The U.S. Olympic Committee is in discussions with Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington as potential hosts for the 2024 Summer Olympics. The USOC will decide early next year whether to bid. The Games will be awarded in 2017.
Here’s a look at what each city has to offer:
BOSTON: A city with a distinct blend of American history and a longstanding appreciation for sports. Earns ”international” points as host of arguably the world’s greatest marathon. But there’s no Olympic stadium, some very tough traffic and not a ton of room to construct all the villages, stadiums and arenas needed for an endeavor this large.
Article continues below ...
LOS ANGELES: At this point, it’s the most committed of the four candidates and most of the facilities are already built – a selling point as the IOC tries to tamp down costs. Some still believe the 1984 Games here saved the Olympic movement. But this would be a third visit to Southern California and the traffic and logistics of the LA area are far from sexy.
SAN FRANCISCO: This city suffered a huge embarrassment during the domestic process for the 2016 Games when a stadium deal for the 49ers fell through the day before a key presentation in front of the USOC. In 2024, there will be a (relatively) new stadium in Santa Clara, which will host Super Bowl 50, so that shouldn’t be a problem. Imagine the beach volleyball and sailing venues. And golf, too? But room is tight and the cost of doing business is high in the city.
WASHINGTON: Certainly, the nation’s capital knows how to put on a big show. It claims to have the most venues within a 40-mile range in America and could keep costs down because most of those venues are built. It would look at building a stadium on the site of old RFK Stadium for track and ceremonies. Despite its grandeur, a pitch as one of the world’s great capital cities might fall a bit flat against Paris or Rome if they get in the mix.