London stole the win in the race to host the 2012 Olympic Games, beating out Paris by a mere four votes. Paris had been the bookmakers' favourite since the bidding process began. So how did London emerge victorious? Here's a look at a few of the factors at play.

London's facilities

London based much of its bid on a vision of sports for future generations. They highlighted for the Committee the prospect of urban renewal that the Olympics would bring to the run-down suburbs of East London. There, a 202-hectare plot of land will be transformed into an 80,000-seat stadium and village, and when the Games are over, turned into new homes and businesses.

An aquatic centre and velodrome are already under construction, as are two arenas under the nearby Millennium Dome, where basketball and gymnastics events will be held.

As well, the city can use the premiere tennis facilities at Wimbledon; the soccer facilities at the rebuilt Wembley Stadium; Regents Park for softball; Hyde Park for the triathlon and Lord's cricket stadium for archery.

But four arenas, where fencing, handball and modern pentathlon are to be held, still need to be built – a fact that almost cost London the bid. But the city's bid organizers convinced the committee that they were committed to getting the facilities built in the next seven years.

What's more, London was the only contender that proposed having the athletes' village located within the Olympic Park area. That will allow half of the athletes to walk to their venues, instead of relying on the city's public transport, as they had to in Atlanta in 1996, when many athletes almost missed their events because of road congestion.

The IOC was also impressed with London's legacy promises. Five of the facilities -- the Olympic stadium, the aquatics centre, the velodrome, the hockey centre and the indoor arena -- will remain after the Games.

The athletes' village will be converted into 3,600 apartments, many for low-paid workers such as teachers and nurses who struggle to pay London's high property prices.

In a report issued June 6, the IOC evaluation commission praised the "very high quality'' and "high level of planning'' of London's bid.

The only significant opposition came from about 100 small private businesses within the planned stadium site who say relocation proposals offered by London 2012 officials aren't good enough.

Sebastian Coe and Tony Blair

Blessed with charisma and passion, London bid president Sebastian Coe is being given much of the credit for his city's win. A former Olympic middle-distance running champion, Coe has become a high-profile personality within the IOC and other governing bodies and knows how to influence people.

When Coe replaced American businesswoman Barbara Cassani in May 2004, IOC chief Jacques Rogge hailed the appointment, calling Coe "a very capable man" who "has all the credentials."

"He really is a 'Lord of the Rings', Rogge said of Coe, who will stay on to head the organizing committee for 2012.

Coe not only won over the IOC, he helped convince London's 7.3 million citizens of the benefits the Olympics would bring to their city. Even the British media, initially skeptical about the possibilities of staging an Olympics in their crowded city, were won over, with newspapers uniting to wish London good luck.

Prime Minister Blair did his part to help the bid as well, spending two days in Singapore wooing IOC members despite his G8 commitments.

"He met probably 40 IOC members individually and convinced them," Roger Jackson, a former Canadian who has been working with the London bid team, told CTV. "And I think that was the turning point."

"Tony Blair acted brilliantly," said Pierre Durand, an Olympic gold medallist in equestrianism for France in 1988.

"They have the luck to have a prime minister who is young, emblematic, charismatic, deliberately looking to the future and at odds with 'Old Europe'. You can feel it on every level."

Senior Australian IOC member Kevan Gosper said London won because of the way Coe's team sold their message in the final hours.

"They delivered on the day,'' he said. "The presentation just had that little extra feel.''

James Christie of The Globe and Mail says that a deal between London and Madrid that had the majority of Spanish backers switch to London, may have swayed the final tally and helped London steal the win.

"That they fell short this time can only attest to what happened in backrooms," Christie told CTV.

Britain's turn

London proved that its people have a passion for sport, and pointed to the city's successful staging of Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002.

"The British, they explained their love of the sport," said Dutch IOC member Anton Geesink. "Love, you can explain, but you can't sell it.''

Former IOC Athletes Commission member Ken Read says the IOC may have simply felt that because Britain hadn't hosted the Games since 1948, it was their turn.

"The U.K. has bid several times," Read told Canada AM, referring to three recent unsuccessful bids: Birmingham in 1992 and Manchester in 1996 and 2000.

"But they haven't held the Games since 1948, whereas if you look at France ... they have organized a number of Winter Games."

"Tradition, technical skill and some of the people behind the scenes also played a huge role in putting London in front."

Paris' woes

Paris' Olympic bid organizers, who had long believed they were the frontrunner in the 2012 race, were reportedly stunned to learn that they had lost. They believed they had an advantage over London since many of their sports facilities are already built.

But they were proven wrong and now have to deal with their third bid defeat. (The city also lost to Barcelona in 1992 and to Beijing for the 2008 Games.)

The economic troubles currently besetting France may also have helped London secure the win. The country is struggling with a five-year-high unemployment rate of 10.2 per cent. What's more, its lacklustre economy and fallen morale are leading to worries about general strikes across the country.

There also may have been some European IOC delegates taking revenge against France's recent rejection of the proposed European Union constitution. Or it may have been more personal.

French President Jacques Chirac could not have helped Paris's chances this week when he was heard insulting British cuisine, telling fellow European leaders that you "can't trust people who have such bad food." He reportedly added that only Finland had worse food in Europe.

Two of the IOC's voting delegates were from Finland. Did they back London in revenge? We may never know whether which way they swung since the IOC's voting is kept secret. But with voting so tight, anything is possible.