Growing need for change in international sport
It has often been said that change is the most difficult aspect of life to accept.
We are aware that change is inevitable and constant, whether we accept it or not. How we deal with change is a problem that has plagued mankind since the beginning of time.
It is a truism that despite what some leaders may have convinced themselves about change, no single individual has a monopoly on change or evolution. This has not, however, prevented leaders in all aspects of life from trying to become the initiators or champions of change, often the hope that their initiatives will appropriately immortalise them in the annals of human history.
After having been elected to office in 2013 and at the launch of the much-vaunted, Olympic Agenda 2020, President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), Thomas Bach, of Germany, declared, threw down the gauntlet, to his exclusive club of IOC members sitting before him, ‘change or be changed’. This is not a novel idea. It is an often repeated phrase that speaks to the reality that change is inevitable while at the same time endorsing the popular view that leaders are the initiators of change.
The IOC’s proposals for a culture of change does not yet appear to have had any meaningful impact on the world of sport beyond perhaps engendering a dog-fight amongst international sport federations (IF) for access to the global exposure and financing associated with their inclusion on the sport programme of the quadrennial Olympic Games. This dog-fight is a free-for-all, with ‘no holds barred’, a glaring contradiction to the IOC’s claim that the Olympic Movement is about unity, solidarity, peace and development through sport.
One of the apparent unintended consequences of Olympic Agenda 2020 is that now fewer cities in countries around the world are willing or able to step forward, expending millions in the bid process, anxious to expend billions thereafter in hosting the quadrennial event.
Now we have another seemingly innovative creation, ‘Olympic Agenda 2020 + 5’, a designation that, in and of itself, reflects a lack of creativity in an era of change and a rising social call for greater institutional openness, transparency and accountability across all sectors.
All power to the IOC, not the people
To the astute follower of sport and the dynamics of governance in sport across the globe there is much cause for concern and the IOC is certainly not the organization to make demands of other international sports organisations in respect of good governance, something that it is increasingly trying to do in order to protect the very notion of sport autonomy.
The IOC’s own history could very well be used against it in respect of any attempt on its part to play the role of ‘international police’ where good governance and high ethical standards are concerned.
Recent actions on the part of the IOC has raised eyebrows in the changing world of sport. One report carried in the Washington Post states, “The Olympic Charter was amended so the full IOC membership can remove a sport if its governing body does not comply with a decision made by the IOC executive board or if it “acts in a manner likely to tarnish the reputation of the Olympic movement.”
“The IOC widened its authority by adding a “but not limited to” clause that goes beyond the stated reasons for removing a sport.
“The executive board, which is chaired by IOC President Thomas Bach, also got new powers to suspend a sport or event discipline from the Olympics if its governing body refuses to comply with a decision.” (Washington Post – Graham Dunbar -AP-8 August 2021).
The foregoing is an ominous sign of things to come. Increasingly, the IOC is becoming a law unto itself, dictated by itself, something of a monolith answerable to no one.
In a previous Column some years ago, when the IOC dared to dictate the internal affairs of boxing’s international federation, AIBA, this Columnist cautioned that today it is boxing and any other IF could be next. Notably at the time, other IFs maintained a still tongue, seemingly afraid that they may be next, especially since they could ill afford the loss of their quadrennial global exposure at the Games and the attendant income from the TV rights so generously given by the IOC.
FIFA, itself a challenge to the IOC in terms of annual income, also remained decidedly quiet at the time, only, later on, to be featured in one of the biggest scandals to hit the ‘wide and wonderful’ world of sport. In one fell swoop, the long arm of the law led to the arrest of several of FIFA’s Executive members while attending a meeting at the organisation’s headquarters in Switzerland.
Interestingly, however, the IOC did not take action against FIFA as it proceeded to do with AIBA, a feature that left many thinking that there are different standards for the way it treats IFs. Many think that the difference lay with FIFA’s own financial standing and immense popularity around the world, which certainly rivals that of the IOC.
AIBA has almost ended up being emasculated by how the IOC seemingly went outside the latter’s ambit and organised the sport’s competition at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, a fact that should never have been allowed by IFs, more generally. But their individual fear overrides their own commitment to the very ‘lofty’ ideas they bear in their respective mandates. They fear the loss of invaluable income and their place on the sports programme, all dictated by the IOC.
AIBA had nowhere to turn and ‘fell prostrate’, yielding to the dictates of the IOC. The organisation is still on its knees, fearful of its future in the Games.
At the end of the Tokyo Olympics another shot has flown across the bow of IFs. The International Weightlifting Federation is another apparent ‘target’ of the IOC.
IOC Vice President, Australia’s John Coates, is quoted as saying, “In the recent past, the IOC has been confronted with situations raising serious concerns regarding the governance of certain international federations.”
Analysts seem to think that the IFs for boxing and weightlifting are the ones currently under a ‘cloud’.
Weightlifting is an interesting case since the international federation was, until recently, led by an individual who was a long-time IOC member. Critical analysis would therefore suggest that much of what has made the organization the object of the IOC’s apparent ire may well have started during his tenure at the helm and while being an IOC member. If this is indeed the case, then there may well be reason to have many more questions relative to the latter’s actions now.
The incredible reality is that the IOC appears not to have the requisite gumption to act against its members until such time as outside sources’ investigative work exposes them for what they are and they are forced to react to protect the self-regulatory power and self-proclaimed autonomy of sport.
