In 1984, the Olympic Games were held in the city that had the most bids as is common, but why was this year different?

Linaw50

"In 1932, Los Angeles created the Olympic Village. In 1984, the city's organizing committee, led by Peter Ueberroth, created an entirely new model for the games. The 1984 Olympics were the first since 1896 to be organized without major government financing. Ueberroth led a much-criticized drive for private money that even included sponsorship of the Olympic torch run, at $3,000 a kilometer. The drive was so successful that the Games actually turned a profit of well over $200 million. The Soviet Union boycotted the Olympics, in retribution for the U. S.-led boycott of its 1980 Games, and was joined by 13 other nations. Nevertheless, a record 140 nations competed at Los Angeles, compared to only 80 at Moscow, and the number of athletes reached nearly 7,000, very close to the previous record." More--> http://www.hickoksports.com/history/ol1984.shtml Dec 28 03, 8:45 AM

joey_T2003

very interesting but what I was looking for was ,it was the only city to bid for the games.This was due to the fact in previous years the games were sponsored by governments and always created huge monetary losses for that government.The new model led by ueberroth as stated was the first games to produce a profit and now all Olympics follow the money generating format of the Americans,and this in turn has led to more countries vying to bid for the Olympics in order to make millions Dec 28 03, 5:52 PM

sequoianoir

Your answer of "it was the only city to bid for the games" also applies to both the occasions London held them in 1908 and 1948. London came forward "at the last minute" to save the games in both years otherwise they would not have been held because no other country wanted to. Dec 28 03, 6:13 PM