The note below from the International Olympic Committee landed moments ago in my inbox. Note the IOC’s formal disappointment. Note, too, that the IOC felt it institutionally appropriate to make public that disappointment — following on from similar comments Wednesday issued by Richard Carrion, the IOC executive board member from Puerto Rico who leads the committee’s television rights-fees negotiations.

Looking now toward Chicago’s 2016 bid, the issue is not just whether what has erupted into full-on controversy over the announcement of the U.S. Olympic Committee’s television launch — a dispute that simply didn’t have to happen in the first instance — plays badly within the IOC. It’s how badly.

What can’t be divined just now, some three months from the IOC’s Oct. 2 2016 vote, is whether the controversy, in concert with the USOC’s lengthy and contentious history over finances with the IOC and international sports federations, ripples among the members to Chicago’s crippling disadvantage. Madrid, Rio de Janeiro and Tokyo are also in the mix.

Or will the 100-some delegates see fit to look past the USOC’s finance-related issues? The two primary USOC international relations envoys, Bob Ctvrtlik and Robert Fasulo, remain respected players on the IOC stage. Plus, the leadership of the Chicago bid remains as formidable as ever, with Pat Ryan and Mayor Richard Daley in particular. And of course there remains the possibility of an appearance at the Oct. 2 IOC vote in Copenhagen by President Obama — the potential game-changer in all of this.

By any measure, however, this IOC statement can not and does not help the Chicago bid:

“The International Olympic Committee has always endeavoured to work in close partnership with the USOC. We share a commitment to provide the best Olympic Games experience possible to spectators and athletes alike.  We also believe, as they do, that we should work together to constantly spread the values of the Olympic Family, not just in the United States but around the world. 

 ”The IOC’s cooperation with USOC includes working together on Olympic sponsorship and broadcasting agreements within the United States.  We were aware that the USOC had been considering a new ‘Olympic broadcast network’, but we have never been presented with a plan, and we had assumed that we would have an opportunity to discuss unresolved questions together before the project moved forward. It is for this reason that the IOC is disappointed that USOC acted unilaterally and, in our view, in haste by announcing their plans before we had had a chance to consider together the ramifications. The proposed channel raises complex legal and contractual issues and could have a negative impact [on] our relationships with other Olympic broadcasters and sponsors, including our U.S. TV partner, NBC.
 
“The IOC is seeking additional information on USOC’s plans and remain hopeful that we can work through the issues and reach a solution that works for all the many partners involved and for the American public in particular.”  

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 9th, 2009 at 11:35 am 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.