Shortly before the USOC election earlier this month, San Francisco 2012 (BASOC) was forced to add a disclaimer to its presentation regarding the projected $409 million surplus that would be distributed among the sports federations after the 2012 Olympic Games. The USOC was concerned because it believed that it was impossible, and maybe even unethical, to project a surplus that may or may not happen ten years down the road. Of course, they’re right – waving that potential surplus in front of USOC members’ faces, the gem in San Francisco’s proposal, is an easy way to promise a benefit that you can’t possibly be accountable for. But for the USOC to single out this one item just minutes before the presentations after knowing about it for weeks has left many scratching their heads.
The surplus wasn’t a last minute addition to BASOC’s plan, it had been well documented for quite some time, including a highlighted section right in the executive summary released about a month before the decision. And ironically this came from the bid that was so meticulous about being as open and transparent as possible. But timing isn’t the real issue here – what USOC members may use to base their nomination selection on is, and that’s what really raises the questions.
Sure, projecting a surplus ten years out borders on ridiculous, but then why bother with a budget at all – isn’t it all just conjectures? The budgets include “projected” television revenues even though a network contract hasn’t been negotiated yet. They detail security expenses that tend to change at the end of every “breaking news” report. The line-items even include ticket, licensed merchandise and coin and stamp program revenues that won’t happen for at least two business cycles. And then the USOC members are told to ignore the bottom line. Really, a detailed budget does not belong in a domestic level bid and I doubt even New York’s successful bid will present the same budget to the IOC at the international level.
The USOC had likely requested a detailed budget and bid book so they could mimic the IOC process as closely as possible. However, the time, effort and enthusiasm that went into to the hundreds of glossy color pages that make up the candidature file were likely just for show and the beautiful executive summary of BASOC’s bid with full color photographs and inspiring quotations adorns my coffee table as living proof.
Besides financial numbers, there were more details in the candidacy pages that had built-in obsolescence. For instance, the sports that are planned for the 2012 Games could change and this issue is being debated within the IOC as I write (baseball being the big one in the U.S.). Even more important are that the venue plans contained within the covers are really only dreams that could end up being entirely different by the time the Games are actually staged. And that’s what a bid at this stage is all about, selling a dream. There is no room for numbers or facts at this point and the USOC treated it that way.
Athens’ successful 2004 bid was largely based on a dream that hasn’t quite materialized as envisioned. Cost over-runs, labor disruptions and environmental groups have caused major problems for the Games’ organization and many venues will not be built as planned. Even the “jewel in the crown of the 2004 Games”, a glass dome over the stadium, may have to be scrapped due to delays. Resulting smaller venues will lead to reduced revenues and less “appeal” than planned. Skyrocketing security costs will likely leave the Games with debt. Athens will look nothing like the way it was proposed 5 years ago.
But if the USOC really wanted to address issues that the IOC is concerned with, they failed. USOC members were told before the vote only to use “official bid documents” and to disregard any media reports or other information before coming to their decision. The IOC members do not vote with blinders on, in fact with potentially no bid city visits and the possibility that an IOC member has not visited the bid city recently or at all, media reports may form the core of a voter’s perceptions and decision.
The IOC is not only interested in what, but also how. How will the public react to the prospect of the Games? How will the venues get built? The IOC will ask for third-party public opinion polls and then conduct some of their own just for good measure. The IOC will ask about any opposition to the bid and will want to know how the committee is dealing with it. These are very important issues and were largely ignored in the USOC process. New York won’t be able to dream about their Olympic stadium, they will have to explain how it will get built and produce government documents that it can and will get done. They will have to reveal the resistance by local community groups and how it is being addressed – the IOC will not want to see any large-scale opposition after the Games are awarded.
One thing the IOC will not be able to appreciate is U.S. patriotism, a major underlying theme of New York’s bid and their presentation. This strategy worked in the domestic process – but that only won New York a domestic nomination. In an international race it could even be detrimental to the cause where the majority of the voters are European. Certainly New York will have to refocus the emotional aspect of its bid.
“We have spent years and millions of dollars on what we think is the plan to bring the Olympic Games back to the U.S. in 2012. This is our plan and we are sticking to it”, Dan Doctoroff, NYC2012 President told a USOC press conference. Well, in addition to changes described above, New York’s bid book will have to be almost completely redone to conform to strict IOC standards which gets as detailed as paper size and weight, ink color and the number of pages that must be used for each theme and each map.
It is clear that the USOC nomination process must be re-evaluated. Site Evaluation Team Chair Charles Moore had the right idea by suggesting the Committee choose a bid with the most international appeal. But what he was really asking is that 123 American members vote as if they were European, Asian or African – an impossible task. They voted for the American dream and New York lived up to its reputation as the marketing capital of the world by selling the American dream as “international appeal” to a domestic audience.
