“The Games have always been political and geopolitical”

The Olympic arena is also the terrain of power issues: for the nations which organize the Olympic Games or which compete in them, but also for the International Olympic Committee (IOC) itself.

Specialists in sports geopolitics, which in recent years has taken the modern forms of soft powerand which autocratic regimes are increasingly mobilizing, Carole Gomez, doctoral student in sociology of sport, and Pim Verschuuren, lecturer in sports management, decipher this competition.

The Olympics model is described as in crisis and in need of change. Those of Paris Are 2024 different from previous ones?

Carole Gomez: They mark a renewal of the model in the sense that they are the first to be designed under the aegis of Agenda 2020, launched at the end of 2014 by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to initiate a new way of organizing them by emphasizing “legacy” and sustainability. In 2017, to designate the host city for the 2024 Games, the context is very critical: Boston, Rome, Hamburg and Budapest have given up, leaving Paris and Los Angeles to share 2024 and 2028.

This phase of scarcity of candidatures, for the Summer Games as well as for the Winter Games, pushed the IOC to change its method of allocation by opting for targeted discussions in order to avoid overbidding on the part of the candidates. , which characterized the process. Another important change which contributed to a before and after: the desire to associate the Paralympic Games more closely with the Olympic Games, for example through a common logo.

Pim Verschuuren: We have never talked so much about sustainability, but this consideration began in the early 2010s, when awareness of the climate crisis grew. The Olympic model is immersed in ever-broader questions, and Paris 2024 reflects them more than it defines a new model.

The Organizing Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games (Cojop) has made notable efforts to reduce impacts, but within margins of maneuver extremely limited by the IOC’s specifications, which remain incompatible with real sustainability. The Olympic caravan will continue its route to Milan, Los Angeles, Brisbane, following the crazy calendar of sporting events and still falling within a logic of overconsumption.

Will the efforts made by Paris 2024 to reduce budgetary and environmental costs be continued?

P.V.: The Sochi 2014 Winter Games were a scarecrow, but those of Beijing 2022 did not do much better, only two years ago. The IOC encourages limiting the construction of infrastructure, but does not require it. Reducing the number of disciplines and events would give rise to very strong opposition from the federations concerned, and would amount to reducing commercial revenues.

We are far from more profound changes, such as the reduction in the number of spectators and international travel which make the event unsustainable, but which also give it this image of the ultimate, universal planetary celebration, bringing together humanity… minus its sporting, economic and political elites.

However, the model of the Games was not fundamentally compromised by those of Tokyo, experienced remotely in 2021 due to Covid, with a considerably reduced carbon impact. But this is not at all on the IOC’s agenda.

C.G.: The formula is concise, but the only way to really reduce these costs would be not to organize the Games… The IOC is, however, increasingly sensitive to criticism. He had pushed Tokyo 2020 to review its copy by renouncing certain infrastructures in order to avoid an even more pronounced budgetary slippage, and because the local social and political disavowal was very sensitive. The IOC did not change out of philanthropy, but because it was forced to and is afraid of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Has the IOC been weakened by this critical context?

P.V.: Its ability to impose its agenda has not been diminished, on the contrary, by the new procedure for awarding the Games through which, since 2015, it has preselected candidates and built their candidacy with them. This reduced the risks of corruption, and allowed the Committee to emerge from the crisis of legitimacy into which the scandals had plunged it.

This skillful strategic choice also allowed it to overcome the candidacy crisis of the 2010s and record a resurgence in their number: the IOC remains a kingmaker. He thus ruled out the Swiss candidacy for the 2030 Winter Olympics in favor of the French file, although less advanced. There are still states and political leaders who want to host the Games. There are Laurent Wauquiez and Renaud Muselier on every continent.

The shortage of candidates has led the IOC to turn to autocratic countries like China and Russia. How does he make these choices?

P.V.: The IOC prefers to work with democracies rather than dictatorships so as not to harm its image and that of the Games, as was the case for FIFA and the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar. But these regimes contrary to our standards of human rights and democracy have the advantage of easily ensuring security – an increasingly pressing issue – and the financing of these competitions.

