Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Citius Altius Fortius

Olympic Agenda 2020 - a joint paper of the Austrian, German, Swedish and Swiss NOC

Recommended Posts

The Austrian, German, Swedish and the Swiss National Olympic Committee just published a joint paper about their bid experiences in the recent past - it shall be taken as recommendations for the Olympic Agenda 2020, which was announced by Bach

DOSB - Joint Paper from 4 NOCs regarding the "Olympic Agenda 2020"

Maybe somebody is interested here in the forums

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to post it myself :-)

15 pages very worthwhile reading with some very smart points, much to my surprise.

Also contains some not so subtle hints what they really thought about Sochi.

I wonder what Bach will make of this, given that his buddy Vesper cosigned.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great stuff. Just wonderful. Bach et. al. would be stupid not to consider this advice and take up the offer of further discussion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice balanced report. Good answer back to all the "The NOC's and IOC don't know zip about what they're doing" hysteria.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about this paper. Parts of it are no-brainers and easy to implement. Parts are trickier.

Combining human rights into sustainability felt a bit awkward. I'm also not sure how the IOC can monitor those issues effectively or what sort of sanctions they can impose in the event of non-compliance.

I'm interested in the idea of factoring the Evaluation report into the election, but it also sounds messy. As we all know, the Evaluation reports are usually biased. Figuring out how to fairly weight and quantify the report would not be easy.

I think it would be great for the IOC to be more involved in the development of bids throughout the process, but I have to wonder if they have the time and people for that. It also seems like a situation where people could easily claim favoritism or foul play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure shortening the bid phases would be a good thing for the sanity of everyone on this forum.

Seriously though, it's a great document and i hope the IOC will actually listen and take notes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about this paper. Parts of it are no-brainers and easy to implement. Parts are trickier.

Combining human rights into sustainability felt a bit awkward. I'm also not sure how the IOC can monitor those issues effectively or what sort of sanctions they can impose in the event of non-compliance.

Cliffs Notes version: "Dear IOC, if you insist on ever-bigger spectacles, every potential European or North American bid city will be challenged by an ever skeptical populace (see: Salzburg, Munich). Keeping on your current path will mean that only corrupt authoritarian regimes with no regard for public opinion, budget, or legacy will be able to host (see: Sochi, Almaty, Beijing)."

This document was a good read. Thanks for posting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting paper. The IOC would be well-served to consider some of its suggestions. Lowering venue capacities, shortening the bid process, and more clearly explaining the budgeting process should encourage developed nations (such as the ones who wrote this paper) to start bidding again. It's unfortunate that Athens and Sochi left such a poor taste in potential bidders' mouths, when London and Vancouver managed the process so much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reduced required seating capacity, allowing for a less compact layout, abbreviating bid periods, reducing number of Olympic Family and the number of reservations/tickets allotted for them -- all that stuff is the obvious part that the IOC should accept without hesitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reduced required seating capacity, allowing for a less compact layout, abbreviating bid periods, reducing number of Olympic Family and the number of reservations/tickets allotted for them -- all that stuff is the obvious part that the IOC should accept without hesitation.

And it's exactly the stuff the "bigger is better" advocates in the IOC are not at all willing to accept, I guess.

Especially the part about reducing the beloved family...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Olympic Family doesn't even use many of the reservations and tickets set aside for them. That's part of the explanation for seeing empty seats on tv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Olympic Family doesn't even use many of the reservations and tickets set aside for them. That's part of the explanation for seeing empty seats on tv.

Yes, but would that family voluntarily renounce on some privileges, even if they don't make us of them?

I really hope that paper sets off a productive discussion, but on the other hand, I don't think Central/Western European NOCs currently have the leading voice within the IOC, despite (or maybe because?) one of theirs being the President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliffs Notes version: "Dear IOC, Keeping on your current path will mean that only corrupt authoritarian regimes with no regard for public opinion, budget, or legacy will be able to host (see: Sochi, Almaty, Beijing)."

You forgot Doha-ha & Baku-koo. All places that, other than the exception of Beijing, are on top of everyone's travel list. Bach must feel so relieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but would that family voluntarily renounce on some privileges, even if they don't make us of them?

I really hope that paper sets off a productive discussion, but on the other hand, I don't think Central/Western European NOCs currently have the leading voice within the IOC, despite (or maybe because?) one of theirs being the President.

Maybe they won't want to reduce the Olympic Family perks, but they sure as heck ought to.

I think they will take that paper seriously. The only issue is that it was submitted after their deadline for recommendations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they won't want to reduce the Olympic Family perks, but they sure as heck ought to.

I think they will take that paper seriously. The only issue is that it was submitted after their deadline for recommendations.

What was the deadline? Maybe it was submitted earlier, but published only now after the WC to get some attention? At the time of writing, Krakow had jzst withdrawn, but Lviv was seemingly still in the race.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time of writing, Krakow had jzst withdrawn, but Lviv was seemingly still in the race.

I think the IOC never cared about those two applicant cities...

They have Beijing and Almaty(lol), perfectly suitable bids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the IOC cared about losing Krakow. Lviv was always a non-starter. But the Polish city did have the potential of becoming that dark-horse in the 2022 race. It could have been the upset winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the IOC never cared about those two applicant cities...

They have Beijing and Almaty(lol), perfectly suitable bids.

Maybe, but in my post I used those two to illustrate possibilities when the joint NOC report was ready (and possibly submitted) vs when it was published.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×