The Boston Olympic Committee in the coming months must "fill in the details of bare-bones Olympic venue and transportation plans, galvanize public support, and convince a chorus of skeptics that Boston can effectively pull off the world’s most prestigious international sports festival" after being selected Thursday at the U.S.' bid city for the '24 Games, according to a front-page piece by Arsenault & Powers of the BOSTON GLOBE. Boston’s "compact Olympic bid leans heavily" on existing venues, such as TD Garden and college facilities, including Harvard Stadium, Boston College’s Conte Forum and Boston Univ.’s Agganis Arena. Local Olympic organizers said that Boston 2024’s operating budget of about $4.5B "would be financed mainly through broadcast fees, corporate sponsorships, and ticket sales." They have "pledged not to use public money beyond what is already planned to be spent on infrastructure." A source said that city officials also "insisted on a provision that none of the other three cities did, ... an insurance policy" of up to $25M to "protect City Hall coffers from any liabilities associated with the bid." The source said that Boston 2024, the group that "steered the bid," paid about $1M for the insurance policy (BOSTON GLOBE, 1/9). Boston Olympic Committee Chair John Fish said, "We need to establish an excellent process, transparency, and then we need to execute" (BOSTON HERALD, 1/9).
A DIFFERENT APPROACH: In DC, Dave Sheinin notes Boston "represents a new tack for the USOC -- an old, storied East Coast city known for its universities and sports fanaticism" (WASHINGTON POST, 1/9). USA TODAY's Nancy Armour notes Boston's plan "will rely heavily on public transit and a large number of existing venues" -- ideas IOC President Thomas Bach "has championed after the bloated budgets of the Sochi and Rio Games." Boston also is proposing a "modular" Olympic Stadium. Organizers have said that their Olympic Stadium "can be repurposed -- reduced in size or dismantled and used at a different site" (USA TODAY, 1/9). The WALL STREET JOURNAL's Matthew Futterman notes the USOC "selected the most compact and arguably economically sound plan for hosting the Games." But the choice is "fraught with risk," as there is "already organized opposition to the bid in Boston, and the idea of hosting the Games fared poorly in polling that the USOC conducted in its evaluations of the cities." Despite its "reputation as an academic destination, Boston isn’t a world capital." The '24 campaign "could represent something of a do-or-die moment" for the USOC’s relationship with the IOC (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 1/9). In N.Y., Jere Longman writes yet to be determined is whether Boston "has the worldwide cachet" to convince IOC delegates that it is "a deserving host." Boston "proved attractive to the USOC because of its television-friendly location in the Eastern time zone" (N.Y. TIMES, 1/9).
USOC NOT DETERRED BY OPPOSITION: In Chicago, Philip Hersh notes the USOC "was not deterred by the level of public opposition in Boston" (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 1/9). In Boston, Erin Smith notes the opposition group No Boston Olympics "pledged to launch a ballot initiative or petition for state legislation to prevent Bay State taxpayers from having to foot the bill for a potential summer Olympics." Group co-Chair Chris Dempsey: “The USOC knew that opposition to Boston in the greater public was strong so they clearly picked a fight and we're willing to have that fight" (BOSTON HERALD, 1/9). Also in Boston, Irons & Tempera note locals "greeted the announcement with mixed feelings that ranged from pride to concern" (BOSTON GLOBE, 1/9).
THE RIGHT CALL: 3 WIRE SPORTS' Alan Abrahamson writes the Boston plan all along "captured the imagination of USOC leadership and staff." The "good news about Boston: it's a blank slate for many in the IOC" (3WIRESPORTS.com, 1/8). USA TODAY's Maggie Hendricks wrote the USOC was "right" in choosing Boston because its plan has "all the hallmarks the IOC ... is looking for." Hendricks: "It’s compact, relies heavily on the Boston’s many colleges and universities for venues, and will help the city finance a much-needed transportation upgrade" (USATODAY.com, 1/8). In Boston, Evan Horowitz writes, "We don’t know much about the precise plans for a Boston Olympics." The process is being organized by a "nonprofit group of business and cultural leaders called the 'Boston 2024 Partnership' -- and it hasn’t shared the official bid." Boston "doesn’t have a large stadium or an aquatic center or a velodrome (for biking), and these are three of the most expensive Olympic facilities." Horowitz: "What is more, finding places for them could be just as challenging as raising the money" (BOSTON GLOBE, 1/9).
PUBLIC ENEMY? A BOSTON GLOBE editorial states the bid selection "is a great honor -- but one that should only begin the public discussion of the wisdom of hosting the Games here, not end it." Organizers should make "public all of their bid documents." Financing is "only one of the problems that Olympics boosters will need to do a better job explaining to the public" (BOSTON GLOBE, 1/9). ESPN BOSTON's Gordon Edes noted public opinion polls "show that we're divided pretty evenly on whether having the Olympics here is such a good idea, and yet the power brokers have pushed through this bid without so much as a single public hearing." Politicians "love the idea, and so do the big businesses that stand to reap huge profits." Edes: "The rest of us? Our first inclination is to check for our wallets" (ESPNBOSTON.com, 1/8). In Boston, Howie Carr writes in "just one short decade, we ... will be able to blame the deficit on the monstrous lies these Olympic oligarchs were spewing" in '15 (BOSTON HERALD, 1/9). Also in Boston, Steve Buckley asks, "Does the IOC have Greater Boston’s best interests at heart? Does the USOC?" Buckley: "They don’t and they shouldn’t. That’s our job. And if we’re going to band together for the common good, don’t you think we’re capable of finding a better project than the Olympics?" (BOSTON HERALD, 1/9). TIME's Sean Gregory wrote under the header, "Boston May Be The Next Olympic Sucker" (TIME.com, 1/8).
GIVING IT A FAIR CHANCE: In Boston, Shirley Leung writes, "Instead of saying no, let’s say yes to the possibility. We can still be our scrutinizing selves" (BOSTON GLOBE, 1/9). Also in Boston, Dan Shaughnessy writes, "We are cynical and suspicious, but we are smart. Our love is hard-earned, but once you have it, you have it to the death. I think the USOC saw this. And fell hard for Boston" (BOSTON GLOBE 1/9).
TWITTER REAX TO SELECTION: ESPN's Brad Gilbert wrote on his Twitter account of Boston landing the bid, "Beantown is a really nice city but USOC made massive mistake not choosing Bay Area for 2024 U.S. city, now we have very little chance to win." SI's Richard Deitsch: "Two-front problem for Boston2024: Stiff competition (e.g. Rome/Paris/ Berlin/Istanbul) & majority of public/press is against. Can't see it." FoxSports.com's Clay Travis: "Boston's the US nominee for 2024 Olympics? Come on. Clear number four behind D.C., San Francisco, and LA." The N.Y. Times' Christopher Clarey: "I live here & I'm surprised." The Globe's Shaughnessy: "John Fish is one persuasive guy." The Washington Post's Thomas Boswell: "I was rooting for D.C.'s 2024 USOC bid on U Only Live Once grounds. But my experience says city that wins the Games often regrets victory."
