Welcome to the Science of Sport, where we bring you the second, third, and fourth level of analysis you will not find anywhere else.

Be it doping in sport, hot topics like Caster Semenya or Oscar Pistorius, or the dehydration myth, we try to translate the science behind sports and sports performance.

Consider a donation if you like what you see here!

Did you know?
We published The Runner's Body in May 2009. With an average 4.4/5 stars on Amazon.com, it has been receiving positive reviews from runners and non-runners alike.

Available for the Kindle and also in the traditional paper back. It will make a great gift for the runners you know, and helps support our work here on The Science of Sport.

Friday, October 02, 2009

It's Rio in 2016

Rio 2016: The Olympic Games head to South America

Rio de Janeiro will host the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The decision from Copenhagen today sent crowds on Rio's Copacabana into raptures, and for the second time in a few years, Brazil celebrated being awarded a major international sporting event.

The 2014 FIFA World Cup will now be followed by the 2016 Olympic Games, which means Rio is in the same position as Mexico City back in 1968/1970, and Munich in 1972/1974, hosting two huge events in the same cycle. The only exception is the order, since Rio gets the FIFA World Cup before the Olympic Games (of course, the FIFA World Cup is shared across Brazil, not just Rio, but the point remains). Still, the FIFA World Cup and Olympic Games are the biggest sporting events in the world, and so Brazil will be in a prolonged sporting spotlight for the next 8 years. (when I first posted, I'd completely forgotten about these two - losing my memory, clearly! However, can I escape by saying that since the "professionalization" of the events, no city has hosted two events consecutively?)

The defeated applicants - Chicago falls in round 1

The Rio decision left three very disappointed cities - Madrid, Tokyo and Chicago. In that order of elimination, too. The voting process, which saw one city eliminated in each of four rounds, saw Chicago fall at the very first hurdle.

This was the big surprise, and I'll be honest, a big disappointment for us at The Science of Sport. Both Jonathan (a Chicago resident, of course) and I had supported the Chicago bid, and so we're disappointed in the vote for personal reasons. For anyone who loves sport, the Olympics are such a highlight that it would have been great to share in the buildup and maybe even get involved in the preparation for the 2016 Games (the one occasion where sports science is in demand in in the lead-up to major events. Not that the US has this problem - here in SA, we need that stimulus far more!).

Chicago was one of the favorites in what was one of the closest races in Olympic bidding history. The two front-runners were Chicago and Rio, and when Chicago was eliminated first, there was shock and amazement from Chicago and from the delegates in Copenhagen. Among the public, however, there were a few protests leading up to the decision - people who feel that the spending required on the Games cannot be justified when other social services are deemed inadequate. Justifying billions on sport is always a tough task to those not passionate about sport. Others see it as a platform for change, an economic stimulus, a force for positive change. Perhaps Jonathan will give us a local perspective on the response to the decision a little later.

In my sports management work, I've been involved at different levels with a couple of bids, and know people who have headed up bids for other major events, and I will say that the only thing you can ever know with certainty is that you know nothing about how the voting will go. The typical bid process requires a committee to jump through all kinds of hoops, to meet certain requirements in an attempt to make the bids as uniform and objective as possible. How much money, guarantees on the money, commitments to facilities, rooms for tourists, the Olympic village, and so forth.

But the reality is that the bid often swings on personal issues, voting blocs and alliances with future promises or previous favors being called in. So you can meet every criteria, and even exceed them, but you can't guarantee success. Sentiment plays cold, hard cash and business sense, which is NOT as simple as seeing which city can spend the most money or raise the highest sponsorship (as people have tended to oversimplify it) - the business sense is often a function of how much the rights owner (the IOC in this case) is assured of by the host city, and this goes beyond the sponsorship and government/business backing.

And both sentiment and business are often trumped by politics, and politics is personal. The result is a voting process that is always debated - just look at the 2012 decision, where Paris was a 'sure thing' until the last moment, or any vote before it.

