I hate to ruin the suspense with four months of the race still to run, but I would be extremely surprised if Pyeongchang is not chosen to host the 2018 Winter Olympics.

This assertion has nothing to do with the respective technical qualities of the three bids - Annecy and Munich are the others.

And indeed, with the International Olympic Committee's Evaluation Commission now conducting its inspection visits, I suppose it is possible that some technical lacuna might trip the South Korean bid up.

However, you would think they would have ironed out any such wrinkles in the course of their unsuccessful bids for the 2010 and 2014 Games, so I find this extremely unlikely - particularly in the light of the IOC inspectors' comments about Pyeongchang yesterday.

No, I see Pyeongchang as the likely victor because this is the outcome that the complex geopolitics of the Olympic Movement seems - quite strongly - to be pointing towards.

Let me explain.

First, if we look at the Winter Olympics in isolation, it is simple to construct a case that it is Asia's turn.

The last three Games have been in the Americas (Salt Lake City), Europe (Turin) and the Americas again (Vancouver).

And for the next Winter Games in 2014, we will be once again in Europe (Sochi).

If 2018 goes to Pyeongchang, it will be the first Asian Winter Olympics of the 21st century.

Second, a pronounced tendency has developed in recent years, for the custodians of the world's great sporting events to be seduced by the allure of new, or relatively new, territories.

The Summer Olympics going to Rio, the FIFA World Cup to Russia and Qatar, the Commonwealth Games to New Delhi – all are examples of this and the Formula One motor-racing championship has staged races in several new markets, from Abu Dhabi to Singapore, in recent years.

The Summer Olympics reached Seoul as long ago as 1988, so South Korea would not be a new host-country for the Olympic Movement.

But as a vibrant and developing economy, it is probably better-placed than Germany or France to tap into the spirit of adventure that seems currently to have gripped those whose job it is to decide where these big events are held.



Third and in a way most importantly, I think circumstances may conspire to undermine the advantage that the high proportion of Europeans serving on the IOC can sometimes hand to European bidders.

By my count, 44 of the present 110 IOC members are from Europe, against 29 from Asia – and that's if one allows a particularly broad definition of "Asia", embracing Australasia as well as the Middle East.

The potential problem, I think, for Annecy and Munich is that a number of European countries appear to have their eyes on the 2020 Summer Olympics.

And if a European city wins the 2018 Winter Games, it would probably significantly reduce the prospects of another European winner just two years later.

Other European countries - Spain, Switzerland, Sweden - are thought to be mulling bids for the 2022 Winter Games.

Similarly, if the 2018 Winter Olympics was in Europe, those 2022 ambitions would stand virtually no chance of fulfilment, giving members from those countries a potential motive for voting for Pyeongchang.

This knife, of course, cuts both ways.

IOC members from Middle East states thought to be contemplating bidding for the 2020 Games might, as a result, be minded to back Annecy or Munich for 2018, for all that the Gulf is an awfully long way from Korea.

With Tokyo and/or Hiroshima seemingly likely to bid for 2020, I would expect the two Japanese IOC members to be minded to vote for one of the European candidates for 2018 – provided, of course, they were satisfied these bids were technically proficient.

But the numbers do tend to stack up against Annecy and Munich.

With Rome almost certainly a 2020 candidate, it is worth mentioning that as many as four IOC members are Italian.

I would not suggest that this quartet would all automatically vote for Pyeongchang for this reason, but it seems logical to think it might play a part in the decision-making process for some of them.

Those three possible bidders for 2022 – Spain, Switzerland and Sweden – account for 10 IOC members between them, almost 10 percent of the electorate, bearing in mind that members from bidding countries (six in the 2018 race) cannot vote while their bids remain "live".

There are two other factors, neither having anything to do with sport, that it seems to me could yet get in the way of South Korea's Winter Olympic ambitions.

One is a severe ratcheting up of political tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

The other is if the current outbreaks of revolutionary fervour in parts of the Arab world increase the appeal of "safe old" Europe in the eyes of sports administrators.

If neither of these becomes a source of major concern, I would expect the main uncertainty when the IOC gathers in July in South Africa to be over whether Pyeongchang will be heavily enough backed to win in the first round of voting.

At four months' distance – and given the South Koreans' formidable international sports lobbying skills - I wouldn't rule that out.

David Owen worked for 20 years for the Financial Times in the United States, Canada, France and the UK. He ended his FT career as sports editor after the 2006 World Cup and is now freelancing, including covering the 2008 Beijing Olympics and 2010 World Cup. Owen's Twitter feed can be accessed at www.twitter.com/dodo938