Politique Internationale — On a geopolitical level, what can a country in general and a city in particular expect from the Olympic and Paralympic Games? Is it so important for those involved?
Carole Gomez — For about 20 years, sport has established itself as a real tool of soft power. That means that the stakeholders – mainly states – try to express their power through sport. Hosting a great international sporting event such as the Olympic and Paralympic Games is a perfect example. This is obviously not the only lever: the development of a sports policy, with structures of quality, known trainers, high-performance athletes and many players also contribute to this soft power. That is why the chance to become an Olympic city arouses – or rather has aroused – pitiless battles.
P. I. — What are the factors that brought about this elevation of sport to the ranks of soft power?
C. G. — Several elements can be identified. On one hand, it is important to recall that this arrival on the scene came about gradually and sport did not widen its scope from one day to the next. Next, on a theoretical level, the work of the political scientist Joseph Nye, in the 1990s, on the concept of soft power, allowed an awareness of a certain number of things. The fall of the USSR in 1991 upset international relations and, with them, different means of expressing power. Adding to military and nuclear power, other assets began taking on importance and sport clearly figures among them. Finally, we should not hide the growing place of sport in society in terms of social and economic stakes. This rise has been a spectacular one in the course of just a few decades with globalisation and exponential growth of the sports economy.
P. I. — Does the organisation of the Games generate more advantages or more disadvantages? We know that populations often complain about the avalanche of public works. Without forgetting the soaring costs and an apparent disproportion between the scale of the project and the short time span of the event…
C. G. — It is difficult to reply in black and white terms. In theory, and if the projects are built around a real social project, that means you are not organising an event just for the competition but that it also serves on the contrary as a pretext to give your city, region or country the opportunity to develop, the Games can be an extraordinary chance. And yet, recent examples show that this is not always the case. And it is for this reason that the approach to an Olympic project in its entirety is changing. For a long time, the International Olympic Committee wanted sumptuous games that were sophisticated and ultra-modern. That led to real financial black holes for the organising cities that ended up completely wrung out. There’s no end to the examples where this happened: London, Sochi, Rio, Tokyo or Beijing, just to mention the most recent Olympics. In this respect, the weight of the photos showing the ‘white elephants,’ that is the gigantic infrastructures that only served a purpose for the time of the competition, is terrible for the IOC. The system was all the more perverse in that, to win their bid, the candidate cities came up with projects that were ever bolder and bigger while often underestimating the costs, what Wladimir Andreff calls ‘the curse of the auction winner’.
P. I. — How has the IOC modified its procedure for choosing candidates?
C. G. — A certain number of elements made the IOC think again: the 2008 economic crisis and its aftermath, the rise in importance of civil society as an actor in international relations as well as a lower tolerance for dubious financial affairs and problems of governance. For example, there were huge demonstrations in 2013 in Brazil just before the organisation of the men’s football World Cup in 2014 and before the Games in 2016. People went to the streets en masse to denounce the rise in price of a bus ticket; this increase was all the more intolerable because it came about at the moment when billions had been sunk into the preparation of these two sporting events.
As a result, fewer and fewer cities are candidates. Let’s take the example of the 2022 Games. In the candidate phase, six cities (Lviv, Stockholm, Krakow, Oslo, Beijing and Almaty) put themselves forward. Finally, the four European cities withdrew in turn for political or economic reasons or because of the disapproval of the civilian population. The IOC had to choose between Beijing and Almaty in Kazakhstan, opting finally for the Chinese capital, with all the issues that that raises. I think that, through this example, it was able to measure a little more that Games that were always bigger and better were no longer the right solution. Or, otherwise, it would have to discourage candidacies. This is an essential consideration because it can never been forgotten that the Games are the IOC’s life assurance. If no one wants any longer to stage them, the IOC will have killed the hen that laid the golden egg. In consequence, the international committee decided to abandon the ‘whatever it costs’ policy and put the concept of legacy at the heart of its mission.
P. I. — How can we sum up this post-Games legacy notion? What are the criteria for judgment?
C. G. — We can single out two elements: the material legacy, the infrastructures; and the immaterial – what will stay anchored in society long afterwards.
