Earlier today, the cities that are being discussed for the 2024 Olympics have been finalized, and bidding to be the host begins today and lasts for exactly two years.

The 5 possible locations include

Rome, Italy
Paris, France
Budapest, Hungary
Hamburg, Germany
Los Angeles, United States


Personally, I would love to see the games here in America again, plus LA has some great places to host the events, but I wouldn't mind seeing the games in Rome either, great potential there for a complex.

What do you think? Who do you think has the best resources to win and where would you want to see the games most of all?

I want to see the Olympics in the USA again. LA would be a great city to host it in. Unlike some of the these countries that have been hosting, LA is more than ready to host the Olympic games.

gamerforlifeforever2 : Yeah, with all their stadiums and transportation. However, Rome has something LA doesn't. Do you think that if Rome won, they would use the Coliseum as a way to boost toruirm around the events?

zanderlex : Yeah probably. That would be pretty dumb of them if they didn't. The Coliseum is pretty much the best thing Rome's got as far as tourism goes. I know if I went there (which is highly unlikely) that would be the first thing I'd want to see.

Rome hosted the 1960 Summer Olympics, Paris did the same in 1900 and Los Angeles in 1984. Technically, to expand more the popularity of all Olympic sports, the host should be either Budapest or Hamburg.

Hungary isn't having an easy time recently due to political issues, and even though 2024 is still far away, it surely will be a ballast towards its election. Hamburg, and Germany in general, is perfectly prepared for the event, and I'm sure it will be a powerful bid. After all, they need to lessen the burden of the 1972 Olympics in Munich, and of course the 1936 Olympics held in Berlin which were nothing more than a demonstration of Hitler's might.

Do the cities that have already hosted the event stand a chance? Surely. LA will be a powerful bid, knowing how 'Murica always does when they want something. Paris can be a powerful force too, and I'm not that sure with Rome. In my opinion, as of today, Hamburg and LA will be fighting for it.

Then again, the committee wants a city which the Olympics will help with its growth. At least that's the reason why they ditched Madrid's attempts, so following this statement, maybe Budapest can still have a chance.

I'm sure that before the election can begin, at least one of those will step down. Which one is hard to say, but I'm more inclined towards Budapest for the aforementioned political issues. Let's first enjoy what we can about the 2016 Olympics and then the serious bidding will start.

Whoever gets the games, the taxpayers of the province / country will lose. Such events cost so much money because they are almost invariably lead by government authorities, which have no incentives to be on schedule and on budget. Just look at the 1976 Olympics in Montreal; the Olympic Stadium took nearly 30 years to pay for, and now it does not even serve a purpose.

Even worse: just Google to see what it left of the Sochi Olympics...

janus : However, if its in a place such as LA with all of their city places, like hotels, trains, and stuff, the city itself will get more money than it could ever have thanks to tourists. All the extra money the city gets from this way should be able to counter all of the extra expenses without having to hurt the taxpayers.

I think Rome or Hamburg would be the best choices. They are just great places, and I think they would be backdrops to the games themselves.

A user of this : I think I just read an article like last night about Hamburg and how it would cost them more than 2 billion dollars after the bid to build all the facilities and stuff.

zanderlex : Even with the existing infrastructure, Los Angeles would still need to build / update it herd of white elephants to meet with international standards. Having the Olympics, despite all the international exposure, is more of a curse than a blessing. And considering how hectic a city LA is, I do not want to imagine how it will look like with so many more people around.

We don't need them here in the USA. All there would be would be protests. At least in some socialist country they can just shove them all off. Every nut would come crawling out of the woodwork and the security would be a nightmare. Remember Atlanta? Over 100 people got hurt when some loon set off a bomb there. 20 years ago. And he was an American. Imagine now.