games has not been entirely smooth. Public support has been dropping, costs have increased and some deliverables – such as transportation improvements – have been delayed or won’t be delivered at all. There are threats of protests and labor disruptions in the run up and during the Games. How might an additional bid impact public support (for both projects) and the other issues while organizers try to carefully coddle what they are tasked to deliver? The IOC won’t want to find out.
And if the IOC were to elect the French Alps bid next year and there is subsequent negative fallout from the Paris Games, how will that impact the 2030 edition? It didn’t bode well for Sapporo’s 2030 bid that was forced to disband after a corruption scandal rocked Tokyo’s 2020 Games.
Or it could come down to a technical issue. If the French bid were to be named preferred candidate and added to the final election ballot, the planned vote in Paris next year would have to be moved to an extraordinary Session either before or after the Games. According to the Olympic Charter, a host nation cannot be elected by a vote within its own borders.
Maybe that seems trivial, and France could be named to targeted dialogue Wednesday yet be disqualified from the final ballot after March next year so that the Paris vote can remain. But dropping the French Alps this week would mean solid plans for the important Session in Paris could be confirmed now.
Despite all of that, I’m still certain France will be moved to targeted dialogue for 2030 along with Sweden and Switzerland.
I think the additional option for the IOC is critical while the other bids are yet to be guaranteed, and even more significantly, I can’t imagine the EB embarrassing France by dropping only the French bid from the list of candidates during an announcement from its own capital city.
That’s not how the IOC rolls, I know that much for sure.
The rest remains to be seen.
