OpEd - Many Hoops Ahead for U.S. Olympic Bid

Literally the first question that came to mind when the news broke last week that the IOC and USOC had come to terms on a new revenue sharing deal was what impact this would have on a possible bid from the U.S. for the Olympic Games?

After defeats for New York for 2012 and Chicago in 2016, the USOC leadership refused to entertain new bids for the Games until it settled with the IOC on a new deal. The old agreement forged 20 years ago, gives the USOC the single biggest share of TV and sponsorship revenues, more than the other 204 NOCs combined. Whether the new agreement repairs the frayed feelings of the NOCs and IFs pushing for more remains to be seen; the new deal kicks in eight years from now and when it does, NOCs and IFs may continue to be disappointed with their share.

That aside, the USOC will have to move deliberately if a new Olympic Games within the next 12 years are part of its long-term strategy. The USOC Board of Directors may tackle that question when it meets in June. Bids for the 2022 Winter Games are due next year. 2024 Summer Games bids open in 2015.

While the question of whether to bid for summer or winter Games might seem to be an early one to resolve, the USOC Board might want to ask some others before giving the thumbs-up to a new bid plunge.

Which cities in the U.S. are ready to spend $50 million to $100 million on a bid? And are these cities truly able to appeal to the IOC?

Does the USOC have a winning team to deliver a successful bid? After two consecutive defeats, Team USOC may need bolstering. More U.S. leadership in federations and continental organizations is needed to help build influence.

Will the new revenue sharing agreement change attitudes toward the U.S. into "yes" votes for an Olympic bid? The president of one large European NOC says he is not convinced his country will benefit.

And should there be cities ready to bid for the Games, will the White House support a new campaign, especially if occupied by Barack Obama? His reputationand prestige took a blow when the IOC rejected Chicago for the 2016 Games on the first ballot – even after a personal appearance at the IOC Session in Copenhagen.

Would Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, be a better fit for a U.S. Olympic bid after his experience running the Salt Lake City Winter Games?

In either case, the next U.S. president will need to be involved with any U.S. bids that emerge for 2022 or 2024.

And then back to the question of winter or summer? Timing is everything in a bid for the Games. In the case of the Winter Olympics, after trips to Russia and Korea, 2022 would seem perfect for a U.S. winter bid.

The same could be said with 2024, with either Europe or Asia to take 2020, and a 28-year lapse for Summer Games on U.S. soil. The wrinkle here may be a bid from Africa in 2024, although no NOCs on the continent appear to be truly preparing themselves for a contest just three years away.

Go for winter 2022 and the USOC will have to launch a selection process that needs to finish by mid-2013. Decide to go for 2024, and the USOC could wait to begin the process to select a nominee for another year.

Reno-Tahoe, Denver, Salt Lake City and Bozeman, Mt., should prepare for disappointment: the USOC may not be ready to bid so soon for the Winter Olympics.

The USOC will have the benefit of the upcoming election for FIVB President as a gauge of where the U.S. currently stands in the world of international sport politics. Doug Beal, CEO of USA Volleyball, is one of three nominees for the presidency at the FIVB Congress in Anaheim, Calif.,this September. Beal faces strong candidates from Australia and Brazil. If elected, he would become would become the only president of an Olympic sport IF who is from the U.S.

Should Beal lose, more questions may be needed from the USOC Board about whether the U.S. has what it takes to win an Olympic bid.

Written by Ed Hula

For general comments or questions, click here

20 Years at #1: