SPORTS’ LATEST CHALLENGES
Readers may recall that several years ago this Column addressed the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) announcement of then, new president (elected in 2013), Thomas Bach, that he was introducing his now renowned, ‘Olympic Agenda 2020’. In his preamble to the International Olympic Family, Bach used as his mantra, the concept, ‘Change or be Changed’.
2020 was the original year for the Summer Olympics but the onset of COVID19 occasioned their postponement by one year, to 2021. Stilled seated in the President’s chair at the helm of the IOC, Back then expanded his programme, declaring it the rather bland and uninspiring, ‘Olympic Agenda 2020 Plus Five’.
The international sport reality continues to change ever so rapidly, much like every aspect of life, itself.
When the idea of FIFA giving consideration to establishing another Football World Cup, hosting the glamorous sporting spectacle biennially rather than the traditional, quadrennially, the IOC and several major international sport organisations grew very concerned. Some appeared eager to condemn FIFA as simply being ‘greed’, ignoring their own attempts as increasing their own global events for the very same reason, increased revenues.
Subsequent to the dropping of the idea of a second Football World Cup, the international football fraternity found itself coming to terms with another challenging concept, also essentially grounded in the pursuit of significantly enhanced revenues. The idea of a European Super League was floated. The reaction of existing clubs and their respective community bases, to the proposal, forced the retreat by those behind the proposal. Unfortunately, some involved in sport analyses may have missed the essence of the proponents and their ultimate commitment to getting their hands on what they may have seen as an incredibly large ‘gold mine’ that is international football.
To the astute sport analysts around the world, the emergence of the Infantino’s announcement in the immediate aftermath of this year’s FIFA World Cup, came as no surprise. Indeed, it was to be expected.
In hindsight, Infantino’s announcement came across as an advanced version of the two previous concepts, with the additional enticement aimed at the sport’s global membership of millions of dollars finding their way in their own coffers.
A new generation of multinational corporations
While FIFA has taken the lead in making its ‘big’ announcement, only to find its leadership being exposed and the object of much derision, the important question that appears to be making the rounds amongst international sport analysts, is whether FIFA stands alone in its eagerness to hand over its range of sport competitions to private investors, under the guise of bringing greater financial benefits to the major stakeholders, the athletes.
Some critics ponder whether the ideas are really part of a major paradigm shift already under consideration by several international federations (IF) and have begun investigation the extent to which some of the current leaders of these IFs are seeking ways to engage themselves as beneficiaries and shareholders of some of the ‘financiers in waiting’.
It is therefore not at all far-fetched to consider the possibility that what we are witnessing may well be the emergence of a new, remodelled multinational corporation taking complete control of the international sport arena.
This Columnist suggests that the proposed new, emerging sport model may have been the result of analyses of both the IOC model and that of professional sport in the USA.
The IOC Model
The IOC model claims its foundation rests on the bedrock of philanthropy. This sees a self-perpetuating group of individuals controlling the Olympic Games and by extension, an International Olympic Movement into perpetuity.
The Olympic model identifies the IOC individual members as its apex, with International Federations and National Olympic Committees at the loser level and athletes and the national federations governing their sports, at the lowest tier of the structure.
It is questionable as to whether the IOC’s governance structure can be considered democratic in the strict political sense, since the IOC members have almost unfettered control of the decision-making processes. Boasting 205 members spread around five continents is of little value in the content of democracy and good governance to the extent that the latter have no direct access to the levers of decision-making that impacts the organisation.
The IOC, however, boasts of being an inclusive institution in which the handful of ‘independent self-perpetuating members’ own and sustain a jealously guarded product that it sells to cities in countries around the world and determines how the generated revenues are distributed. International Federations create the competition – the sporting spectacle – engaged in by athletes from their respective national federations around the world.
The untrammelled growth in professional sport has been paralleled by the emergence of independent institutions created by athletes, coaches and agents, each looking after the independent and collective interests of their members. Few have taken the time to analyse the loss of control of national sport federations, over their own athletes and the competitions in which they are engaged, annually, in the process. Additionally, the vast majority of the national federations and NOCs are managed by volunteers. Too many satisfy themselves with the perceived status that comes with being part of the Olympic Family and the travel perks attendant to this.
Despite possible claims otherwise, it may well be a truism that the recent declaration by IOC President, Kirsty Coventry, of the ‘preparation grants’ to athletes who qualify and participate in the Olympic Games can be seen as little more than a tokenistic attempt at pre-empting a ‘pending’ onslaught from the professional athletes whose performances yield the windfall revenues at the Olympics, for a more definitive share to be sent in their direction.
The fact is the old model may well be outmoded and in urgent need of replacement.
The IOC must come to the realisation that values change with time and successive generations. Today, social media have become the most popular agent of socialisation, impacting the values of successive generations of every generation. Significant changes must follow increasingly onerous demands.
The USA Professional Sport Model
The professional sports model in the USA is unquestionably founded on money, pure and unadulterated. It has been created and marketed as integral to the American Dream.
There is this firm belief that ‘money follows and generates money’ and that ‘money runs things’.
The entrepreneurial culture in the USA is almost insatiable. The profit motive is literally unfettered as much as it is infective. One has only to analyse the growth in the cost of team franchises, athletes’ salaries and competition prize monies, to just begin to understand how much the capitalist ethos dominates the entire sports spectrum as it does the entire American society.
The major sports operate as professional league franchises and the teams are owned by huge monied interests. It is argued that there is much support for this system because it is perceived as fairer than the European leagues. While the jury is still out on this particular issue, billionaires appear to be moving into the major European competitions, buying teams. Some believe that this approach is merely a ruse to wield influence through cash, probably with the ultimate aim of bringing the European sport system more in alignment with that of the USA.
The fear is that ultimately, money will win out and we may end up with one global system where the unfairness of the global economic model rules the day.
The Caribbean reality
It is difficult enough merely to keep track of the justified progress that sport has made, globally, in almost every aspect. This is not to say that the majority of the progress has not been welcomed. They have made sport an impressive and rapidly growing lucrative industry.
As with other aspects of global advancement time must always be taken to engage in critical analyses of the impact of changes as they occur and take root. Failure to do so means running the risk, not only of being left behind, but also of failing to understand how they impact us in our respective countries.
In the Caribbean, sport officials have spent much of their time being mimics of what they believe works in other parts of the world. Woefully underfunded, Caribbean sport languishes in practice and progress. For too many leaders, systematic research and analyses have been kept at bay. It seems much easier to capitulate to what is perceived to be beneficial rather than do the hard work to create systems that align with our culture and resources.
WE watch as our athletes seek our scholarships abroad, are exploited by coaches and agents so much so that they often forget their origins. Many seem to spurn their own upbringing and turn their backs on their countries of origin.
Every Caribbean country relates the same story of the loss of the majority of their talented athletes to developed nations while lamenting our failure to progress, to their satisfaction.
We ought not to be surprised, therefore, at the unwillingness of our athletes to study our history enough to understand the importance of growing emphases on the Commonwealth Sports’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Caribbean’s fight for Reparative Justice and the demand for continuing work on facilitating gender equity and regional integration.
The challenges to appropriately confronting the future of Caribbean sport must begin in the family where values are addressed, modified and where our history is told and explained and serve to identify and rationalise our aspirations as a people.
The task ahead must involve all of us.
