DECISION 2016: Lessons from the past in IOC 2016 Olympic vote

By James Toney, Sportsbeat

LISTEN to the campaign teams and you’ll hear all the familiar buzzwords but this is an election like no other.


POWERBROKER: IOC President Jacques Rogge addressing 2016 candidates during a meeting in Lausanne earlier this year (Getty Images)

The host for the 2016 Olympic Games will be decided by the 106 voting members of the International Olympic Committee in Copenhagen next Friday - and never has so much money, estimates range from $15 million to $20m across the four candidates, been spent on courting the votes of so few.

It's an electorate that is famously difficult to judge - bookmakers' odds don't mean much, as proved when London beat Paris to stage the 2012 Games and outsiders Sochi triumphed over Salzburg and Pyeongchang for the 2014 Winter Games.

However, the process is simple.

To win you must gain a simple majority of votes.

If this is not achieved in the first round, the city with the least votes is eliminated and another ballot is held.

This continues until a clear winner emerges.

Members from countries still represented are not allowed to vote while Jacques Rogge, the IOC president, is neutral, unless the ballot is tied.

That means that Joao Havelange and Carlos Arthur Nuzman (Brazil), Schun-ichiro Okano and Chiharu Igaya (Japan), Juan Antonio Samaranch junior (Spain) and James Easton and Anita Defrantz (USA) will hope their involvement will be a watching brief.

Take the vote for the 2012 Games during the IOC's session in Singapore four years ago.

There were five candidate cities - London, Madrid, Moscow, New York and Paris.

The first round of voting went as follows:

London - 22, Paris - 21, Madrid - 20, New York - 19, Moscow - 15

The ballot is secret - delegates vote via electronic boxes - and it's next to impossible to get an IOC member to reveal their intentions.

It's often a case of reading between the lines and interpreting what they don't say, rather than what they do.

National and sporting interest always plays a key factor, as does the complex politics of international sports administration.

Geographic ties also have a major role - but don't think this is as easy to call as bloc voting in the Eurovision Song Contest.

For example, some members might vote one way in the first round, in order not to see a candidate humiliated by falling at the first hurdle, and another way in subsequent ballots.

The second round of voting four years ago underlines this.

With Moscow eliminated, their 15 votes were up for grabs. But New York actually lost support, dropping three votes, with the result as follows:

Madrid - 32 (+12), London - 27 (+5), Paris - 24 (+3), New York  - 16 (-3)

The disparity in numbers is down to two Russian IOC members being freed up to vote because Moscow had been eliminated.

INFLUENTIAL: Former IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch played a big role in the 2012 vote - and is a key supporter of the 2016 Madrid campaign

So why did Madrid improve so dramatically, moving from the third most preferred bid to the first?

One theory points to the influence of Juan Antonio Samaranch.

Although he retired as IOC President after the Sydney Games in 2000, his contacts and influence in the Olympic movement remains strong.

Samaranch had close ties to Russia since his days as the Spanish ambassador to the Soviet Union.

He also was elected to his IOC presidency in Moscow just before the 1980 Games and he maintained close connections to former Communist nations throughout his tenure.

With New York eliminated, 16 more votes were available, while the IOC members representing the USA were also now in play.

Consequently, the third round of voting went like this:

London - 39 (+12), Paris - 33 (+9), Madrid - 31 (-1)

And so Madrid was out of the running, leaving Paris and London to fight for their 31 votes and the right to stage the Games.

Again, it has been claimed, the influence of Samaranch was a factor and suddenly Paris, the long-time frontrunners, were worried.

WINNING FEELING: Londoners celebrate the moment the city was announced as the host of the 2012 Olympic Games (Getty Images)

If Madrid had picked up just two more votes, and beaten Paris in the third round, there is no doubt they would be hosting the 2012 Games now - London officials admitting they would have lost a straight run off against their Spanish rivals.

But 2012 chairman Seb Coe and Samaranch had been friends for years, dating back to the former's career on the track.

There had long been suggestions of a London/Madrid pact - maintained through a series of deals and understandings with the supporters of each, indeed in the months before the vote, Spanish sports minister Jaime Lizzavetsky was actively proposing it.

And that is what happened - in the final round, enough of Madrid's supporters swung behind London to send them across the finish line by a four-vote margin - the fourth round of voting was as follows:

London - 54 (+15), Paris - 50 (+17)

So what politics could be at play next week in Copenhagen?

Can Madrid upset convention and secure a back-to-back Olympics in Europe for the first time since 1948?

If they don't will there be a Hispanic pact with rivals Rio?

Will Chicago cash-in on the Obama factor, should be turn up in Denmark? Or will such a move backfire?

Insiders and seasoned observers are all pointing to Chicago and Rio contesting the final round of voting.

But with delegates now starting to arrive, expect a week of politicking to rival any party conference.

Also read: Political figures will turn heads at IOC Session

* Follow extensive coverage of the 121st IOC Session in Copenhagen, with breaking news reports and analysis from Sportsbeat's James Toney and Gerard Meagher in Copenhagen - www.morethanthegames.co.uk/121st-ioc-session