The USOC yesterday named L.A. the U.S. candidate to host the '24 Games after the City Council unanimously approved a contract to proceed with a bid. All 15 council members expressed support, but they gave themselves -- or their successors in office -- plenty of chances to back out in the future. City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana said amendments to the contract explicitly require new acts of council to approve future direct expenditures, financial guarantees, land acquisition for new venues and fee waivers for use of city venues. L.A. City Council President Herb Wesson said, “This is the engagement, not the wedding. And now we are in the pre-nup stages of putting together what the agreement will actually be." Council members indicated they were "buying time" with their vote and sought assurances from legal staff that they would be in a position to influence or even reject future requests. Council member Mitch O'Farrell said, "This council should be prepared to walk away if the terms are unfavorable." Questions already are mounting about the cost and feasibility of at least one major component of the games, a city-games-developer project to build athlete housing. USOC Chair Larry Probst said he did not think the potentially extensive Council oversight would be a problem. Probst: "I don’t think it’s a hinderance at all. I think it’s a reasonable process. I think the IOC will see it as a reasonable process. And really the focus is on convincing 55 or so IOC members that L.A. is the best city." There appears to be little or no organized public opposition to the Games, but each act of the Council also is technically subject to a citizen referendum process, as the L.A. bid book notes (Ben Fischer, Staff Writer).
CHALLENGES TO OVERCOME: O'Farrell said, "We are not going to allow Los Angeles taxpayers to be on the hook for cost overruns." In L.A., Wharton & Jamison note it is "unclear how the council action might affect" Mayor Eric Garcetti's "avowed willingness to offer a financial backstop." Garcetti has "vowed to sign an IOC host contract that would make the city financially liable if the Games ended up in debt" (L.A. TIMES, 9/2). L.A. 2024 Chair Casey Wasserman said that there is "no risk in hosting, saying the Olympics and Paralympic games 'aren't a gamble.'" In L.A., Dakota Smith in a front-page piece notes after personally thanking several council members for their vote, Garcetti "told reporters that the Olympics is in the city’s DNA." He said, “We know how to do Olympics. We know how to do them well.” Garcetti contends taxpayer money "won’t be at risk. He said that he "expects" a $161M surplus for L.A. from the Games. Organizers said that it will cost at least $4.1B to host, while an additional $1.7B is "needed from private investors, pushing the total cost" to roughly $6B when insurance and contingency funds are added (L.A. DAILY NEWS, 9/2). In announcing the bid, Garcetti said that L.A. "would face few of the financial challenges that have troubled past hosts." Garcetti: "It is important to stress that we are not changing the face of our city to fit the Olympic Games." In N.Y., Ian Lovett notes USOC CEO Scott Blackmun "also stressed how well" L.A.'s bid fit with the IOC's Agenda 2020. Blackmun: "We believe this city can produce a new kind of Games" (N.Y. TIMES, 9/2).
TOUGH TASK AHEAD: The pool for '24 is crowded and competition is stiff. British betting house Ladbrokes gives L.A. 6-1 odds of landing the Games, improved slightly from 7-1 about a month ago. Frontrunner Paris is given 7-4 odds. Also in front of L.A. for now: Rome, 3-1; Toronto and Hamburg, both at 5-1. Baku is given 25-1 longshot hopes, and Budapest rounds out the field at 33-1 (Fischer). In Chicago, Philip Hersh notes L.A. is "0-for-7 in contested international elections to be Summer Games host, having been the only candidate" for '32 and '84. Hersh: "Going 0-for-8 might make ’28 look great" (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 9/2). In L.A., David Wharton writes what comes next for the city is "still a bit of a mystery." The bidding process will "change significantly after recent reforms" by the IOC that, among other things, seeks to "make campaigning for the Games less costly." L.A. bid leaders said that they have "already raised" $35M in private funding. The new process "begins in mid-September when cities submit their applications" (L.A. TIMES, 9/2). Wharton in a front-page piece writes, "Now comes the hard part." The city "could further benefit from behind-the-scenes politicking" by the USOC. In the "dynamics of the IOC's selection process," that should put L.A. "in a strong position when the host city is selected" in '17 (L.A. TIMES, 9/2).