The IOC also needs a rotation on the different continents to continue to claim that the Games are universal, which is contradictory with specifications so demanding that it makes their organization in Africa very unlikely. His position is therefore very ambivalent.

C.G.: The IOC illustrated this ambivalence for the attribution of the 2032 Games by ruling out, ultimately, the candidacy of Doha in favor of that of Brisbane. Conversely, it has moved closer to India, until now little present in the world of sport, but which is a candidate for the organization of the 2036 Games. The country is a new market to conquer, but also a political and diplomatic, complex to say the least…

Precisely, Paris 2024 should confirm the increasing politicization and geopoliticization of sport and major sporting events…

C.G.: Probably, but it must be remembered that the Games have always been – in different contexts – political and geopolitical. Rather, it is the visibility of these issues that is increasing. During the Olympic fortnight, the whole world will watch the competitions and be represented by athletes, but also by heads of state. Bringing together 206 national Olympic committees inevitably brings tensions to the surface, matches that reflect ongoing conflicts or reconciliations.

Euro 2020 football, organized [en 2021, NDLR] in eleven cities across Europe, had multiplied the reasons for diplomatic tensions. The commonplace “sport is a reflection of society” is far too simplistic: it is rather a distorting reflection which will exacerbate certain elements and attenuate others. The Games and the IOC are constantly facing new social, environmental and geopolitical challenges, and must confront their own contradictions.

Is the proclamation of the apolitical nature of the Games still credible?

C.G.: The IOC walks a ridge when it explains that sport, as organized during the Games, is apolitical. This position is more and more untenable: obviously the IOC is playing politics when it decides that the Russians will present under a neutral banner or when it confirms the presence of a Palestinian delegation even if no athlete from the territory qualifies.

When its president Thomas Bach explains that we should not mix sport and politics while launching the Olympic refugee team, giving a speech of inclusiveness and tolerance – which is of a political nature, in reality – or having to respond to bursts of questions about Russia and Israel, this double discourse is no longer audible.

The IOC cannot at the same time tout the Olympics as the only place that peacefully brings together nations, including those not recognized by the United Nations, and demand that this gathering be free of any political message or agenda. In short, he denounces any politicization of sport, except his own.

Athletes themselves seem to take on a civic role more than before…

C.G.: They are indeed taking more liberties with the ban on expressing themselves on political and social issues. Their opinions can generate powerful resonance via social media and wider public support than before.

Rule 50 of the Olympic charter, which governs these expressions, has been slightly relaxed. At the Tokyo Games, messages of “peace”, “respect”, “solidarity”, “inclusion” and “equality” were tolerated. Today, with the wars in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip, I am not sure that the IOC will risk authorizing the solidarity register again.

Why is the power of major sports organizations so poorly controlled?

P.V.: After the corruption cases surrounding the awarding of the 2002 Games to Salt Lake City and the doping scandals in cycling, States attempted to gain a foothold in the governance of sport, which notably resulted in the creation of the World Anti-Doping Agency.

But even the resounding FIFA corruption cases in the mid-2010s did not lead to a questioning of the governance of sport, which remains today in the hands of these private bodies – IOC and federations. international. States today have other priorities and multilateralism is not very flourishing: it is difficult to see new models of governance and regulation of sport.

C.G.: Civil society is better able to influence international sporting powers. The news media and the investigations they publish can, for example, encourage States to launch criminal proceedings or judicial investigations.

Are the “values ​​of sport” compatible with their political exploitation and commodification?

C.G.: Nobody knows what these sports values ​​are! (laughs)

PV: The governance model of the Olympic Games is unique, with ownership by the IOC of the Games and their image, their symbols, with these very restrictive specifications and organization by host cities and countries.

This model makes it possible to overcome criticism, because each new organizing committee takes up the Olympic story and manages to renew it with new codes, a new discourse, but always around these values ​​of humanity, of popular fervor , festive, well-being, avant-garde, overcoming political questions, etc.

Indeed, we cannot define these values ​​of sport and Olympism, but they persist, as we see with the journey of the flame in France, and the Games manage to attract global media attention – and therefore commercial revenue. , sponsors, extremely lucrative partnerships. For now, this precarious balance is maintained.

Find our series “Are the Paris 2024 Olympic Games worth the cost?”