Does Olympic Awarding Process Need a Complete Overhaul?

The 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics has eclipsed the 2002 Salt Lake City Games bribery scandal as the most controversial event yet in the Olympic Movement’s of more than a century old existence. Its staggering cost and human rights violations prompted International Olympic Committee (IOC) president Thomas Bach to push for reforms in its policies. These are now contained in the Olympic Agenda 2020.

This set of recommendations (40 in all, contributed by 14 working groups) aims to promote the Olympic values, including respect for the universal ethical principles and the value of fair play. It also aims to make the games less costly and more relevant by making use of existing venues and planning infrastructure that will not turn out to be purposeless after the events.

The huge expenditure for hosting an Olympic event has scared off potential candidate cities into joining the bidding process. This has been taken up in the Agenda 2020 but the 2016 Rio Games is still turning out to be a costly disaster for the poor city. Now running at 51% over its budget, according to a study by Oxford’s Said Business School, the $4.6 billion expense comes at a time when the city is suffering from a recession. The Olympics has had some cities wallowing in debt because of the unexpected increases in its projected budgets.

Montreal hosted it in 1976. Its original budget of $120 million climbed up to $1.6 billion and took the Canadian city 30 years to finally pay off its debt. Vancouver, also in Canada, thought it could do better and hosted the 2010 Winter Olympics. But after the games, the city had owed $1 billion and the Olympic Village, which had to be bailed out after its developer quit, went into receivership. There are probably only three cities that succeeded financially in hosting the Olympics and that are benefitting from having held the games even now: Los Angeles, London, and Tokyo, which is planning to host the Olympic Games for the second time in 2020.

Chicago, while never having been successful in its three attempts at bidding for the host city (in the 1952, 1956 and 2016 Olympics,) still came under fire for joining the bidding for the 2016 event without resolving potential funding issues. The IOC criticized its lack of government financial support in the face of economic recession. The avid support of A-list celebrities for the bid (United States President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle, Michael Jordan and Oprah Winfrey) were thought to have the opposite effect that contributed to Chicago’s first-round loss. Rio de Janeiro won against the four shortlisted cities that included Madrid, Spain and Tokyo, Japan. But the city’s efforts in preparing the bid still cost it $70.6 million. Looking back, its supporters then are thankful now that Chicago didn’t win.

Reforms were already made after the Salt Lake City bribery and corruption disclosures. One of these was the cessation of visits by IOC members to candidate cities. It brings to mind luxurious trips to the city in Utah, scholarships, pricey cosmetic surgery and job placements, all meant to sway IOC members into voting for the city.

But mere allegations and hints at corruption are unfair to the target city. Doha, Qatar, was under suspicion of sending six parcels to IOC members in 2008, when it was bidding for the 2016 Games that went to Rio de Janeiro. Based on leaked emails, the IOC members had requested that the parcels were to be sent via a special emissary. Nothing came out of the probe. Then too, there were whispers of Rio bribing officials to vote for it. Now it’s Tokyo’s turn.

The mudslinging of the 2020 Tokyo Games began earlier this year when French police investigated a questionable $2.2 million payment from a Japanese company to a Singaporean bank account. The deposit was made in the run-up to the 2020 bidding, which was awarded to Tokyo. The speculation goes that Japan bribed influential people to vote for Tokyo, leading to Istanbul’s defeat. Istanbul was the only candidate city that made it to the third round and lost in the voting 60 – 36. It is not contesting its defeat and doesn’t think the alleged payment had anything to do with the bidding. Japan Olympic Committee (JOC) president Tsunekazu Takeda has said that it was payment for the services of consultants that they hired to help prepare their bid papers.  It is a general agreement that candidate cities hire consultants to enable them to bid for large-scale, international sports events. The JOC is conducting an independent probe into the matter, separate from that of the French magistrate. Although several months have passed since the investigation commenced, evidence is yet to be found. Regardless, Tokyo is the same as Doha in that it is under ungrounded suspicion.

Thomas Bach has said that the IOC will have zero tolerance for any kind of wrongdoing, whether it is athletes doping themselves or candidate cities trying to buy IOC members’ votes. But as the IOC is bent on protecting its name from being tainted with dishonesty, potential host cities should also be shielded from undue harassment by paranoid entities. Suspicions of corruption see broad coverage in media, but when the absence of proof absolves these cities, the news merits only a second-page release. It is up to Bach to uphold the image of the Olympics and bring back its glory days.