No Boston Olympics: How and Why Smart Cities Are Passing on the Torch

by Chris Dempsey, Andrew Zimbalist

In 2013 and 2014, some of Massachusetts’ wealthiest and most powerful individuals hatched an audacious plan to bring the 2024 Summer Olympics to Boston. Like their counterparts in cities around the world, Boston’s Olympic boosters promised political leaders, taxpayers, and the media that the Games would deliver incalculable benefits and require little financial support from the public. Yet these advocates refused to share the details of their bid and only grudgingly admitted, when pressed, that their plan called for billions of dollars in construction of unneeded venues. To win the bid, the public would have to guarantee taxpayer funds to cover cost overruns, which have plagued all modern Olympic Games. The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) chose Boston 2024’s bid over that of other American cities in January 2015―and for a time it seemed inevitable that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) would award the Games to Boston 2024. No Boston Olympics is the story of how an ad hoc, underfunded group of diverse and engaged citizens joined together to challenge and ultimately derail Boston’s boosters, the USOC, and the IOC. Chris Dempsey was cochair of No Boston Olympics, the group that first voiced skepticism, demanded accountability, and catalyzed dissent. Andrew Zimbalist is a world expert on the economics of sports, and the leading researcher on the hidden costs of hosting mega-events such as the Olympics and the World Cup. Together, they tell Boston’s story, while providing a blueprint for citizens who seek to challenge costly, wasteful, disruptive, and risky Olympic bids in their own cities.

Genres: Sports, Politics

232 pages, Hardcover

Published May 2, 2017

Reviews

[Jonathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A quick and worthy read. Chris Dempsey, co-chair/co-founder of No Boston Olympics, and Andrew Zimbalist, a sports economic/professor at Smith College, use Boston's failed 2024 Summer Olympic bid as a case study to discuss the wider problems with the modern Olympics. They begin with some historical context about the Olympics and end with a systematic analysis of the economic, social, and other problems that plague host cities and why boosters' claims so often prove wrong. And then in between is the narrative of the infamous Boston 2024, with the 2013-2014 backstory and a month-by-month play of 2015. It felt weird to realize how short the process actually was (not even 7 full months as the designated USOC host city) because it felt so long at the time. Dempsey and Zimbalist do a great job at highlighting the key events each month--the mix of polling, unforced errors, leadership changes, etc. There was probably enough for a book several times the size of this, but that's how it always is. They did well at being concise and to the point and portraying the diverse yet collaborative base of opposition to the bid.

People living in cities considering hosting the Olympics would be wise to read this book (especially the officials in said cities). And the book offers some much needed inspiration as an example of underfunded grassroots groups taking on the moneyed establishment and winning--for the betterment of the city and other cities the world over.

[Holly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting, insightful and a good view into how the Olympics are bid and won/lost for a host city. Written with a self-proclaimed bias as the authors led the charge against the Boston bid, this book presents its facts and views of the events in a very readable and fair manner. Written chronologically, it shows the process of the Boston bid for the Olympics and ensuing backlash to the lack of transparency involved until and throughout the opposition's involvement. It's a tribute to the people of Boston to have their voices heard as well as a learning experience to understand the demands and rigors of the IOC and, to a lesser extent, the USOC. Great grassroots organization.

[Kristin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Somewhat inspiring as an example of how a grassroots group can effectively resist overwhelming corporate interests... as long as that grassroots group has its own inside political connections. I'm not sure how much No Boston Olympics is a roadmap for other cities that want to force a more critical analysis of their city's Olympic or World Cup bids, and how much it's a story about Boston inside baseball and cantankerous citizenry and that one time developers didn't get their way.

Also, publishers, hire good copyeditors. Please. This had enough distracting typos and weird formatting that I suspect it was rushed to press.

[Kristie Helms · Rating 2 out of 5]

As a Bostonian who was very much for the Olympics coming to town, I attempted to keep an open mind while reading this. But honestly it came off to me as more of a "back slapping we did a great thing helping to stop the Olympics from coming" than it was an exploration as to why cities who pass on being host cities are "smart".

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whether in sports or government, I'd recommend this view of not only why Boston 2024 was a nonsensical plan, but how the Olympic process works. While this takes on an Olympic bid, the realities can be applied to most situations.

[Eugene Fernandes]

A complete exposé of how the Olympics have become a self-serving, bloated, expensive, corrupt fiasco. Anyone who wants to think critically about the future of the Olympics and the hardships that cities, athletes, and coaches have to go through must read this!

[Sarah Risko Perry · Rating 5 out of 5]

After reading this book the only Olympic games I will ever support are the Special Olympics.

[Reuvenc]

Offers the merest smidgen of hope for our future, in that it shows how a group of committed citizens can briefly re-apportion some of the world's pain so it lands upon strangers rather than within their city's walls. So long as that group of committed citizens is split into roughly two semi-co-operative groups : (1) respectable academic types who can disseminate an understandable and convincing narrative of the demerits of their opposition's viewpoint to a receptive and sympathetic press and (2) roughhousing rowdy types who can offer to that same press memorable and striking instances of resistance which can, in turn, prompt the press to once again give the arguments of (1) another hearing when discussing these moments. So, it's a sort of feedback loop of shouting YOU IDIOTS IT'LL COST TOO MUCH AND EVEN IF WE MADE IT ALL BACK AFTERWARDS (WHICH NOBODY DOES NEARLY NEVER WITH THE EXCEPTION OF LA IN '84) THERE'D STILL BE BETTER THINGS TO SPEND THE MONEY ON IN THE FIRST PLACE, but (1) makes sure to shout it quiet and with, like, graphs while (2) makes sure to shout it real loud and with, like, colourful signs outside City Hall.