Why Chicago’s Olympic Bid Failed

For the first time ever, a South American city will host the Olympics. Today, Rio de Janeiro was named the host city of the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. The path to the top was paved for Rio when Chicago, considered to be Rio’s closest competition, was eliminated in the first round of voting.

Technically, Chicago’s bid was very strong by all accounts, perhaps the strongest ever by any American city. So why did Chicago lose the bid? Why was the city eliminated in the first round while earning only 18 votes by IOC members? I have several theories, and they have nothing to do with President Obama’s inability to sway voters or with Michael Jordan not appearing in Copenhagen.

Lack of focus. Chicago’s bid had no central theme or purpose to rally around. The final presentation did not provide IOC members with a strong, compelling reason why Chicago should host the Olympics. And it failed to show what kind of legacy the Games would leave behind to help local communities.

On the other hand, Rio’s bid team repeatedly reminded IOC members that the Olympic Games had never been held in South America, and Rio was ready to host them. That message apparently resonated with IOC voters.

Lack of public support. A Tribune poll in August showed only 47 percent of Chicagoans wanted the city to host the Olympic Games, down from more than 60 percent in February. IOC members generally do not award the Games to cities where public support is low. That may have been the case with Chicago’s bid.

USOC issues. The U.S. Olympic Committee has several lingering conflicts with the IOC, including the U.S. share of revenue from the Games and the USOC’s recent announcement that they would launch an Olympic network. Both parties have agreed to table these issues until after the 2016 bid city was announced. In addition, the USOC appears to be somewhat unstable after several changes in USOC leadership and cutbacks in operations earlier this year, which might have hampered Chicago’s bid.

Lack of visibility. While the city’s bid effort introduced Chicago to many IOC members who were unfamiliar with the city, Chicago’s remains relatively unknown compared to the other bid cities. IOC members are not allowed to visit the bidding cities on their own, so they must rely on the presentations and bid books to become familiar with the bid city. IOC members may have preferred to give the Games to a city they are more familiar with.

Lack of experience with Olympic bidding process. This is Chicago’s first bid attempt, and their lack of experience showed at times. Chicago made a few mistakes along the way, such as creating their initial logo without consulting IOC rules governing symbol usage. The committee had to scrap the logo and create a new one. The other bid cities have gone through the bid process before and know what to expect, know what buttons to push. Both Rio and Madrid submitted bids for the 2012 Games and lost out to eventual winner London. Tokyo has hosted the Games before.

U.S. reputation. It is no secret that the United States has an image problem with the rest of the world. Despite the election of President Obama, the U.S. is still not well liked or trusted in many parts of the world. I wonder how much of that distrust carried over into the IOC’s decision.

Ultimately, the reason Chicago did not win its bid to host the 2016 Olympic Games is because Rio de Janeiro presented a better, more compelling case why they should host the Games.

Go ahead. Blame it on Rio.

Final Countdown Begins for Olympic Bid Cities

The clock is ticking.

In less than 24 hours, members of the International Olympic Committee will decide which of four bid cities will host the 2016 Summer Olympic Games: Tokyo, Madrid, Rio de Janeiro and Chicago. While each bid city has presented strong cases for hosting the Olympic Games, the general consensus is that this race is oh-so-close, with Rio and Chicago being the leading contenders.

After reading the Chicago Tribune’s succinct summary of why each bid city could win or lose the Olympic bid, I think Chicago’s chances are quite good. Rio is a strong contender and presents an emotional case, but I don’t think they are quite ready logistically to handle the Games. Their budget of $14.4 billion is much higher because the infrastructure is not yet in place. They have more venues to build, and the Games will be more spread out, which means they need to build the roads and transportation. With so much work to do, Rio may be a risky choice.

Even more troubling is the level of crime, as Tribune column Phil Hersh described recently in his Globetrotting blog. Granted, Chicago has crime issues too, but they don't compare with what is happening in Rio. These crime and infrastructure issues could be big enough concerns that they could hurt Rio’s chances to win the Games.

We'll know for sure in less than 24 hours.