The material legacy is without doubt the more visible and the one that is the more compelling, especially through the existence of white elephants. No city can any longer allow itself to take on installations that will later be left abandoned, for obvious economic reasons, but also in terms of image. As for the immaterial legacy, that is, the place of sport in society, it also figures more and more in the judgment criteria: will the organising country profit from the Games to energise the practise of sport among its citizens to promote one or other aspect, such as health, inclusion or well-being? What aspects will it work on as a priority?
Candidate cities and the IOC will therefore seek to showcase these legacies through many initiatives. And to prove that the Games are not limited to exceptional athletes, full stadiums and retransmission to the whole world. It is a real project of society.
P. I. — Looking forward to Paris 2024, is this candidacy still linked to the old world or does it already embody the future of the Olympic movement?
C. G. — Paris 2024 will be the first Olympic and Paralympic Games that will have been totally organised under the aegis of Agenda 2020 which takes fully into account the question of legacy. It is a bit too early to state whether these Games will embody the success of this new approach. In any case, since the official attribution in 2017, Paris 2024 has conveyed very ambitious objectives, in both the material and intangible aspects.
P. I. — Until now, there have been few Olympic cities that have stood out for taking advantage of the legacy of the Games.
C. G. — The Barcelona Games no doubt remain in the collective imagination as the example that most stood out. Several reasons can explain that. On the one hand, they occurred at an important moment for Spain since they were attributed in 1986, the year of the kingdom’s entry into the European Community. In other words, the definitive shift into the post-Franco era. On the other hand, hosting those Games allowed the modification in depth of the appearance of the capital of Catalonia: even today, the Olympic district remains lively, with facilities – both sporting and non-sporting – that are still in use and a layout that has stood the test of time. Those Games also permitted the projection of the image of a young, dynamic and festive city – an image that was to be shared with the whole world. From that point of view, Barcelona is somewhat the exception that proves the rule.
P. I. — Aside from the organisation of the Games, is the race for medals, too, a means for some countries to assert their power?
C. G. — For each country, but much more for the organising country, winning medals is a highly important element. Let us remember, from the time of the Cold War, the competition between East Germany, the USSR and the United States; or even the (slight) diplomatic falling out between Beijing and Washington at the end of the 2008 Beijing Games, each claiming the first place depending on whether the total number of medals were counted or just the golds. That might seem anecdotal, but the attention and time devoted by the Chinese and U.S. chanceries to untangling this quarrel can leave the impression that this, on the contrary, was an important question. And again, even more recently, look at the Beijing Winter Games in 2022: China finished third in the medals table, ahead of the United States. For a nation that had no ancient tradition of winter sports, this performance was not negligible. It gives an idea of the care with which Chinese athletes prepared for those Games and the instructions passed down by the authorities. In the event, medals always go further than just being rewards at a precise moment. They consecrate first, as the Chinese example shows, an intense effort of
research and of advance preparation.
Medals also boost the image of a country: it is often easier to name known athletes than political figures. They are in some way new ambassadors who participate in the sporting diplomacy of their state.
P. I. — With Paris 2024 in mind then, France should be encouraged to concentrate its efforts as a priority on disciplines that are traditionally rich in medals…
C. G. — This strategy has already been tried out: in 2012, for the London Games, the United Kingdom showed its hand by concentrating all its attention on the sports and athletes who stood a chance of reaching the podiums. That meant that those concerned were afforded the best conditions with the necessary financial investments. On the other hand, the disciplines where hopes were weakest were relegated to the background. Everything depends on the culture of the country involved. In France, opinions are divided on this subject. It is therefore essential to see how Paris 2024 will, or will not, change the software.
P. I. — The other side of this race for medals is the fight against doping. How far can the reputation of a country be damaged by this scourge?
C. G. — Recent doping scandals in Russian sport have shown just how far this sort of affair can tarnish the image of a country. But the phenomenon remains difficult to quantify. In the circumstances, if it seems certain that Russia suffered from the revelation of these scandals and from the adoption of sanctions, the nature and the extent of the damage are impossible to quantify accurately.
P. I. — You talk about sporting diplomacy. Does this mean that sport is an element in international politics? Is the use of boycotts, in particular, still efficient?
C. G. — Yes, sport has undeniably become an element of international politics and everything already said demonstrates this.
