It was clear, abundantly clear, listening Wednesday morning to Stephanie Streeter, Larry Probst, Norm Bellingham and Peter Ueberroth — that is, the establishment of the U.S. Olympic Committee — why it is the USOC feels the need in launching its own television network to move ahead so aggressively.

It’s, for lack of a better phrase, the mission statement — that is, the entire subtext to the conference call in which the USOC announced that the network, dubbed the U.S. Olympic Network, or USON, is due to launch sometime in 2010. Sometime being sometime after February, and the Vancouver Winter Games. Nobody could or would say when, really.

The mission statement centers around nothing less than a far-seeing paradigm shift: The revenue model needs to change, and a U.S. Olympic Committee television network would be a major step in effecting that change.

Ueberroth himself suggested as much Wednesday. That’s big because he’s the visionary who developed the model that’s in place now, and has been ever since 1984, and the Los Angeles Games that he headed — that model, of course, based on television as well as corporate rights fees.

The challenge for the USOC and a USON, both near- and long-term, is how — indeed, whether — theory lines up with the hard questions that come with the real world.

The USOC got a jolt of that almost immediately. Minutes after the call came to a close, the New York Times published a story in which the International Olympic Committee’s point man for TV rights, Richard Carrion of Puerto Rico, a banker and himself an enormously sophisticated businessman, made plain the USOC’s USON announcement raised a host of complex questions while also suggesting it was not in keeping with a spirit of partnership — either with the IOC or with NBC, which holds the U.S. rights to broadcast the Olympic Games through 2012.

Carrion said of the USOC, and keep in mind that in the Olympic sphere, relationships are traditionally how things get done, or not: “I’m dismayed after all the talk about cooperating that this is how they’re going about this. The attitude, some would call it arrogant.”

Bellingham, asked his reaction when he and I talked by phone separately, said, “My response is quite simple. We have been in discussions regarding the network for several years. It has been out in the public domain that we have been talking about a USON. We have shared that with media, we have shared that with the IOC, we have shared that with the Olympic family. It’s the farthest thing from a secret.

“While we understand there is resistance to change, we think the model — how revenue is generated, how value is created — can be improved upon. We believe this is in the best interests of the Olympic movement — worldwide. In the United States and worldwide.”

All of which might lead one to wonder why the announcement went down Wednesday in the first place. Again, in theory, there’s no quarrel with the staking out of a position in business that’s more aggressive than not. But in this instance, why not wait until after the Oct. 2 vote at which the IOC will choose the site of the 2016 Summer Games? Chicago, Madrid, Rio de Janeiro and Tokyo are the four candidates. It would seem to be an imperative for the USOC that Chicago be given every advantage.

Streeter stressed on the conference call the USOC belief that the USON announcement would have no impact on Chicago’s candidacy. How, though, would that appear to jibe with Carrion’s observations? Carrion not only sits on the IOC’s policy-making executive board, he is one of but a few legitimately mentioned as successors to the IOC’s current president, Jacques Rogge.

A slew of other real-world questions come immediately to mind regarding a USON. Here are just a few:

– Given the contentious history between international sports federations and the USOC over the division of certain broadcast and marketing revenue shares, what are the odds that any of the federations would be inclined to sign a deal by which its major competitions are televised over a USOC network? The Chicago Tribune’s Philip Hersh earlier Wednesday posted a lengthy Q&A with Hein Verbruggen, the former cycling federation president and influential Olympic insider who served as IOC inspector to 2008 Beijing Games preparations, that underscores the history and drama involving the USOC, IOC and federations.

– At any rate, if the answer to the question just above is “slim to none,” doesn’t that at one stroke significantly reduce programming options?

– Indeed, what exactly would a USON show? Ueberroth spoke at some length in the conference call about how teen-age up-and-comers playing volleyball this week at a tourney in Atlanta deserve exposure. So do judo athletes, he said. And luge competitors. And athletes in other sports that traditionally don’t get TV time. Bellingham asserted in the conference call, “The most important thing about this network is that we speak to the values and ideals of this movement.” That’s all laudable. At the same time, experience teaches that business is not a charity piece, and how extensive is consumer interest likely to be in, say, the so-called “C final” in a juniors swim meet?

– Moreover, what’s the viewing experience apt to be like? Meaning, in part, how refined the production values? On the scale of a proud dad’s digital camera held by hand from the distant stands? Or first-rate HD TV? It can be fundamentally expensive to produce watchable television, and particularly so when you’re not in the television business. Without hard budget numbers for not only the revenue but the expense sides — numbers that were not spelled out Wednesday in detail amid repeated assertions of confidence — doesn’t it become all that much more difficult to gauge USON prospects?

– To that end: no would argue with a key USOC plank reiterated in the conference call, to enhance opportunities for U.S. athletes. Are any of the millions of dollars it would seemingly take to start up a USON going to prove a near-term or even mid-range draw upon the resources available to would-be Olympic athletes?

Just asking, and there are lots more questions — more questions than there were immediate answers.

Then again, if history teaches anything, it’s this: It’s a bad bet to bet against Peter Ueberroth.

–

A note on this column, given the obvious:

NBC employs me. NBC is a joint-venture partner in Universal Sports, which occupies the space, or at least some significant chunk of it, that a USON would seek to enter. I am well aware that anything I write on the subject of a USON might well be scrutinized on the suspicion that NBC Universal Sports & Olympics chairman Dick Ebersol is behind it. Or Universal Sports management has urged me to take a particular position for competitive or other advantage.

At the same time, to not write about a topic that carries such potential significance might suggest an abdication of one’s professional responsibilities. Or prompt the allegation I’d been told to ignore it.

It was my thought to write this column. Further, it’s my opinion, my analysis.

For anyone so wondering: Ebersol and I reached an explicit understanding when I moved to NBC from the Los Angeles Times in 2006  — he would not tell me what to write nor would he censor me. And that’s the way it has gone.

Same goes for Universal.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 8th, 2009 at 7:15 pm and is filed under alanabrahamson. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.