HOUSTON WAS ALWAYS a shoo-out. Despite its solid Games-plan, Houston is devoid of glamour. The Olympic family sees Houston and thinks Atlanta, which in Olympic circles remains the ultimate four-letter word. Thanks to Atlanta’s tacky and hapless performance in ‘96, it may be another millennium before an American city in the South hosts an Olympics again.
To halve the number of cities–boosting San Francisco and New York City and booting Houston and Washington–competing to host the next American Olympics, the USOC took the measure of their facilities, their financing and their fondest dreams. But while all were critical measures, this country’s ability to sell the locale to the International Olympic Committee delegates may now be the paramount factor. That wasn’t always the case; the U.S. used to pick a city at its whim and, with its political and economic clout, would pretty much guarantee a Games would eventually come. Which accounts for why the United States has hosted eight Olympics over the past 100 years. But America’s stock is not high at the IOC these days. First Atlanta and then the bribery scandal created a blemish on the Olympic movement that even Salt Lake’s problem-free performance didn’t make up for.
The official U.S. candidate for 2012, San Francisco or New York, will be chosen in November. But the battle between America’s two East Coast juggernauts to claim the second spot in that contest reflected the growing impact of international concerns. Washington’s biggest problem was Washington itself. While it is a beautiful area and boasted a very manageable Olympic plan, most of the world doesn’t recognize a Washington beyond the White House and federal government. And that huge shadow wouldn’t have boosted a D.C. initiative, especially with delegates from the Third World.
Whichever American city prevails, it will not emerge as a favorite for 2012. There is a glittery lineup of international giants–London, Paris, Rome, Moscow, Istanbul, Rio de Janeiro, Toronto–ready to contend for the Olympic privilege. And IOC President Jacques Rogge has made no secret that he would love for Cape Town to host the 2012 Games, making history by taking the Games to Africa as his predecessor, Juan Antonio Samaranch, did with his push for Beijing. Moreover, Vancouver is favored to win 2010, and it is unlikely that back-to-back Olympics would be held in North America (though Europe has both the 2004 and 2006 Olympics, with Athens and Turin, Italy). Still, the American choice is almost guaranteed to eventually host an Olympics. The U.S. selection would remain this nation’s flag-bearer for 2016 and onward, as long as local organizers are willing to contest for a Games.
The San Francisco bid is not without problems, most notably that its hotel space is primarily in the city while most prime events would be held down the peninsula in Palo Alto. But its Golden Gate image is powerful, likely to captivate the public as Sydney’s sparkling opera house did in 2000. New York has plenty of pizzazz, too. But while the events of 9/11 created tremendous sympathy for the city, it is unlikely to hold any sway internationally when the 2012 Olympics is finally awarded in 2005.
Moreover, those tragic events have put an enormous burden on New York, both emotionally and financially, a burden that has been exacerbated by the slumping economy. To host a Games in New York would be far more costly, with estimates running as high as $5 billion. Both the next two Summer Games, Athens and Beijing, have run into problems with overpromising during their successful campaigns. To win USOC backing, New York will have to convince voters that its politicians can make good on expensive stadium and subway commitments. All things being equal, the more charm and the less baggage now tends to carry the day. That would mandate San Francisco as the choice come November. It’s New York’s task over the next three months to convince the USOC that no city equals New York.
