The debate over Boston’s 2024 Olympic bid eventually boils down to one highly contested topic. The cost of the Games, which is a theoretical number that changes by more than $10 billion depending on who is asked, will inevitably be a large part of the bid’s legacy, should Boston get selected by the International Olympic Committee. For weeks, bid officials have referenced one large reason why they believe the Boston Games would not experience the same cost overruns that have plagued virtually every previous Olympics over the last 30 years.
The “Olympic Agenda 2020,” or “20+20 recommendations” as they are often labelled, represent one of the most ambitious attempts made by the IOC to formally change in recent history. Specifically, the most notable changes announced in the agenda refer to financial reforms. The chief threat to the Olympic brand has become outrageous cost overruns.
With only two bids for the 2022 Winter Olympics (nether of which has a particularly wowing appeal), the IOC was finally forced to change. The “Agenda” was adopted unanimously in December, and the 2024 Games are seen as one of the first major tests for the newly enacted reforms.
The agenda is fairly direct (or as direct as the IOC will get), stating lines like this one:
“The IOC is to actively promote the maximum use of existing facilities and the use of temporary and demountable venues.”
Given that existing facilities and temporary facilities highlight major components of Boston’s bid, it starts to become clear just how important the USOC is taking the IOC’s new agenda. The crux of Boston’s bid is a temporary Olympic stadium. They were the only U.S. bid that ultimately went forward with a temporary stadium in their plan (San Francisco had a temporary stadium in their original bid, but changed it at the last second).
Of course, it’s one thing for the IOC to say that the want to save money and create a “sustainable Games,” and quite another to actually do it.
Barely a week ago, IOC President Thomas Bach (seen in the above video) labelled the Sochi Winter Olympics a “great success,” which would imply that the organizers haven’t truly learned from their mistakes.
The last Olympics to remain near its original budget was ’84 Los Angeles. This is a fact that Boston 2024’s organizers have been quick to remind those who question the accuracy of their financial estimates (American bids, they say, have turned a profit). That said, the ’84 Olympics stayed on budget because they had total leverage, given that the only other bid that year was from Tehran.
This leads some to an unorthodox conclusion: By making a public show of becoming more “financially aware,” the IOC could be creating a greater level of spending in an Olympics. If they’re able to attract more bids with popular reforms, than there would be a greater chance of spurring an “auction environment” between competing bids. This has historically led to more extravagance (and more money being spent).
Still, it should be noted that the USOC’s choice of Boston because they feel it best complies with the 2020 agenda is a sign that the change could, in fact, be genuine.
The Olympic 2020 Agenda will prove to be a challenge for the IOC, as they are now officially committed to change. In the coming years, the full measure of their resolve to stick to the reforms will be tested on the world’s stage. Few of those stages will be bigger than the first Summer Games to be decided by the IOC following the enacting of the agenda. For that reason, Boston 2024 (if they get the bid) could be a major crossroads not just in Boston’s history, but also the IOC’s.
Image via Boston 2024