As for the boycott, I tend to think that this is an outmoded practice. It could be an interesting weapon during the Cold War – the simple fact that we remember the Moscow and Los Angeles boycotts is an indicator – because the logic of blocs allowed the creation of a dynamic. But today, this logic is no longer perceptible or, at least, is less significant. Promoted by a single country, or just a handful, the phenomenon has less impact. We saw this for Beijing 2022. Whereas on 6 December 2021, the United States called for a boycott to protest against the genocide of the Uighurs in China, it is clear that it was hardly followed. In the end, the United States which had tried to point the finger at Beijing, to isolate it and ostracise it, and draw attention to the Uighur question, did not really achieve anything. Those Games, what’s more, were an occasion to highlight Chinese power and the privileged links that tie it to the Russia of Vladimir Putin, who was personally invited even though he was theoretically banned from any ceremony because of the doping scandals. What was significant was that the ceremony was held in the presence of the United Nations Secretary-General, António Guterres, and of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, thereby outlining the new face of international relations and of the world balance of power.
P. I. — Over time, several multinationals have become associated with the Games. The levels of sponsorship differ, but the logic is the same: it is a way of linking their image to a planetary event. How do these giant companies overlap with states and institutional organisations?
C. G. — A good 40 years or so ago, the economic sphere understood that the sports world, including the Olympics, was a flourishing market. This merchandising of sport progressed at very high speed: we can today see an astonishing marketing product. The boom is such that these two sectors, companies on the one hand, sport and the Olympics movement on the other, have become tightly interlinked. The sponsors, the kit suppliers and the advertisers are ready to pay fortunes to see athletes, clubs and stadiums carry their names. The naming of stadiums, in this respect, is particularly interesting to study: the names of city or regional personalities are now replaced by insurance, airline or entertainment companies.
We should nevertheless note one aspect that might be important for the future: given the scandals of recent years and the sometimes violent accusations against these international sporting mega-events, some sponsors have become more discreet and no longer make noisy claims about their links to competitions. That was the case with the men’s football World Cup in Russia and also for the Beijing Winter Olympics in 2022.
Let’s recall, too, that sponsors are major actors in terms of governance reform. In January 2021, several of them, including Škoda and Nivea, threatened to pull out of sponsorship if the World Ice Hockey Championship was kept in Belarus despite the political situation linked to the widely contested re-election of Alexander Lukashenko.
P. I. — Beyond the campaign that countries conduct to organise the Games, attract sponsors or take home the maximum number of medals, would you say that sport remains an instrument of understanding between peoples?
C. G. — Sport can effectively be an instrument of understanding. And I insist on the ‘can’ because it would be quite wrong to think this is always automatic. Everybody remembers the ‘ping-pong diplomacy’ that allowed the first steps towards a resumption of diplomatic relations between China and the United States that had been broken off since 1949. In April 1971, benefiting from a competition organised in Japan and after several twists and turns, Beijing invited an American ping-pong team to China. The trip passed off well enough for, a few months later, President Richard Nixon to make his first official visit to China in February 1972. This sort of sporting diplomacy is not an exception: we can recall the cricket diplomacy between Pakistan and India and the baseball between Cuba and the United States, etc. Beyond the understanding between peoples, sport can also be a powerful motor to get things moving on subjects as important as parity, inclusion or respect for others. Some athletes are such charismatic figures that their voice counts.
P. I. — On parity precisely: in Paris, for the first time, there will be as many female athletes as men on the starting blocks…
C. G. — In theory, the Paris Games will be the first parity games in history. It will therefore have taken 128 years to get there, with a considerable acceleration in recent years. This matter of parity goes way, way back: we must not forget, the Games were created by men for men. It was Baron Pierre de Coubertin himself who said so: in his initial project for the Olympic Games, he insisted on masculine values and saw the Games as a way of showcasing virility. We obviously have to remember the context of the times when this sort of speech seemed perfectly normal. This very long road to parity has been taken by all of sport. Let’s remember that the first football World Cup took place in 1930 and we had to wait for 1991 before women had their own. There remain numerous brakes – political, sociological, economic and so forth – and immense challenges but something is undoubtedly happening …