 |
L.A.'s bid calls for building an athletes village
with a price tag of $1B |
FINANCIAL QUESTIONS REMAIN: The AP's Michael Blood noted many financial details of the L.A. plan "remain vague." The bid calls for building a $1B athletes village "on a rail yard the city doesn't own, and government analysts have warned that developing the site could significantly exceed the projected cost." A private developer would invest most of the $925M to "build the village, but who would build the site, how the company would be selected and what type of financing would be used is unclear" (AP, 9/1). An L.A. TIMES editorial states questions about financing for the Games are "starting to add up." Revenue projections that Garcetti's negotiating team made in its bid proposal count on more than $1B of "investment and cooperation from outside sources, including USC, NBC Universal and private developers." But "closer inspection shows that these contributions are based on little more than assumptions and extrapolations, not rock-solid promises" (L.A. TIMES, 9/2).
LENDING A HAND: The CHICAGO TRIBUNE's Hersh writes the USOC "simply is grateful" L.A. chose to "forget its earlier snub and take over" for the failed Boston bid. After "pulling the plug" on Boston on July 27, the USOC might have stayed on the sidelines" for '24 had IOC President Thomas Bach "not delivered a virtual ultimatum by saying two days later, 'We had a commitment from USOC for an Olympic candidature for 2024.'" For Olympic bids, the IOC "knows it can say whatever it wants." USOC leaders "understood Bach’s implication" (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 9/2). USA TODAY's Nancy Armour writes USOC leaders "ought to send the folks in Boston a thank-you note," as it was "dumb luck" they ended up with L.A. as the bid city. L.A. was the "best choice" all along, and the city is "eager for the opportunity." Blackmun: "We definitely feel fortunate." Armour: "At least the Boston dumpster fire was put out before it reached the IOC" (USA TODAY, 9/2).
CALIFORNIA LOVE: In California, Todd Harmonson writes there are "negatives to hosting Olympics, but anyone who experienced the 1984 Games or benefited from their astounding financial success understands Southern California will thrive" if it is awarded the '24 version. It is a region that, "unlike so many others, is far down the road toward readiness." Harmonson: "We obviously can’t assume that Olympics 40 years later will have the same legacy, and no one should be naïve enough to go into this two-year bidding process. ... Done right, however, the Olympics can leave a lasting impact" (ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, 9/2). In L.A., Bill Plaschke writes the "greatest sports city in the world deserves to host the greatest sports event in the world." L.A. and the '24 Games "would be perfect for each other." The undertaking "is huge, the odds are formidable, but the chase is a worthy one." Plaschke: "The Olympics would be lucky to return here, and Los Angeles would be lucky to have them back" (L.A. TIMES, 9/2). In California, Jeff Miller writes bidding on the Games "wasn’t a venture to be entered into lightly, a fact reinforced when Boston fled from the opportunity as if it were a toxic fungus." Miller: "I understand the sleaze and slime that historically drips from the Games. ... In Sochi, I saw the lunacy of a power-drunk regime wasting billions of dollars entertaining foreigners on the broken backs of penniless locals." But this "isn’t Russia." Miller: "This is Los Angeles, and, although I wasn’t around here then, everything I’ve heard about the 1984 Olympics suggests we’re more than equipped to handle the Games again" (ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, 9/2).
CUT ABOVE THE REST: 3 WIRE SPORTS' Alan Abrahamson wrote yesterday's announcement, one of the "most intriguing and rousing plays in recent Olympic history, was staged at the beach." The Olympic movement, the Summer Games and the IOC "need to be cool again." Abrahamson: "The Southern California beachfront is unequivocally one of the coolest places on Planet Earth." Garcetti "proved yet again that he is a most compelling public official." The two-year bid process can "be a slog of numbers, finance, politics." What "gets lost, way too often, is the very thing that was showcased Tuesday at the beach: the hope and promise of the Olympics" (3WIRESPORTS.com, 9/1). FORBES' Patrick Rishe wrote when the IOC makes its decision in '17, it will take "considerable work from other Olympic applicants to cause the IOC to say 'no' to L.A. 2024" (FORBES.com, 9/1).
