I’m still quite interested in olympic news. It seems to me that being chosen to host the olympics is the greatest accolade a city can get, and acts as a status symbol for a city and a country. I also take an interest in travel, different places etc. as well as international relations. That’s why I’ve been following news of the olympic bidding process, and last night I was surprised to read that the USOC has pulled the plug on Boston’s bid for the 2024 olympics. Of course, when you look into it that entire bid was mired from the off: it never had public support above 50%, and there was all sorts of trouble about the use of public money. The campaign group, ‘No Boston Olympics’, is reportedly celebrating, but that strikes me as odd: yes public money can now be used on other things, but why celebrate your city remaining normal. Hosting the olympics marks a city’s entry onto the world stage – great cites, world cities, host the games. Gaining the worlds attention means you are noticed, and you join the ranks of Paris, London, Beijing and so on. World centres of art and culture: Places where films are made and set, where songs are written and where epic ceremonies are performed. If you have any sense of pride in your city, you would be eager for it to host such an event. (Of course, I only came to this view after 2012). Of course, a city can be a world city without hosting the games, New York being a good example; yet surely being chosen to host the worlds biggest sporting and cultural event marks a city as special. For Boston to withdraw, then, means it has chosen to remain normal – just a normal, unremarkable city. That’s why there’s a tone of regret in this Boston Globe article. Yes bostonians save their money, but the city Boston could have become had it hosted the games will never be, and part of me can’t help but brand them ‘losers’.

Now the USOC will likely put forward a bid for Los Angeles. LA is already a great World city; it’s residents certainly have the cajones to host the games. Mind you, all this is moot anyway as I’m pretty sure the IOC will choose Paris to host the 2024 games. After the upset of 2005, and given that 2024 will mark the centenary of the last Paris olympics, it seems to me that the IOC has little choice but to go with the french capital. I suspect the americans know this, and therefore put in a moreor-less token bid from Boston. The interesting thing is, if they now go with LA, could they be setting themselves up for another disappointment of the magnitude of the rejection of New York or Chicago? On the other hand, given that LA could indeed be an enticing prospect for the IOC, might the competition now be closer than it would have been? Could we now be on track for another upset a la 2005? Knowing the pride americans place in their cities, not to mention the pride the French place in their capital, I find the dynamics of this process quite fascinating.