As columnists and researchers, we’re not above throwing rocks at major sports properties and big brands that invest in sports. Similarly, we’re not afraid to give credit when and where it is due.
Recently, the International Olympic Committee showed it is one organization where acknowledgement seems warranted. That’s due to our familiarity with the Olympic and Paralympic movements and willingness to write about issues like host-city bidding, adaptive inclusion, sponsors and Rule 40.
Still, despite the fact columnists traditionally shy away from “good news,” we felt compelled to note improvements the IOC is making under President Thomas Bach. With the decision made to simultaneously award the Paris (2024) and Los Angeles (2028) Games, the IOC has taken numerous steps to enhance various levels of Olympism.
The catalyst for change was the recent withdrawal of multiple candidate cities for the 2026 Winter Games. That caused us to interview Christophe Dubi, the IOC’s executive director of Olympic Games. What Dubi told us was not only forthcoming but worth sharing.
As a disclaimer for readers not directly involved with the Olympics, the reason to keep reading is this: The IOC is the largest sporting organization in the world and reaches into more than 200 countries. So, strategic progress by the IOC might rub off on others and ultimately influence global inclusion, diversity, advancement and profitable growth.
We started by asking Dubi about Calgary’s withdrawal from the 2026 bid process after a very negative plebiscite result. We’d watched that situation closely and believed strongly there were larger issues explaining why Calgary’s citizenry rejected hosting the Games at the last minute.
Dubi noted: “If you are not able, as a candidature committee, to come up with a full picture of all elements until a few days before [a plebiscite], it becomes very complicated. Society has evolved to the point where people want to know what’s in it for me, now. And, if you can’t give a full answer on what it will cost, you will not proceed. The same holds if the answers come late.”
This led to a discussion about city-led bids versus private-sector bids because both Paris and L.A. were private. In fact, Paris’ previous failed bids were city-run. Dubi responded it was less about who submits a bid — city or private — and more about the individuals and organizations involved.
“The issue is [finding] a coordinated, ‘in-favor’ group who are integrated in their activities with the [city’s] key organizations. If — like in Calgary and some others — you have some [groups, individuals] who are not aligned, then it sends a message of uncertainty.”
What’s next?
The IOC Executive Board (EB) will meet in Lausanne from March 26-28. The EB is scheduled to receive reports from the organizing committees of the upcoming Olympic Games and various IOC commissions, as well as updates on the activities of the IOC administration.
Our research suggests Dubi is right. During the last decade, all over the world, people’s trust of systems and, importantly, governments has declined.
Economic impact studies are often produced by agencies offering inflated results and absurd multipliers. Governments at all levels (federal, state/provincial, municipal) act as competitors for resources and agendas. Additionally, strong lobby groups are more effective with negative communications.
The list goes on, which makes the concept of bidding a massive challenge. So how does a city possibly enjoin the support of its citizens?
“It is quite amazing,” Dubi said, “when three levels of governance are in favor. If the sport federations are in favor and the athletes are in favor … look at London, L.A. and Paris … we see exceptional people jumping in, pulling together and swaying [public] opinion.”
The other key aspect of any bid process is the strength of the “No” side in discussions on whether to proceed with the bid or not. If the “No” side is organized, communicating clearly and able to pose questions the “Yes” side can’t answer, the “Nos” can easily steer public opinion early and create doubt about costs and negative legacies.
Exhibit A is Calgary. So, what’s the IOC doing?
First, they passed a new policy — Olympic Agenda 2020 — establishing a series of reforms making the bidding process more cost-effective and transparent. This document is easily searchable and has already received notable positive acclaim. Of greatest note is how the agenda requires the IOC start city bids much earlier and then remain deeply engaged, helping cities create quality bids supported by their citizenry.
In other words, the IOC now resists waiting on bids and instead partners with cities. Interestingly, Dubi suggested his team is already working future bids with more than 30 interested cities for the 2024 Youth Olympic Winter Games, the 2030 Olympics and the 2032 Olympics.
Such proactivity should increase the number of bids and reduce future “No” plebiscites. Perhaps more holistically, this coordinated approach will help cities drop out earlier, thereby saving taxpayer dollars and reducing the complexity and nastiness associated with a failed bid.
The final important piece of Olympic Agenda 2020 is anticipating how the IOC becomes more open in communicating the true investments and administrative resources the Swiss-based organization makes in each Games. If Dubi is to be believed, it means the IOC is changing its tone to create a more positive outcome for chosen municipalities.
“To invest $1 billion in a city is not a bad thing,” Dubi stressed. And to that suggestion he pointed toward Paris and 2024 where the IOC is investing $1.7 billion, which is a mix of contribution to the local organizing committee and organizational costs directly borne by the IOC.
Perhaps pro leagues and others should take note. It is certainly admirable for league commissioners to give massive sums to private team owners. But is there no value in assisting cities that host teams and championship events?
Rick Burton is the David B. Falk Professor of Sport Management at Syracuse University and SU’s faculty athletic representative to the ACC and NCAA. Norm O’Reilly is Director of the International Institute for Sport Business & Leadership at the University of Guelph and Partner Consultant at T1.
Questions about OPED submission guidelines? Email editor Jake Kyler at jkyler@sportsbusinessjournal.com
