This letter is in response to the editorial “Crisis a catalyst for reform to USOPC funding” in the June 1-7 issue of Sports Business Journal.
Mark Conrad’s opinion piece argues for the federal government to assume major funding of USOPC. This issue has been fully vetted historically in all of its forms. Congress has rejected them and would do so again.
The Amateur Sports Act of 1978 solved 50-year-old governance issues. The Act almost did not pass purely because a one-time authorized appropriation was attached to it!
In the article, many other statements are wrong:
■ The USOPC does not benefit from “the largesse of the IOC”; it is the other way around when one studies reasons for USOPC marketing/television monies.
■ No funding of the USOPC “derives” in any way from the Act. Funding initiatives, private or public, are separate and distinct.
■ Congressional oversight of the USOPC has always been intended and required. It just has not happened except when a crisis arises (see my article in SBJ, Aug. 6, 2018).
■ A massive attempt to pass an Olympic tax check-off bill was mounted 1982-1984. It almost passed but was rejected.
■ Many public funding options have been studied over the years; all have been rejected except coins, which only require government sanction.
■ Under the Act and its requirements, athletes can demand and receive due process. A major purpose of the Act was to remove from jurisdiction of courts certain types of Olympic disputes and athletes’ rights. That action was taken for many well-researched reasons.
Finally, since when is Congress, which spends little time on Olympic matters, more qualified than the USOPC to regulate USOPC and the NGBs? Let the USOPC do it and report to Congress regularly on results.
Mike Harrigan
Darnestown, Md.
Harrigan conceived and directed the President’s Commission on Olympic Sports (1975-77), on whose report the Amateur Sports Act was based.
Questions about OPED guidelines or letters to the editor? Email editor Jake Kyler at jkyler@sportsbusinessjournal.com
