Much of the Olympic talk in recent months has been about (1) whether Paris or Los Angeles will win the bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics, and (2) whether the International Olympic Committee (IOC) would award the 2024 and 2028 Summer Games during the same bid cycle, effectively giving the 2028 Games to whichever city of the two mentioned above that does not receive the 2024 bid.
Throughout the battle for the 2024 Games, each city has tried to show its compliance with the IOC's reform movement entitled Agenda 2020, which among its 40 recommendations, highlights the importance of (1) reducing the cost of bidding on the Games and (2) maximizing the use of existing facilities so as to enhance the sustainability aspect of the Games while reducing infrastructural expenditures. On this second point, for example, Los Angeles is arguably the most qualified city in the world to host an Olympics due to (1) their massive array of existing high-end sports facilities and (2) their ability to utilize student housing at world-class universities like UCLA and USC to house athletes in an Olympic Village (UCLA) or create a village for media members (USC). Both of these features help LA2024 reduce costs while maximizing the use of current facilities.
With the chase for the 2024 Games nearing a conclusion in the coming months, it is understandable that the next summer olympics (Tokyo 2020) has perhaps gone overlooked.
This morning, a story from the New York Times noted the IOC is emphasizing the need for further cost cuts at the Tokyo 2020 Games, where apparently the cost for those Games has ballooned since Tokyo won the bid from $6.6 billion (when Tokyo was awarded the Olympics in September 2013) to their current cost estimate of $12.6 billion.
The IOC is conducting a Tokyo site visit to evaluate their current preparations for 2020. Just how much they are able to influence the Tokyo 2020 team to further reduce costs by utilizing existing facilities in nearby locations (for example, Fukushima for baseball and softball, which is 150 miles north of Tokyo, and an area central to the nuclear plant meltdown in 2011) remains to be seen.
But as we look well into the future of the Olympic bidding and operations processes, Tokyo's ability (or potential inability) to keep costs in check could undo the theoretical merits of Agenda 2020.
The world is watching. Given the historical weight of costly white elephants and legions of dilapidated past Olympic facilities across the globe in places like Rio, Athens, and Sochi, the ability of Tokyo, Paris, and Los Angeles to "get it right" is of tantamount importance if the IOC wants to encourage other cities to pursue hosting duties for future Olympic Games.
In short, while the IOC seems to have 2 solid cities in Paris and Los Angeles who have positioned their respective bids to be as aligned with Agenda 2020 as possible for the 2024 and 2028 Summer Games, I contend that Tokyo's ability to further reduce costs leading up to their hosting turn in 2020 will also have a major long-term impact on whether other cities will want to be part of an Olympic bidding cycle.
