A month ago the IOC announced the decision of its Executive Board on which of the 5 Applicant cities passed to the Candidate Phase for the 2020 Olympic Games. The result is well known with Istanbul, Madrid and Tokyo making the cut and Baku and Doha sent back to the start.
The decision is based on the Evaluation Report of the IOC Working Group. Having a closer look at the technical assessment results published in the report it shows that there are 3 bands of performances. Both Madrid and Tokyo consistently achieve high scores for their proposals, only showing a higher risk level in one or the other area by dropping minimum assessment values. In a second band Istanbul and Doha can be found. Both scoring well on some areas, but with acceptable but midrange marks in most areas. Baku is clearly trailing the other cities in the technical evaluation.
The technical evaluation of Istanbul and Doha was actually quite similar, with Doha actually being assessed slightly higher on overall median score. Nevertheless Doha did not make it to the next round.
This shows that overall acceptable marks alone are not enough, if there are several issues in individual areas of evaluation that are deemed of specific concern, as was he case with Doha.
Another point also worth a consideration in the case of Baku is the working group report citing that ‘significant amount of construction required to host the Games was not consistent with the size and legacy needs of the city’.
What did the working group want to say? That 12 temporary venues out of 32 total are not enough, or that the city (and country) are simply to small for Olympic Games?