Potential U.S. bid for Olympics has timing on its side
There's no doubt International Olympic Committee members like their perks.
Cocktail parties where they can rub elbows with royalty and heads of state. Access exclusive enough to rival the hippest Manhattan clubs. Chauffeurs, fancy cars and pretty much any other goodie they can think to demand.
But what matters above all else? Familiarity.
If the U.S. Olympic Committee decides to pursue the 2024 Summer Games, as expected, it will do so knowing there is almost no chance an American bid will face the kind of humiliation New York and Chicago did. Unlike when the U.S. bid for the 2012 and 2016 Games, the USOC has representations at the highest levels in the IOC.
And the IOC doesn't embarrass its own.
"They have a strong IOC membership position today. And I think that that's really important. That's going to help a bid," Pat Ryan, who was chairman and CEO of Chicago 2016, told Paste BN Sports recently.
"We competed, certainly, against three countries where they did have very active senior IOC leadership running their bid. And that is a good thing," Ryan said. "So I think that the U.S. is positioned quite differently for 2024 than they have been in the past."
The IOC will choose a 2024 host in 2017, and the USOC has said it will decide soon whether to make a bid. It has already narrowed the potential list of host cities to four: Los Angeles, Boston, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco.
The IOC will consider reforms to the bid process during its meetings Monday and Tuesday in Monaco. While those could benefit a U.S. bid, nothing helps more than the USOC's efforts over the last five years to play nice with the IOC.
When Chicago bid for the 2016 Games, it had arguably the best plan among Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo and Madrid. It was fiscally sound, using temporary venues that were cheaper to build and could later be moved to other parks so Chicago wouldn't be saddled with white elephants. It was compact, with 90 percent of athletes within 15 minutes of their competition and training sites.
All Chicago lacked was a high-level USOC official who could lobby IOC members on its behalf.
Larry Probst had only been USOC chairman for a year before the 2009 vote, giving him little sway with IOC members. The CEO job was like a revolving door, with interim CEO Stephanie Streeter taking over just six months before the vote. Many IOC members were also resentful of the USOC because of a long-simmering squabble over revenue sharing.
The bids by Rio and Madrid, on the other hand, were steered by longtime IOC insiders. No surprise, they finished 1-2 in the voting while Chicago was eliminated in the first round.
"It's really important that … the USOC leadership who are IOC members have a very symbiotic relationship in that bid, and that it's seen that way by IOC members," Ryan said.
It's no different than big deals in any other business: Decision-makers tend to gravitate toward who and what they know.
But the USOC is no longer the stranger at the party.
Since 2009, Probst and now-CEO Scott Blackmun have made it a priority to repair relationships with the IOC. An agreement on revenue sharing was reached in May 2012. Probst is now an IOC member and sits on several high-profile commissions, including serving as head of the press commission.
Blackmun, a long-time USOC employee, is also well-regarded by the IOC.
The IOC is also aware that it needs to make occasional trips to the U.S., particularly for the Summer Games. It will be at least 28 years between Summer Games in the United States, and it hasn't hosted the Olympics since the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City.
Take that all together, and Ryan said the timing for a U.S. bid is close to ideal.
"The overall environment is conducive," he said.
Might not hurt to start thinking about where to have the cocktail parties.