Dr Lynn Minnaert – University of Surrey

Inclusive community legacies and the Olympic Games: The role and responsibility of the International Olympic Committee

The presentation reviews the role and responsibilities of the International Olympic Committee, as well as those of commercial and public organisations, in the achievement of inclusive community legacies via the Olympic Games. The current and future Olympic cities of London and Rio have proposed community legacies as key aspects of their Olympic Games, perhaps in a response to commentators who are increasingly ‘unable to judge whether the mammoth Olympic machine is any longer to the benefit of mankind apart from a few sportsmen (Miller in Cantelon and Letters 2010, 425). Although all organisations in the Olympic and extended Olympic system are theoretically independent and free from influence, the presentation highlights that extensive interdependencies between the different non-profit, commercial and public organisations exist. The IOC, due to its strong financial position, has considerable influence over other non-profit organisations (such as the NOCs) and governments vying for the privilege of becoming the next Olympic host city. The IOC however derives a major share of its income from commercial companies, which as a result have a powerful position in the triangle of interdependence that is the extended Olympic system. As a result, the IOC is mainly focused on protecting its reputation and brand – its key asset that makes it such a desirable partner for commercial businesses.

Commercial organisations are not included in the Olympic Legacy framework – as the IOC is heavily dependent on them financially, it may be reluctant to introduce demands on sponsors that may deter them. The IOC, in its statutes and policies, however takes but limited responsibility for the creation of inclusive community legacies as a result of the Olympic Games. The key organisational sphere to produce the legacy is thus the public sector – the organisational sphere with the least power in the triangle, that is often guided more by economic concerns and the development of ‘entrepreneurial cities’ rather than the by community legacies.

The presentation confirms that that ‘there is no guaranteed beneficial legacy from hosting an Olympic Games’ (Vigor et al 2004, xi). Contrary to popular belief, community legacies do not take a prominent position in the Olympic system, at the responsibility to develop them is situated at the local, not the transnational level. Progress in the area of environmental sustainability however, since Albertville 1992, has shown however, that local initiatives can influence transnational demand for future host cities – the current emphasis of London 2012 on community legacies, and the philosophy behind Rio 2016’s bid, may be able to lead to a potential disjuncture with lasting effects.

Sources:

Cantelon H. & Letters M. (2010), The making of the IOC Environmental policy as the third dimension of the Olympic Movement, in Girginov V., The Olympics. A critical reader, Routledge: Abingdon Vigor A., Mean M. & Tims C. (2004), After the gold rush: A sustainable Olympics for London, Ippr-Demos: London