A case in point is the fallout in the late 1990s about the Salt Lake City Scandal that involved corruption by IOC members. A notable feature was an article in the Chicago Tribune dated 23 January 1999 that stated in part, ‘Australian Olympic Committee President John Coates made the offers to two African IOC members the night before Sydney won the right to be the host for the 2000 Olympics by two votes over Beijing.
‘According to Australian reports, Coates said he offered $35,000 each to the National Olympic Committees (NOCs) of Kenya and Uganda through their IOC members at a dinner in Monte Carlo on Sept. 22, 1993. The members involved were Charles Mukora of Kenya, who also has been implicated in the Salt Lake City scandal, and Gen. Francis Nyangweso of Uganda.
The next day, the IOC members chose Sydney over Beijing 45-43.
In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald, Coates said the money was offered because “I thought it was necessary for us to show our commitment to those NOCs with a view to winning those votes.”
Kevan Gosper, an IOC executive board member from Australia, told the Associated Press in Switzerland, “It seems that John’s decision was intended to influence the IOC members’ thinking. I can see this viewed as questionable conduct. It’s a very serious revelation. I think a lot of people will be destabilized.”
The aforementioned referenced John Coates is the current IOC Vice President.
In Caribbean parlance therefore one is forced to ponder whether we are in a situation where it can be appropriate to state that it is ‘the pot calling the kettle, black’.
Then there was the revelations in respect of IOC member, Lamine Diack of Senegal, who also headed the IAAF (now World Athletics. In an article dated 15 May 2018, Reid Carlson wrote, “…Brazilian economist Carlos Emanuel Miranda told prosecutors in a plea deal that he “managed” a payment of $2 million USD or more to Diack to secure four votes for the Rio 2016 Olympic bid in 2009. The money was transferred from an account controlled by Brazilian businessman Arthur Soares, also known as “King Arthur”, to Papa Massata Diack, son of Lamine Diack, who then distributed the funds to the others they wished to sway into voting for Rio 2016. The money was transferred from Soares’s British Virgin Islands-based account to a French account controlled by Papa Diack.
An email sent by Papa Diack to Rio 2016 General Director Leonardo Gryner further suggests that there were other beneficiaries of the $2 million payment, reports Brazilian newspaper Folha de S.Paolo. Gryner, for his part, was investigated by Brazilian authorities around the same time in 2017 as Carlos Nuzman, former president of the Brazilian Olympic Committee and of the Rio 2016 Olympic bid. Nuzman, who is also implicated in Miranda’s testimony, was charged with corruption and money laundering in October 2017, made to hand over his passport, and told not to leave Brazil until the conclusion of his trial.” Nuzman was also once an IOC member.
Getting real
In earlier Columns we have suggested that the IOC may well appear to have transformed the organisation and the Games into major income-generating institutions. In respect of the Games, the financial returns are tremendous and while there are clearly ‘good causes’ attached to their usage, the fact is that they result from the performances of athletes who, it is suggested, do this out of their altruistic commitment to country, global unity and peace.
At the same time, the world of sport remains rife with growing evidence of pervasive systemic racism, gender inequity, human rights harms and violations and reflective of the global economic divide even as the IOC lauds its commitment to contributing to the achievement of the 2030 UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
A group of wealthy individuals have at once decided that while they have the power to out boxing and weightlifting under scrutiny they are also empowered to bring on board going forward, like the colonialists and slave masters of old, those sports they deem attractive and appealing to today’s young generation, skateboarding, breakdancing and sport climbing. In other words, the intent is to be ahead of the game, sustaining relevance, ingratiating itself to earn more and be perceived as the ever-gracious, ever-benevolent planter class.
There is a struggle for change that has already started and the athletes are getting wiser as to their rights and enate power. Kehinde Andrews reminds us of this. He writes, “We should never look to athletes to lead the struggle but the last year has shown the strength of their platform for popularising ideas of racial justice. The sheen from last summer has almost completely worn off, with companies and governments going back to business as usual without even pretending to care. It would be a shame if sports falls back into the old routine. Athletes are not going to save us but they do have a platform and resources that can be extremely helpful if we are to build the alternatives to get us out of this wicked system.”
The UN Gen Assembly 75th Session Agenda Item 11 stated in part, that it “Reaffirms that sport is an important enabler of sustainable development, and recognizes the growing contribution of sport to the realization of development and peace in its promotion of tolerance and respect and the contributions it makes to the empowerment of women and of young people, individuals and communities as well as to physical and mental health, education and social inclusion objectives.”
We are forced to ask ourselves, just how much of what the UN claims in the piece quoted above stands in stark contradiction to the organisation’s professed commitment to human rights and their understanding of the reality And experiences of those athletes who, having bought into the ideals perpetrated by the IOC, IFs, NOCs and the UN itself, devote themselves to training and competing on the world’s biggest sports stage, for individuals and organisations, that may well be accused of a most modified form of human exploitation.
Perhaps the leaders of the Olympic Movement today would do well to reflect evermore deliberately on the words penned by de Coubertin in 1918 and which they either seem to have forgotten or deliberately choose to ignore, “Olympism is not a system. It is a state of mind. The most widely divergent approaches can be accommodated in it, and no race or time can hold an exclusive monopoly on it.”
