Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sir Rols

USOC-IOC Revenue Deal This Week?

Recommended Posts

This would almost be as significant as the short list announcement if it happens this week!

IOC official says agreement close on revenue-sharing deal with U.S. Olympic Committee

QUEBEC CITY, QUE. International and U.S. Olympic leaders are close to finalizing a deal to settle the long-running financial dispute that has soured relations and undermined recent American bids for the games, a senior official said Tuesday.

The International Olympic Committee and U.S. Olympic Committee are nearing agreement on a new revenue-sharing deal that would clear the way for U.S. cities to bid again for future games, IOC executive board member Denis Oswald told The Associated Press.

The proposed deal, covering the distribution of billions of dollars in television and marketing revenues, could be announced this week during IOC executive board meetings in Quebec, Oswald said.

Oswald, who heads the association of summer Olympic sports, is not directly involved in the negotiations but said he was briefed on the progress by IOC president Jacques Rogge.

“I have been told by the IOC president that they were close to an agreement but that they still had to discuss the wording,” the Swiss official said. “Last time they were also close to an agreement but they had difficulty to put it on paper.

“That’s why he wasn’t sure whether they would be able to finalize it, but he looked quite hopeful.”

Negotiations have been dragging on for two years to secure a new deal that replaces a long-standing contract giving the USOC a 20 per cent share of global sponsorship revenue and a 12.75 per cent cut of U.S. broadcast rights deals. The IOC believes the U.S. share is excessive.

A new agreement, which would need to be ratified by the governing boards of both organizations, would take effect in 2020. Recent talks have centred on a 20-year deal through 2040 that would also include U.S. contribution toward the administrative costs of staging the games.

“It’s good if we have an agreement because this has created difficulties in the relations with USOC,” Oswald said. “If we could put that aside, it would help the relations. It’s a very important national Olympic committee with the best athletes. It would be very good if this question be resolved.”

USOC CEO Scott Blackmun has been leading the American side in the talks with the IOC.

“We’re endeavouring in good faith to bridge the gap,” he said last week. “I remain very hopeful that, within the not-too-distant future, we can put this behind us.”

Blackmun and USOC chairman Larry Probst are travelling to Quebec this week.

Lingering international resentment over the U.S. revenue share was a significant factor in New York’s defeat in the bidding for the 2012 Olympics and Chicago’s humiliating first-round elimination in the vote for the 2016 Games.

The USOC has said repeatedly it will not bid again until the revenue issue is resolved. The U.S. is sitting out the bidding for the 2020 Summer Games.

The next chance would be for the 2022 Winter Olympics. Among the U.S. cities that have expressed early interest in bidding for those games are 2002 host Salt Lake City; Denver; Reno-Lake Tahoe, Nev.; and Bozeman, Mont.

The Associated Press

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
talks have centred on a 20-year deal through 2040 that would also include U.S. contribution toward the administrative costs of staging the games.

This is the interesting tidbit to me. How would the US members here feel about that? The current arrangements might be a de-facto US underwriting of the games, but wouldn't such a new formula make it explicit and official? Would the US expect to get a bigger share of hostings as a result?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they agree on this soon. It has just lingered for too long.

Certainly the top sponsorship cut is going to go down. Big question is by how much. Not sure what they exactly mean by "contributing toward the administrative costs for staging the games". How much of a contribution, and what is that contigent on? There is going to be a give and take with whatever deal they come up with. I will be interested to see what is given, and what is taken. If the way U.S. broadcasting rights have gone lately, the IOC is likely to get more of its cake and then some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the interesting tidbit to me. How would the US members here feel about that? The current arrangements might be a de-facto US underwriting of the games, but wouldn't such a new formula make it explicit and official? Would the US expect to get a bigger share of hostings as a result?

it's total bullshit. we pay for the games but except for vancouver it's been a bitch in heat to get anything live on primetime in this country.

forget doha asking everyone to reorder their lives for an october olympics, all we want is for athletes to compete between 8-10 pm EST.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The USOC should be sticking to their guns and telling the IOC to go spend some of their own massive revenue in promoting the movement better so as to draw bigger sponsorship from secondary markets.

As for hosting the Games - as long as South America and Canada get the Games who cares? You will get your primetime sports. You will in 2016 either way. A Reno or Denver Winter Games in 2022 will probably end with a debt anyway. You'd be better off financially assisting Toronto/Quebec City/Calgary under the table than coughing up for a home country Games.

