Summer Olympic Games Los Angeles 2028 Sports Programme

[nitinsanker 187]

15 minutes ago, Noorderling29 said:

It’s hard to understand for Cricket lovers how boring and incomprehensible Cricket is to most people. I say this as someone who enjoys Cricket.

I think the fact that it is very different from the rest is its charm .... Else you will have more and more fight sports ( boxing , taekwondo , karate , judo, wrestling  etc ) which while understandable are not very different in essence .... 

 

 

[Noorderling29 121]

If it’s variety we are looking for, there must be alternatives that are easier to follow than Cricket.

 

Re: Breaking. I watched the finals of the European Games, and I did not have a clue how the battles were going. 

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by Noorderling29

[Roamingrover86 499]

10 minutes ago, Noorderling29 said:

If it’s variety we are looking for, there must be alternatives that easier to follow than Cricket.

 

Re: Breaking. I watched the finals of the European Games, and I did not have a clue how the battles were going. 

 

There you go, you got a sport(if at all it can be called a sport) in Olympics which most people haven’t got a clue about, including myself. 
I am not sure we would be even discussing Breaking if it was not part of the Olympics programme . 
Cricket in its new format (T20) will get a lot of traction , if included in the Olympics. 
Am not a Cricket fan but if given the choice I would much rather watch a T20 match of Cricket than a breaking session. 
Apart from the revenue it will generate for IOC & LOC.  It will also help the sport become truly global with more countries taking the sport seriously. 
Well we will find out in 4 days time , if Cricket is included or not. But if USA wants to develop a cricket league in their country , Cricket inclusion will make sense for LA LOC . 
 

[Noorderling29 121]

The solution would be to drop Breaking, not to include Cricket.

[AsensioWillemsen 124]

Breaking is not exactly the best example.

[NearPup 2,272]

1 hour ago, Noorderling29 said:

It’s hard to understand for Cricket lovers how boring and incomprehensible Cricket is to most people. I say this as someone who enjoys Cricket.

So? The Olympics could not create a single new cricket fan, but adding cricket to the Olympics would add a lot of new fans for the Olympics.

[Olympian1010 7,551]

7 hours ago, Dragon said:

Flag football must be considered a surprise.

IFAF (along with the NFL) made the most public push. They got players featured at multiple NFL games. They brought players out for promotional events in LA. They tailored the format to work well for television, with rules that mirror many other “short-side” or simplified team sports. I wouldn’t be shocked at all to see them selected. 

[AsensioWillemsen 124]

14 minutes ago, NearPup said:

So? The Olympics could not create a single new cricket fan, but adding cricket to the Olympics would add a lot of new fans for the Olympics.

Will they look past cricket, though?

[mpjmcevoy 222]

2 hours ago, Cinnamon Bun said:

If your source(s) are correct, they've really missed a trick leaving off Cricket. The amount of revenue it would generate would put it up there with the likes of Football and Athletics, and with the new league starting up in America (that's already attracting a few big name international players) the sport could be way more popular come 2028. Also, the T20 format is really easy to follow and leads to some exciting matches that would get people from non cricketing countries wanting to go. 

 

Baffled by the decision to keep Breaking. The sport maybe a bit exciting at first but I don't think it has legs to go far and could end up being one of the least profitable sports at every games' it's included. 

 

Finally, if the IOC want to include more team sports they need to increase the athlete quota by 1,500 - 2,000. Other sports are being bled dry and team sports themselves, existing and the ones coming in, are being extremely limited as to how many countries are competing.  

Problem is soccer is a HUGE moneymaker for the LOC, and basketball coins it in quite well (though not to the same degree). If India host a Games, cricket will be in it - for exactly the same reason.

 

So if we reluctantly accept we have to let soccer and basketball slide, could we create a system with fewer teams for the team sports, but with qualification tournaments - be they the Continental Games or otherwise - that are an experience in themselves? It does feel like 8 teams is the sensible lower number of teams for a Games, with a 'default' qualification system of Americas 1 Africa 1 Asia 1 Europe 1 Oceania 1 + Host + World Champ + final qualification tournament winner.

There may be some sports (handball?) where an Africa/Oceania group would realistically suffice, but Hockey, I think could survive on that scale - ARG - RSA - IND - GER - AUS - USA - NED - NZL/PAK/KOR/GBR?

[Olympian1010 7,551]

2 hours ago, Cinnamon Bun said:

 

Baffled by the decision to keep Breaking. The sport maybe a bit exciting at first but I don't think it has legs to go far and could end up being one of the least profitable sports at every games' it's included. 

Breaking has a lot going for it. It takes very few quotas (32). It can be held in almost any venue, including very public locations. It is different from other artistic sports on the program, given the battle element. It translates very well to television. It also, so far, manages to attract a crowd. It was one of the hottest tickets at The World Games and European Games.