NEW YORK (CNN/Money) -
It angers critics of the United States to no end when I say this, but the International Olympics Committee will soon give in to U.S. dollars and business interest to award the country another Summer games.
That doesn't mean that New York will definitely win the 2012 Olympics. Even though the city was selected Saturday by the U.S. Olympic Committee as the U.S. candidate for the games, it will be appearing before the IOC for the first time when the site is selected in 2005. History says first-time candidates generally lose.
But if New York loses out on 2012, it will likely become the lead candidate for the 2016 games. And don't count out U.S. chances for winning 2012 the first time out of the box.
The only North American competition for 2012 -- Toronto -- is unlikely to even apply if Vancouver, B.C., wins the 2010 Winter games to be awarded next year. But a Vancouver win won't stop a U.S. bid for 2012. And since U.S. television rights produce nearly three-quarters of overall Olympic broadcast rights and most major Olympic sponsors are U.S.-based companies, there's legitimate economic reason to return the summer games to North America for the first time since the 1996 Atlanta Olympics.
"In the minds of some IOC members, a measure of a successful games is the money IOC obtains as its share that is passed along to all nations," said Mike Moran, spokesman for the USOC. "There is a very businesslike, pragmatic approach that (IOC President Jacques) Rogge is demonstrating. The old ways of thinking about rotation of games has disappeared. I think it's a bottom line bid."
 |
|
| U.S. flag waving at the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City earlier this year angered non-U.S. viewers, but the country still has a strong shot at landing the 2012 Summer Games. |
U.S. chances for 2012 could be an extra lift if the television rights for 2012 have not yet been awarded when the site is selected in 2005. The IOC would know that having a U.S. site locked in before the rights deal could spark a rights bidding war for one of the few premier sporting events that makes money for the broadcaster.
If the rights are awarded before 2005, that will lessen the financial upside for the IOC picking a U.S. city in 2012, because the broadcast fees would be locked in already. But the stronger viewership and sponsorship opportunities from a U.S.-hosted game would still give the U.S. bid an economic edge for the IOC.
| SportsBiz
|
|
|
|
|
"They are highly dependent on the interest of the American audience," said Dan Doctoroff, New York's deputy mayor for economic development and rebuilding, who was the founder of the city's Olympic efforts. "They have to maintain interest in the American viewer and one way is to have the games return here regularly."
The last time I suggested that U.S. television and sponsorship dollars would give the United States an edge, I was flooded with e-mails, many from overseas readers, suggesting it was wrong to let U.S. dollars dominate the process.
"You miss a very important point that the Olympics is one of few chances for small and poor nations to celebrate their national identity and PEACEFULLY show their own pride to all other nations," wrote one reader. "They may not be the biggest and richest players on the world scene, but they also deserve respect and they desperately need events like the Olympics to promote themselves, to promote sports and to advance their economies."
| Related stories
|
|
|
|
|
|
But it's questionable if the Olympics are a great spur to a poorer nation's economy, especially if they need to build a lot of infrastructure that would not be needed after the games are over.
The critics ignore the fact that the poorer nations' Olympic committees and athletes will benefit far more if the games produce a greater profit for the IOC through increased ticket sales, broadcast rights and sponsorship revenue that come with a U.S. games. The IOC isn't going to be as oblivious to those economic realities.
|