This deal will not guarantee a US Games anytime soon. Or worse - it may get the US the next Games it bids for over a better candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or worse - it may get the US the next Games it bids for over a better candidate.

as an american, i see no problems in this whatsoever unless it's a winter games, in which case why bother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IOC-USOC revenue deal done; US can bid for games

By STEPHEN WILSON, AP Sports Writer

QUEBEC CITY (AP) — International and U.S. Olympic leaders finalized a new revenue-sharing agreement on Thursday that ends years of acrimony between the powerful bodies and clears the way for future American bids for the games.

After years of protracted negotiations, the landmark deal was signed by both sides after receiving final approval from the International Olympic Committee executive board.

The long-term agreement was formally announced at a news conference by IOC President Jacques Rogge and U.S. Olympic Committee chairman Larry Probst and CEO Scott Blackmun.

"This is a very happy moment," Rogge said. "This agreement will definitely strengthen both sides."

Probst called it a "terrific arrangement for both the IOC and the USOC, a great outcome for the Olympic movement around the world."

The deal, which runs until 2040, resolves the long-running dispute over the U.S. share of Olympic television and marketing revenues that soured relations and undermined recent American bids for the games.

The USOC had said repeatedly it will not bid again until the revenue issue was resolved. With a deal in place, the U.S. will consider whether to bid for the 2022 Winter Games or 2024 Summer Olympics.

"We hope this has removed a road block from a successful bid for the United States," Probst said, adding that the USOC would hold a board meeting in San Francisco in June to consider how to move forward.

Lingering international resentment over the U.S. share of revenues was a key factor in New York's failed bid for the 2012 Olympics and Chicago's stinging first-round elimination in the vote for the 2016 Games.

Under a long-standing contract, the USOC has received a 20 percent share of global sponsorship revenue and a 12.75 percent cut of U.S. broadcast rights deals. The IOC believed the U.S. share, set out in an open-ended contract dating to 1996, was excessive and should be renegotiated.

The IOC and USOC officials declined to give specifics of the new deal at the news conference.

However, officials familiar with the agreement told The Associated Press the new revenue-sharing terms will take effect in 2020. According to two senior officials with knowledge of the terms, the USOC will retain the revenue it currently receives but its TV rights share will be reduced to 7 percent on any increases in broadcast deals and its marketing share cut in half to 10 percent on increases in sponsorship revenue.

The two officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the terms are not being made public.

In addition, the USOC agreed to contribute to the administrative costs of staging the Olympics — $15 million through 2020 and $20 million after 2020, the officials said. The contract also covers issues related to ownership of Olympic rights, trademarks and historic TV footage.

Talks to reach a settlement have been going on for more than two years. The deal was essentially sealed when IOC director general Christophe De Kepper traveled to Washington last week to meet with Blackmun and tie up the final details. Both men got the backing of their respective boards.

The U.S. last hosted the Summer Olympics in 1996 in Atlanta and last staged the Winter Games in 2002 in Salt Lake City.

Among the U.S. cities that have expressed early interest in bidding for the 2022 Winter Olympics are Salt Lake City; Denver; Reno-Lake Tahoe, Nevada; and Bozeman, Montana. Dallas is among those interested in the 2024 Summer Olympics.

AP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The new revenue-sharing terms will take effect in 2020. According to a senior official with knowledge of the terms, the USOC will retain the revenue it currently receives but its TV rights share will be reduced to 7 percent on any increases in broadcast deals and its marketing share cut in half to 10 percent on increases in sponsorship revenue.
In addition, the USOC agreed to contribute to the administrative costs of staging the Olympics — $15 million through 2020 and $20 million after 2020, the official said. The contract also covers issues related to ownership of Olympic rights, trademarks and historic TV footage.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/ap-sources-ioc-usoc-revenue-deal-finalized-16421952#.T757bMX4L3Y

They gave up a lot. Hope we get a slew of hosting otherwise it is foolish to give up so much, especially if American's don't dominate in the medal counts people will just stop paying attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God, the US(OC) again blinked and gave up a lot! From 12.75% on the NBC deals, down to just 7%; and from 20% for the TOP sponsoshrip deals, down to just 10% PLUS those administrative costs. Are those stupid medals worth that much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, can someone clarify/confirm this for me. Does this mean that the current formula stays the same for broadcast and revenue rights up to what is currently signed sealed and delivered, and the new splits only kick in for any increases in future broadcast and TOP sponsorship deals?

