IOC evaluation report gives Tokyo 2020 a slight edge

Four years ago Rio de Janeiro was awarded the right to host the 2016 Olympics, sparking celebrations on the Copacabana beach. Two of the cities Rio beat that day, Madrid and Tokyo, are back again as they bid to stage the 2020 event. This time they face the challenge of Istanbul, with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to make their choice at the Hilton hotel in Buenos Aires on September 7th. The IOC’s evaluation report, published this week, appears to give Tokyo the edge but this remains a tightly fought race.

Recent Olympic Games host city announcements have thrown up surprises. The decision to award London the 2012 Games eight years ago was unexpected, whilst the choice of Rio de Janeiro for 2016 four years later was perhaps slightly less surprising, but they too had come from behind to beat supposed favourites Chicago. 

The race between Istanbul, Madrid and Tokyo promises to be as close and unpredictable as ever after Tuesday’s publication of the report on the strengths and weaknesses of the respective bids, put together after four day visits to each city in March. The commission, led by Sir Craig Reedie, has left the door open and noted that all three cities could do a perfectly good job of hosting the 2020 Games.

IOC rebukes host city extravagance 
The first clue as to the IOC’s thinking comes early on in the 110 page document, as they rebuked Istanbul and Tokyo for offering things the IOC deemed as “nice to haves” but ultimately beyond the requirements. The IOC claim that they do not want bidding cities to spend more than necessary, although Sochi have allowed costs to escalate dramatically as they prepare to take the Olympic torch into space in the build-up to next year’s Winter Olympics.

Beijing were similarly extravagant in 2008, yet the IOC’s stance means Istanbul’s suggestion of creating an  Innovation Fund at the IOC’s disposal, which would total $250 million, as well as an allusion to a freight grant programme for National Olympic Committees (NOCs), were met with short shrift.

Similarly Tokyo’s suggestion that they would cover cargo costs for National Olympic Committees were rebuked and both cities have been told not to make reference to such offers in presentations prior to the final vote. Perhaps the more frugal Madrid has the advantage in this respect. 

Doha and Baku, two bids which were awash with unlimited funds, were both booted from the contest in May 2012 when the IOC met in Québec City. A Whilst technical reasons were cited for their elimination, the IOC decision indicated that this time the biggest spenders would not necessarily walk away with the prize. And of course it was a perfect opportunity to make the statement “we are not FIFA.” 

Madrid defies flagging economy
This is Madrid’s third bid in a row, and they have clung on despite being tipped as outsiders, avoiding the fate of Rome, forced from the contest early on under the strain of the weakening Italian economy. The Spanish financial system is similarly precarious, with a recession blighting the country for most of the last four years and unemployment still stubbornly high, but by staying in the race Madrid has defied the expectations of many and should not be written off. 

Theirs is the least extravagant of the bids presented – only seven competition venues out of 35 need to be constructed, and their combined organising committee and government budget of $5 billion is the lowest of the three. 

In terms of expertise at hosting major events, Madrid is a clear winner. The country has held major international events in no less than 28 Olympic sports in the last 10 years alone. Of Europe’s major capital cities, Madrid is the one which is yet to host the Games. Madrid is also steeped in history but does not offer the stunning landscapes and scenery of Istanbul or Tokyo, yet the humility and message of their bid – the campaign team have continually talked of a sustainable games which use the values of sport to mobilise young people – could be appealing.

Riots threaten Istanbul candidacy
In a purely romantic sense the most obvious city to award the Games to would be Istanbul. Turkey has never hosted the Games which were created by neighbours Greece. With the economy booming, and Istanbul’s unique position as a literal bridge between East and West (the city straddles both Europe and Asia), it has played on this selling point well with its slogan “Bridge Together”. Yet a major risk to Istanbul is one not outlined in the report. 

The recent demonstrations in Istanbul poses risk, as well as overshadowing the Istanbul bid, and may well damage their hopes. The report was compiled by April 19, long before the protests, and highlighted even before trouble began that there was a lack of space around Taksim precinct, the area which has been at the heart of the political unrest.

Istanbul’s organising committee budget, taken on its own, would be $2.9 billion, the lowest of the three candidates, but the amount the government propose to spend outside of that on infrastructure is not far under $20 billion. Of 38 proposed venues, 27 would need to be built from scratch – a sizeable and risk filled task. The flip side of this is that money is not an issue for Istanbul, and the scale of work required would represent a significant legacy for the Olympics to leave. Then again, the experience of Athens and past Games and the creation of white elephants is one reason why the IOC may prefer to go for the ‘sustainable’ option rather than extravagant construction projects.

Also worryingly for Istanbul’s bid, the IOC has noted that Istanbul’s estimate that travel times for athletes would not exceed 35 minutes, already longer than for Madrid and Tokyo, are optimistic in some cases. With the recent protests in Brazil at the Confederations Cup shining a light on the problems that can rise when significant expenditure is put into hosting major sporting events at the expense of domestic services, and with the recent Istanbul political unrest in mind, this raises important questions about their candidacy. Istanbul will hope their strong emotional argument and their growing political importance as a cross point between Europe and the Middle East/Asia outweighs some of the technical merits of the bid.

‘Safe’ choice 
The only one of the three to have hosted the Olympics before (in 1964), Tokyo is the ‘safe choice’, proposing an extremely compact Olympic Games where most venues are within eight kilometres of the Olympic Village, which would have a waterfront location. With the city centre close by, and Japan’s famously efficient time keeping, the IOC may well be tempted to award the Olympics to Tokyo, with the athlete experience such a key part of the final decision. 

Yet the idea that they are a safe option has been used against them, much to the bemusement of Tokyo’s governor Naoki Inose, who said this should count in their favour at the SportAccord Conference last month in St Petersburg. “I understand that many people are saying that our bid is the ‘safe’ option in this campaign,” Inose said. “What I don’t understand is why some people seem to think that this could be a bad thing… our finances offer the strongest foundations to host the games.”

Inose is probably right. Tokyo has a well-developed transport system, a compact host plan, technical expertise, a stunning location and no financial worries. Every box is ticked by Tokyo, which in strictly technical terms is probably the winner from this report. But then again the report is a risk analysis, and not a recommendation. Many members of the IOC may not read the report in full or even at all, and in the end the decision is taken by a little more than a hundred IOC members who may have very different personal, political or emotional reasons to prefer one bid to another. 

All to play for
With little given away, all eyes will now turn to the presentations set to be given by each bidding city to the IOC at the start of July. It was this stage of the bid which helped propel Rio’s bid in 2009. As noted, the final vote often throws up a surprise, and odd-makers favourite Tokyo will be warily watching over their shoulders at Madrid and Istanbul, who both boast more public backing for their bids and may play the highly political IOC game better. After the evaluation report Tokyo maintains an edge, but not much of one – and it is certainly not decisive.