This Friday three cities will have spent millions of dollars in travel, staff and preparations for…nothing. On Friday, IOC President Jacques Rogge will announce which of the four cities for 2016, Tokyo, Rio Madrid and Chicago, will get the bid for the Summer Games, which will set off a feeding frenzy of activity, good will and brand building for the next seven years. But for the losers goes…well goes nothing really. True, the bid cities to this point have generated activity, buzz and good will, and maybe have sewn the seeds for future bids (Madrid and Rio have bid before and were able to resurrect many of their plans from 2012) but could the millions spent on prep be spent better elsewher. The race for the Olympics and the exposure and potential dollars for a host city is still very very worthwhile. In many cases now the venues are built to be converted or used in perpetuity and those host city usually drives a great deal of revenue from the lead-in with other events, and lead-out afterwards. On the branding side, the Olympic limitations on sponsorships and “clean looks” slows potential for host cities, but the revenue brought in around the Games still is a huge plus…and in all likelihood the host Olympic Committee….the USOC in the US…stands to benefit from a boost in potential year-round partners, all good news for those who get the Games. The biggest issue again lies for the losers and the unchecked spending that goes into the prep work. With no limits set by the IOC, the bid cities run large off budgets, and the sense of impression and “one-upsmanship” even in the slowest of economies leads to mountains of wasted presentations, lavish spending and huge travel. Another example was this past summer, when seven sports, many with very meager budgets, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to vie for the chance at being two of seven sports for instatement to the 2016 Olympic programme. The two sports selected, rugby and golf, can easily justify their spend, while baseball probably spent the least, using its large platform to drive interest. But sports like softball and roller sports spent more than their entire yearly budget to stage events and produce useless, flashy videos all in the name of making an impression. Can the IOC set spending limits, like the NCAA has done for years with recruiting and media guide. Yes. Should the IOC require that for every dollar spent on presentation an equal dollar goes back into developmen. Why not. The Olympic brand remains the world's premier sports brand, something that almost every athlete strives for. With the brand comes great responsibility, and limiting the spending on the recruitment process is something that should be implemented in these challenged times. Much like drug testing and rules set for entertaining officials, the IOC needs to set spending linits and guidelines for those trying to gain entrance to the program, be it city or sport. Otherwise, like a sport without testing left to police itself, even the best intentioned plans get lost in the competitive spirit, and with that loss comes the loss of valuable dollars which should go to the grassroots, not to extra videos. By following those rules, everyone wins.
Some other good reads…Oregon.com has a q and a with Paul Allen…the Vancouver Sun has a look at the ownership of the Canucks...and the Charlotte Observer has a look at new Panthers President Danny Morrison.
