Istanbul or Madrid or Tokyo? Hidden factors will be decisive in the bid battle to host 2020 Olympic Games

Tokyo or Madrid or Istanbul? Where is your money going as host city for the 2020 Olympic Games. Not that betting is approved by the International Olympic Committee but then, this is not sport, is it, this is business?

Over the past four weeks a 14-strong evaluation commission, headed by IOC vice-president Sir Craig Reedie, has spent four formal days in each city checking out the bids, how they correlate to the bible-heavy bid books and how what is on the ground slots into the vision of the presentations.

The pattern, perfectly properly, was virtually the same. Early each morning the EC listened to presentations on the 14 themes assessed as the foundation for Olympic hosting (government guarantees, finance, security, transport, media operations, legacy, Paralympics ec). The afternoons were given over to site visits to the proposed Olympic stadia and whatever other venues were deemed appropriate.

On the concluding afternoon Reedie held a wrap-up press conference at which, to the irritation and frustration of the unarmed local media, he and Games executive director Gilbert Felli contrived to say as little as possible as pleasantly as possible.

The various members of the panel, along the way, had been putting together draft assessments of the assigned themes. These will be firmed up, co-ordinated and ultimately compiled in the report which will be presented to IOC members shortly before the three cities present their visions in Lausanne on July 3 and 4.

Two months later come the final presentations to the IOC, but this time in Buenos Aires on September 7, just before the vote. This is the grand stage for a beauty parade of royalty, other heads of state and senior politicians.

This writer followed the EC members who are, it must be said, kept at a safe distance from the media in case one of other carries a communicable disease (like infectious loose words, etc).

The priority for the IOC is to ensure, as far as is possible, that the Games goes to the city which offers the more solid and secure stage. After all, the IOC is not a sports governing body it is ‘merely’ an event organiser, albeit one which wraps itself up in the cloak of defender of the moral high ground.

Hence the good news is that all three cities, in their contrasting ways,  do appear perfectly capable of hosting an acceptably ‘proper’ Olympic Games.

That settled, the decision-making process comes down to more delicate issues of culture, style, ambition, personal judgment and a gaze into the crystal ball to ponder where the world may be in seven years’ time.

The IOC sets significant store by its popularity poll. Istanbul has the advantage here with a 83pc city and 76pc national approval (Tokyo boasts 70pc and 67pc, Madrid 76pc and 81pc). Consolation for Madrid should be the example of London which was surrounded by a significantly vocal local scepticism all along the road to the Opening Ceremony.

In budget terms, none of the figures need be believed. London proved the point. Rigth now Madrid assesses $2bn, Tokyo $4.5bn and Istanbul a whopping $19.2bn.

Marketing mastermind Michael Payne has noted via Twitter that the Istanbul figure is not specifically Olympian but generated from the municipal masterplan. Even so, these figures are an excellent rough guide about how much needs to be done.

Tokyo (drawn first out of the hat in order of EC visits) went out in the second round of voting for 2016. This time Tokyo is much better off.

Also, of course, everyone knows that ‘Japan works’.

No-one doubts the ‘how’ – that Tokyo can stage a highly efficient Games. The issue of ‘why’ is more complicated. Bid leaders say they want to welcome the world to say thankyou for sport’s support after the 2011 earthquake and tsnunami but they dare not play that card too overtly: questions might be asked about when and where the next earthquakes are due.

Tokyo’s improvements this time include not only a more compact venues plan but relaxed attitude. This stemmed partly from the change of governor. Shintaro Ishihara dominated the 2016 bid with a focus which was less about sport than using the Olympics to finance the regeneration of Tokyo Bay.

Successor Naoki Inose has proved far more sport-friendly, leading a team who also appeared more comfortable this time around in dealing with a bidding context dictated by western, not eastern, culture.

Madrid presented a very different face. The Spanish capital’s ability to bounce back from one bidding defeat after another was as intriguing as the absence of any of the individuals who might have offered valuable ‘knowledge transfer’ insight.

These would be austerity Games for a modern era. Little issues – such as pedantic, ill-prepared security staff – would have gone unnoticed by the EC members. They would, and should, have been impressed that Madrid had 80pc of venues in place.

However, TV pictures from Cyprus would have reminded the panel, on retiring to their hotel rooms at the end of the day, that the Eurozone crisis will not suddenly go away in the short term.

As for Turkey’s Istanbul, what can be said? City and country pulled out every possible stop to impress. Nothing was left to chance, no bidding-advantage stone left unturned. The ‘one-Games-two-continents’ message was underlined by the announcement – mid-visit – of the bid slogan.

Bridge Together was by far superior to Discover Tomorrow (Tokyo) and Illuminate the Future (Madrid). Istanbul’s slogan was built on the very real and solid image of the Bosphorus Bridge; the other two slogans are merely words.

That said, Istanbul – like any big old city, like London, for example – faces a major transport challenge exacerbated by a glance at a venues guide pointing up no fewer than seven clusters. Also, some three-quarters of those venues must still be built.

Tokyo or Madrid or Istanbul?

It’s close.

The twist in the tail is that comparative values may prove less important than the political bargaining surrounding the elections of a new IOC president, of a new or old sport in the Games plus consideration about who wants to bid for 2024.

For now these issues need not concern Reedie and his report writers.

Until, of course, they come to cast their own votes.

 

---

Keir Radnedge has been covering football worldwide for more than 40 years, writing 33 books, from tournament guides to comprehensive encyclopedias, aimed at all ages.

His journalism career included The Daily Mail for 20 years as well as The Guardian and other national newspapers and magazines in the UK and around the world. He is a former editor, and remains a lead columnist, with World Soccer, generally recognised as the premier English language magazine on global football.

In addition to his writing, Keir has been a regular analyst for BBC radio and television, Sky Sports, Sky News, Aljazeera and CNN.

Keir Radnedge’s Twitter: @KeirRadnedge

Keir Radnedge’s 

{jcomments on}