They say the best time to make big changes is shortly after you win elected office — when you have momentum and strong support. Yet many are slow to make bold change as they wait to try to grow into the position and have time to think through what their long-term legacy could be.
Thomas Bach is not waiting. He was elected as International Olympic Committee president in September 2013, and by December 2014, he had passed one the most far-reaching platforms for change the organization has seen in its 119-year existence. The execution of this platform is destined to be his legacy.
The program, titled Olympic Agenda 2020, maps out 40 recommendations for change at the IOC. The entire agenda was approved in December by the committee (not known for its pace or flexibility), and the reverberations of this agenda are being felt from Kazakhstan to Boston. The items selected were created after an extensive series of debate and discussion, including receiving more than 40,000 submissions from the public about how the organization can improve and become more transparent.
Believe me, I am part of a large contingent of people who work in the Olympic space and held firmly that goals like “increase transparency” (agenda item No. 29) or “strengthen ethics” (item No. 32) or “ensure compliance” (item No. 31) would never be uttered by the IOC — unless it were to be “We must never increase transparency.”
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding, but I am hearing from numerous sources that their recent engagements with the IOC (members and staff) have been “enlightening,” “refreshing” and “honest discussions.”
Already concrete examples are appearing as the IOC works in a stronger and closer relationship with bid and host cities. Many of these are focused on “reduce the cost and reinforce the flexibility of Olympic Games management (agenda item No. 12).” After a recent visit by the IOC, Almaty, Kazakhstan (a bid city for 2022), chose to cut its projected costs by $550 million. Tokyo (the host city for 2020) announced that it was adjusting three venues to realize a $1 billion savings. Pyeongchang (2018 host) has established an “integration working group” with the IOC to expedite the decision-making process as it prepares for the Games. All of these have occurred in the last 90 days, and all of these can be directly attributable to a new, and enlightened, approach by the IOC to make the process both cheaper and more transparent.
I know that Bach realizes change is both necessary and inevitable. I think there are two tea leaves that he read that made him move so quickly and decisively. One is the IOC’s neighbors at FIFA. It has gone in a separate way. It closed ranks and sits now in denial about its mistakes around the process of awarding the World Cup to Russia and Qatar. The other factor is Oslo, Norway. When Oslo decided that it was no longer interested in hosting the Olympic Winter Games in 2022, it was a game-changer. The two remaining bid cities are Almaty and the winter city (really?) of Beijing. With all due respect to both delightful locations, when one thinks of winter sports, one would have to think Oslo first. If the Norwegians don’t see the benefit of hosting the Winter Games, then something is wrong.
So now we wait to see this agenda unfold. There will be stumbling blocks along the way, but I am willing to tip my hat to Bach and acknowledge that in fewer than two years in office he has put forward a transformative agenda that could change the IOC forever. I believe his legacy is already established. We now have the potential for a new and improved Olympic Movement.
Gordon Kane (victorysportsmarketing@gmail.com) has held management positions at the U.S. Olympic Committee, with both a U.S. host city and bid city, and now consults for companies on Olympic sponsorship opportunities.
