I wish I could say, upon hearing the news this week that the 2026 Commonwealth Games will come to Glasgow, that I felt a wave of excitement within me.
I didn’t.
It had been rumoured for weeks that Glasgow would host the Games in 2026, 12 years after the triumph that was Glasgow 2014.
That Scotland’s biggest city has ended up in this position is, let’s be frank, because no one else wants the thing.
From the withdrawal of Victoria last year to the refusal of Singapore and Malaysia to take the Games despite the promise of a hefty wad of cash coming along with it, no one wanted it.
In the end, it was Glasgow or bust for the 2026 Commonwealth Games.
And so, as was confirmed this week, the Games will return to Scotland in 2026 but will look markedly different from the event we basked in ten years ago.
This time around, the sports programme will be significantly scaled down – only 10 sports will be included in Glasgow 2026 compared to 17 in Glasgow 2014; only four venues will be used; there’ll be no Athletes’ Village and the Opening and Closing Ceremonies will be considerably smaller affairs than those of10 years ago.
When Glasgow was first mentioned as a potential host for the 2026 Games, I scoffed at the idea. I wrote in these very pages that I thought it would never happen. Never even get close to happening, I thought. Yet, I was, not for the first time, entirely wrong and here we are.
My initial cynicism was, primarily, based on the fact I just couldn’t see how Glasgow could make a success of the 2026 Games.
There’s a reason why major sporting events of this ilk are typically awarded to host cities seven years in advance and it’s because that’s how long it takes to prepare adequately for an event of this magnitude.
Glasgow has less than two years.
A Commonwealth Games with a halved sporting programme, encased within a handful of venues and no Athletes’ Village is so far from what we all know the Commonwealth Games to be that it’ll be almost unrecognisable.
The budget for Glasgow 2026 will be miniscule, in relative terms, compared to the budgets recent Games have enjoyed.
Glasgow 2014 had nearly £550 million spent on it. Birmingham 2022 had nearly £800 million splashed on it.
Glasgow 2026 will have just £130 million, which is pennies in comparison.
So, I wondered, how could this ever be a success? The very worst of all worlds would be for Glasgow to take the 2026 Games, an act that is saving the entire future of the event, and for it to be a disappointing let-down.
Such a scenario would severely damage the reputation of Glasgow as a sporting city, and of the Commonwealth Games themselves.
But maybe, just maybe, my initial cynicism is entirely unjustified.
Everyone, including the Commonwealth Games Federation themselves, agree that the model of the Commonwealth Games must change if it’s to have any chance of survival in the long-term.
There just isn’t the appetite any longer for cities to host multi-million pound sporting events, particularly if they don’t come with the prestige of the Olympic Games or the football World Cup.
So, perhaps a scaled-down sporting programme is exactly what’s needed.
There is, unquestionably, the argument that staging 10 sports well is a far more attractive proposition to the Scottish public than doing 17 sports poorly.
The omission in 2026 of events like the marathon and cycling road races, which snaked through the streets of Glasgow and further afield in 2014 is, without doubt, a loss to the programme. Ten years ago, these events gave thousands of people an opportunity to watch the Commonwealth Games – at no cost – which they would otherwise never have had.
But perhaps cutting them is a small price to pay because at least there will be a Games in some shape or form.
Already, the Scottish Government’s PR machine has gone into overdrive when it comes to expectation management - something that’s not just sensible, but necessary.
The message to the Scottish public over the next 20-or-so months must be that this will, unequivocally, not be like Glasgow 2014. As soon as Glasgow 2026 begins to be compared to the event a decade ago, it will be a huge letdown.
But if it can be marketed as an entirely different proposition then perhaps success is a feasible outcome.
There are, after all, considerable up-sides to the Commonwealth Games as an entity, and if the 2026 Games had never gone ahead we would, I believe, never have seen a Commonwealth Games take place again.
I know first-hand from my past life as an athlete how important an event it is in many sportspeople’s calendars, and the Scots will value 2026 particularly highly given it’ll be a home Games.
And for so-called minority sports, and by this I mean pretty much everything other than football, the platform afforded to them by the Commonwealth Games, particularly one on home soil, is invaluable.
If any city can make a success of the 2026 Games, it’s Glasgow.
It’s going to be a harder sell to the Scottish public than Glasgow 2014 was – the Games ten years ago enjoyed almost unadulterated goodwill from the public and media alike – and creating such excitement for the 2026 Games will be a much harder ask. The decision, though, to not spend a penny of public money on the event will help when it comes to public perception.
So maybe I should stop being so glass-half-empty when it comes to the 2026 Commonwealth Games.
Yes, it won’t be what Glasgow 2014 was, but maybe it doesn’t need to be.
Maybe my cynicism is entirely unjustified. I hope so.
