WEEKEND COLUMNISTS The days of free sex, college scholarships and bulging envelopes are over. In the past, some cities bidding to host the Olympics offered members of the International Olympic Committee nice surprises. But then the IOC changed the rules. Now lobbyists for bidding cities cannot even buy IOC members a beer. And so, two weeks before the members gather in Copenhagen to choose the host of the 2016 Olympics, the four bidding cities have no idea who will win. Chicago, Rio de Janeiro, Madrid, Tokyo and even President Obama are in the dark. The farcical history of Olympic bidding has entered a new era.
There was a time when hardly anyone wanted to stage the Olympics. In the 1970s and 1980s, when the Games were beset by debts, boycotts and terrorists, hosting them was rather like holding a bad drunken party in your living room. Only Los Angeles was willing to stage the Olympics of 1984.
But the LA Games proved fun and profitable. Suddenly many cities wanted an Olympics. Because the host is chosen by 100-odd almost randomly assorted individuals, cities began giving them presents. When it turned out that Salt Lake City had won the winter Olympics of 2002 partly by handing certain IOC members money, scholarships and free medical care, the IOC rewrote its ethics code.
Now cities cannot invite IOC members for visits. The city’s lobbyists cannot buy them dinner. The lobbyists are only allowed to meet IOC members at certain set events, often big sports championships. Yet even these encounters reveal little.
The cities formally presented their bids to IOC members in Lausanne in June. However, says Mercedes Coghen, CEO of Madrid’s bid: “We had opportunities to meet them in a special room, but it was not big enough. It was not really comfortable to discuss or sit there.”
And the IOC’s new rules, though draconian, are not always clear. One lobbyist told me he thought you could only meet IOC members in public spaces: a hotel bar was OK, but a hotel room was not. The process was like speed-dating with chaperones while blindfolded.
Any lobbyist who manages to meet an IOC member ritually asks: “Can we count on your support?” The member ritually replies: “Yes,” whereupon the lobbyist goes away worried. Ms Coghen told me: “If you’re training for the long jump, you can do a great jump, and you know where you stand. This is not the same in this race.”
In past years it was easier to predict a winner, because some bids were terrible, or incompetently presented. But now so many cities bid that only excellent candidates make the shortlist. They all prepare perfect bid books. Consequently, nobody knows who will win.
Some cities may be better hosts than others, but few IOC members are so gauche as to vote for the best bid. Jean-Loup Chappelet, an Olympic expert at the Swiss Graduate School of Public Administration in Lausanne, says the members are more swayed by political or business interests.
The same uncertainties applied during the bidding to host the 2012 Games. However, that race ended in a public free-for-all. When the IOC met in Singapore to choose the host, lobbyists for the cities spent days chasing IOC members around the Raffles Hotel. Tony Blair, the former UK prime minister, is often credited with having personally persuaded enough members to vote for London.
In Copenhagen there will be much less time for lobbying. “Some members are going to reach the city very late on October 1,” says Ms Coghen. They vote on October 2. Still, Spain’s king and queen, Brazil’s President Lula, and Michelle Obama are showing up just in case.
Crucially, President Obama won’t be representing Chicago himself. The other cities are delighted. Mr Obama’s adopted hometown is the bookmakers’ favourite, but he must know that the uncertainty of the outcome and hence the risk of losing is too great to show up for.