But onto Rio and 2016

But onto Rio, which did have a great bid - you can read a really great summary of the four different bids here. It was comfortably the largest financial bid - close to $14 billion split between operating expenses ($2.82 billion) and capital costs of $11.1 billion (Chicago had the largest operation budget at $3.8 billion, incidentally). I suspect some of the capital costs will have to be absorbed into 2014 planning and construction, since both will really have to be done simultaneously - resources are going to become very lucrative in Rio!)

For Rio, a big selling point was "distribution" of the Games, because it had never been to South America, and so 2016 will be the first time. This is quite an amazing stat, actually.

Brazil will be a fantastic place between 2013 and 2016, with one major sporting event following the next. The culture, the energy, should make for a fantastic Games. It will be interesting to see how Brazil uses the Games to prepare its athletes - we have seen China spend millions on its athlete development, and Great Britain have done the same leading into 2012. Brazil are not a classic powerhouse in Olympic sport (you can be sure the soccer at the 2016 Games will be a highlight, though), and so I'm really interested to see what hosting status does for their high performance sports strategy.

I'm sure there is more to come, maybe some opinion from Jonathan on the reaction in Chicago, maybe more related to the voting process (as is typical), and the reaction of some elite athletes - one thing that is for sure, there'll be a lot of 15 to 18-year old prospective Olympic athletes who are marking their calendars tonight..."Rio, here I come!"



r2d2 said...

Rio all the way !! I was hoping Rio would win and it did. Jonathan take heart, it'll soon be time for the babes in bikini and capoeira.

Chrystal K. said...

I'd love to go there!

Gary Lee said...

This is a major story, I am very excited for the first Olympiad in South America. Very Exciting!

constant gina said...

This is an obvious decision...who would choose Chicago over Rio De Janero?? wtf

Geoff Lamb said...

I don't know why people thought Chicago could win. USA have had 2 out of the last 7 Olympic games!

Anonymous said...

I don't know why the people of Madrid thought they were going to win. Europe has had 3 of the last 6 Olympics (including 2012).

I don't know why the people of Tokyo thought they were going to win. Asia has had 3 of the last 6 Olympics (including Australia).

So, by this logic only Dubai, Mumbai Tel Aviv and Johannesburg need to apply fo 2020. All others will be summarily rejected.

Anonymous said...

Being from Chicago I can tell you that people here are not up in arms becuase Chicago lost. We all understood that Rio was the favorite. We are up in arms because we lost in the first round of voting with a paltry 18 of 96 votes. Their is a feeling that an American backlash was behind this rejection. This fix was in from the beginning

Had Chicago lost in the final round to Rio in a close vote (like London over Paris 4 years ago), I believe most would have understood that.

Geoff Lamb said...

Ah, you all seem to be confusing the IOC with a democratic, accountable organisation! (Read books by Andrew Jennings http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dishonored-Games-Corruption-Money-Olympics/dp/1561711993/ref=pd_sim_b_1)

I was living in Melbourne during the bidding of the 1996 Olympics, which was clearly superior to Atlanta in every respect except for one, we were not the global headquarters of Coke! Melbourne went out in the 3rd of 7 rounds. The bookies had Melbourne slightly ahead of Toronto and Athens. Also, one of Australia's own IOC members were working against Melbourne as he knew that if Melbourne did not win the 1996 olympics, his town, Sydney would bid for the 2000 Olympics. (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympic-games-urban-rivalry-disrupts-sydney-plans-1416775.html)

The bidding process always has been, and always will be corrupt. Chicago losing will almost certainly have nothing to do with Chicago's bid process. IOC members are paying back favors, or getting favors for bids/jobs/money down the track

robert merkel said...

I like sport too, but one-off extravaganzas like the Olympics have an appalling record as investments.

The venues almost always end up white elephants, the costs are always higher than anticipated, and the wider economic benefits are illusory.

Nor does hosting the games encourage wider participation in sport. If you want to improve the health of the population, spend the money on cycling paths (and, heck, in the USA, spend the money on sidewalks).

Anonymous said...

I would love to go to Rio