Ever since the postponement of the Tokyo Olympic Games last year the future of the Games has come under much closer scrutiny. Many have echoed the thoughts of others who have questioned whether the current model is sustainable.
The current President of the IOC, Thomas Bach has been determined to try and grow its appeal, and also create new revenue streams. Hence the introduction of Golf and Rugby Sevens in 2016, the introduction of mixed tennis in 2012, and BMX in 2008. In Tokyo followers were due to witness five new sports in surfing, sport climbing, skateboarding, karate and baseball (men)/softball (women). In Paris in 2024 Break-dancing will make its debut as an Olympic Sport.
Is expansion the answer? Or should the Games be looking to become far more exclusive and niche? (Has Olympic Expansion Reached Braking Point?)
As the event becomes bigger and more costly to host it is astounding that there are still cities prepared to bid to host the Olympic Games. The cost of hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games in Tokyo according to reports has now risen to USD$15.4 billion.
With the growth of event and the change in the broadcasting of the various sports it is remarkable that the event has lasted this long. Broadcasters now jump from event to event to try and give everyone a piece of each sport resulting in fans of a particular sport being denied watching a whole match. This writer is old enough to remember when this was not the case. Interestingly this was also a time before many of the sports contested at the Olympic Games had their own World Championships. (Just Another Day?)
For example golf, tennis and certainly the men’s football do not place anywhere near as much importance on Olympic success as they do their own championships.
This very issue has many asking the relevance of many of the Olympic Sports. Just over a week ago in the UK’s Daily Telegraph Jonathan Marks asked this very question. (The Olympics is not fit for purpose – it should be scrapped and reinvented).
Marks is spot on with many of his observations. Track and field for decades was the focus of the Olympic Games. People would stop what they were doing to tune into the 100m final to find out who was the fastest man or woman alive. People will tell you that they still do, or did when Usain Bolt was participating. That may be true, but in the past people made sure that they also tuned into other key events such as the 800m and 1500m. These were also regarded as blue riband events, but sadly now have drifted into the smorgasbord of other events. Referring to Athletics, Marks quite rightly says “the way it is packaged and presented has been in need of a reboot for too long.”
Marks goes on to say “many sports are largely forgotten about in the years between Olympics because they lack relevance.” This comment left many smarting, especially those whose sport struggles to gain newspaper, radio and television coverage away from their own World Championships. Yet many guests on Not The Footy Show have been brutally honest and admitted that they never see a sports journalist until the Olympic Games, World Cup or Commonwealth Games come around. If that sport has the chance of a medal, then interest is heightened in the lead up to the event. Once it is over the sport is once more relegated to being an also ran.
Too many of the national programs in a range of sports see Olympic Qualification as paramount on two levels. Firstly because the national representative will receive much needed television exposure which will ultimately, if they have a plan in place to use that publicity, grow the game and bring in sponsorship. The second comes down to funding. With many Governments basing sports funding grants on Olympic Qualification and the final placing of their representatives. This is an outdated funding model and in many nations is doing little to grow the various sports. All it is doing is helping many sports keep their head above water.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is another body that funds those sports that have been welcomed into the Olympic fold. So are they as guilty of their own demise by handing over funds and failing to follow up where those monies are being spent?
The Mission Statement of the IOC reads as follows: “The mission of the IOC is to not only ensure the celebration of the Olympic Games, but to also encourage the regular practice of sport by all people in society, regardless of sex, age, social background or economic status.”
So here is a question, how much of the funding that the IOC gives to International Federations ends up with National Associations to help encourage sport for all people in society? In fact how much of the money handed out by Governments is spent doing the same?
Some will tell you that often the funding coming from within many sports is in fact directed to where the powers that be need votes to remain in power, rather than where it is needed most.
Jonathan Marks ruffled a lot of establishment feathers when he wrote “too many Olympic sports are not relevant to a global audience – the likes of rowing, modern pentathlon and hockey are public-school sports that could be justified for the most part of the 20th century, but is that still the case?”
He was obviously referring to the United Kingdom with this statement. However judging by the amount of stories that have been published in the past six months about the lack of sporting opportunities now available in Government schools it would appear that he is on the money. Regrettably many sports in Britain have once again in the past decade seen a shift towards the opportunity to play at the highest level heavily favouring those who have had a private school education. Here the children have better access to facilities and equipment, and often also access to better coaching.
If the IOC, and for that matter many of the National Associations are genuine about Equality, and making sport available to all in society, money needs to be invested in the Government schools and in creating clubs for juniors to be be able to play. Passing money to the same people, and in the same direction, is never going to help make sport more inclusive or more relevant on a global scale. For these sports to grow and remain relevant globally they have to grow their participation numbers and create opportunities for those outside of the current structures.
The funding models are in essence flawed. The current funding models prevent organisations taking chances and looking to expand for fear that their performances at the highest level will drop and then they will lose the funding that they currently have. Sadly very few sports have become independent financially and the majority rely on annual hand outs. If Governments and the IOC truly want to see funding result in more sporting participants that funding has to cease being results based.
To be fair the IOC do help National Olympic Committees (NOC) when it comes to the Olympic Games and the Youth Olympic Games. Before the Games they cover the travel expenses and accommodation for one person per NOC to attend the meeting between the Chefs de Mission and the Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (OCOG) and help NOCs that will organise pre-Games training camps in the host country. When it comes to heading to the Olympic Games the IOC contribute to travel expenses for a number of athletes, team officials and NOC officials, and also cover accommodation costs for a maximum of two rooms per NOC up to 20 nights per room. They also cover Games-related expenses which are not already covered by other sources of funding. For the Youth Olympics the investment is not as high.
In November 2020 the IOC announced an increase in “the budget of Olympic Solidarity for the period 2021 to 2024 by 16 per cent. The budget for 2021-2024 will now total USD590million. With this decision , the IOC will further strengthen its support to athletes , National Olympic Committees(NOCs) and Continental Associations of NOCs.” This is no small amount of money, but the key question that needs to be asked is exactly how much of that money is going to the athletes?
As mentioned it would appear that far too much of this funding is being eaten up by the various sports administrators, and it is alleged that in some sports, as mentioned, this funding is also used as a bargaining tool. If that is true why are the IOC not looking more closely at where the money is being spent? Do they care? As long as they can come out with statements declaring how generous they have been, will anyone actually ask where those funds are being spent?
The allocation of funding, what that money is spent on and where it is being directed is now more important for the IOC than ever before. Its very existence is now under threat. Whether the Tokyo Games do indeed go ahead later this year, and under what restrictions, the relevance of the IOC and the way it operates is once again going to come under scrutiny.
So how and where they spend their money will be the key to their future. It is time to re-assess the whole Olympic Games and what they mean to people, athletes and fans. Also importantly broadcasters, as the spiralling costs for a diminishing audience is unsustainable.
Marks advocated regeneration. First comes the hardest challenge of re-evaluation, an honest assessment. Then must follow a rebranding and a rebooting before Paris in three years.
Is the Governance of sport over staffed? Should more money be going to developing the next generation of Olympic Athletes? Can individual cities still honestly afford to host the event, and do the citizens of those cities want such a circus coming to town? Is there not an opportunity to spread the cost and also the Olympic spirit and genuinely create new opportunities for all by spreading the event over a longer period as we suggested in An Olympic Year?
Some people are threatened by change. That is understandable, it can be very confronting. However if we have learned anything from the past year it is that that we must be open to change, we must be flexible. Those sports that have failed to embrace the fact that post Covid the way they administer the game must have evolved will find themselves left behind. As Marks alluded to all sports must be relevant to the time as well as their participants and fans.