Sounds a fair face-saving deal on both sides to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as an american, i see no problems in this whatsoever unless it's a winter games, in which case why bother.

YES.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, can someone clarify/confirm this for me. Does this mean that the current formula stays the same for broadcast and revenue rights up to what is currently signed sealed and delivered, and the new splits only kick in for any increases in future broadcast and TOP sponsorship deals?

Sounds a fair face-saving deal on both sides to me.

That is my understanding. The current percentages stay the same, but the US gets about half of its current percentage on any increases.

I do NOT understand why the US would pay the IOC's administrative costs. That sounds totally unreasonable to me and I don't see why the US would agree to it. That's the part that angers me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is my understanding. The current percentages stay the same, but the US gets about half of its current percentage on any increases.

I do NOT understand why the US would pay the IOC's administrative costs. That sounds totally unreasonable to me and I don't see why the US would agree to it. That's the part that angers me.

I read it that way as well - half of increases. That's fair.

But I agree on the admin costs; that's just a shake-down, and the implication that it is required for future bidding success makes it a bribe. Disgusted at Blackmum and Probst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, can someone clarify/confirm this for me. Does this mean that the current formula stays the same for broadcast and revenue rights up to what is currently signed sealed and delivered, and the new splits only kick in for any increases in future broadcast and TOP sponsorship deals?

Sounds a fair face-saving deal on both sides to me.

Yes, the current rates will be in effect; and that includes the last $4.38 billion package won by NBComcast up to Istan-Tokyo 2020 + the current set of TOPs up to 2020. And then the new rates go into effect. So a home-grown Reno 2022 and onwards games would not bring anything special to the USOC (well, other than events that raise funds locally for USOC events).

But like the 2 other Yanks here, I don't understand the admin costs for future Games? I could only think that is it because of the presence of the larger US delegations, I imagine the LARGEST press corps also? And the majority of the TV crews? But why? I hope the USOC Board of Directors turns this down. As Canis said, this is a real shake-down. And why this was demanded by the IOC as well as to why the 2 idiots at the USOC agreed to it, is I don't know -- was it take it or leave it...which is what it seems it is?? Aside from 33.3% of TV revenues which goes to the COOG, I don't know what else the IOC is contributing? The whole thing smells fishy. I hope the Justice Dept, investigates...whether it's in their purview or not. As a matter of act, it's time to write my congressperson!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it that way as well - half of increases. That's fair.

But I agree on the admin costs; that's just a shake-down, and the implication that it is required for future bidding success makes it a bribe. Disgusted at Blackmum and Probst.

I agree with this. I can only tie the "administrative gift" to some sort of "wink, wink" hosting agreement. The thing is, I don't think the US needs it anyway. The Olympics will come back eventually. Paying extra for the privilege is stupid and low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the deal is not toooo bad. I mean, the U.S. can't hold the 1984 "savior" card forever. As more countries step up their game, the IOC will be less reliant on the U.S., so I guess it is fair to say the U.S. should begin to think about becoming less reliant on the IOC. We shall see how this plays out over the next 10 years. I still don't understand all of the fine print, but the USOC probably felt backed into a corner, and had to make a deal with the IOC since it had dragged out so long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the deal is not toooo bad. I mean, the U.S. can't hold the 1984 "savior" card forever. As more countries step up their game, the IOC will be less reliant on the U.S., so I guess it is fair to say the U.S. should begin to think about becoming less reliant on the IOC. We shall see how this plays out over the next 10 years. I still don't understand all of the fine print, but the USOC probably felt backed into a corner, and had to make a deal with the IOC since it had dragged out so long.

And again, as noted.. NBC pledged $4.38 billion to the IOC for 4 Olympics, none of which will be in the United States and only 1 that is in a US-friendly time zone. Which is to say that host location isn't necessarily what will drive rights fees and that the IOC can expect their billions regardless. Whether that holds up remains to be seen of course, but 2022 and possibly 2024 will have been awarded before the next United States TV rights deal is done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...