The dawn of a new era

Politique Internationale — Do the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games constitute a further step in the trajectory of the Games or do they embody more a form of rupture?

Thomas Bach — Paris 2024 marks the start of a new era for the Olympic Games, which will benefit fully from the reforms of the IOC’s Olympic Agenda 2020. This strategic roadmap requires the Games to be more sustainable, more inclusive, more youthful and more urban. In each area, we have taken a leap to reach a stage that has been unequaled until now. Take parity, which is a fundamental issue: for the first time in the history of the Games, it has been fully achieved. The same number of women and men, across the same number of events. We had been getting gradually closer to this parity, reaching 48% of women for the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games, but some women’s teams – in team sports – had not expanded enough. That is no longer the case. Paris 2024 will definitely embed this new reality. Finally, it should be noted that parity does not apply to the athletes alone. Within the various IOC commissions, we achieved our goal of 50-50. Before Olympic Agenda 2020, women did not represent more than 23% of these commissions.

P. I. — The most sustainable Games ever imagined, you say. What brought this thinking about and how can it be applied?

T. B. — First and foremost, the IOC does not work all on its own. We are following the course that the United Nations set with the Paris agreement adopted at COP21, and the Games are one of the vectors of this paradigm shift. Infrastructure is the first lever in making this sustainability goal a reality. In examining the candidacy of a city that wishes to host the Games, we pay close attention to whether most of the facilities already exist. And if this is not the case, we campaign for temporary infrastructure that can be quickly dismantled and reused in another context. In the absence of existing factilities, and if the temporary option is problematic, we recommend the environmentally virtuous solution of relocating the Games. For the Paris 2024 Games, 95% of the sites already exist or are temporary. In Los Angeles in 2028, we will reach 100%. Alongside infrastructure, the reduction of the carbon footprint is the benchmark. Paris 2024 will reduce CO2 emissions by 50% in

comparison with London 2012. The Organizing Committee has also

pledged to organize Olympic and Paralympic Games that have a positive impact on the climate, a decision that stems from the IOC’s commitment to ensure that all Olympic Games have a negative carbon footprint as of 2030. We are now seeing a very encouraging phenomenon of emulation: Paris 2024’s proactive carbon policy has roused the enthusiasm of Los Angeles.

P. I. — We are now less than a year and a half away from Paris 2024. Are you confident about the preparation process for this deadline?

T. B. — I am completely confident. The IOC, which is carefully following the preparation schedule, has every reason to be satisfied. Not only are the deadlines being met, but the organizing committee has managed to present a balanced budget that takes into account the new constraints linked to inflation. We are also pleased with the capacity for innovation evident in numerous domains, with a special mention for French creativity with regard to the Paris 2024 mascot, and to the concept of holding the opening ceremony along the Seine, which reinvents the model of the Games by opening them to as many people as possible!

P. I. — Is there any particular significance in the fact that Paris is hosting the games?

T. B. — How could it be otherwise? Paris 2024 is the centenary Games, a century after the 1924 edition, the one initiated by Baron Pierre de Coubertin, and which signifies the Olympic movement’s accession to modernity. But beyond this historical aspect, Paris 2024 is also very important for the expectations it raises: the meeting will take place normally for the first time since Covid. To be rid of the health threat, with its recent – bad – memories: what a cause for celebration!

P. I. — In retrospect, what impact has the pandemic had on the Olympic movement? Did you fear for a moment that the Games would never run normally again?

T. B. — From the start of 2020, just before the first lockdown, I decided to speak out. A letter saying that nothing would ever be the same again, and not just for the world of sports. I also wrote that after the health crisis, other upheavals, social, economic, political, were likely to take place: this major crisis that we were then facing and which demanded mobilization in all areas.

No matter how complicated the context, it holds opportunities, paradoxically. When it comes to Olympism, we are forced to focus on the essentials. This encourages us to think about the format of the Games a little differently. The trend – and it is here to stay – is to promote Games that are feasible and cost less. ‘Feasible’ does not mean an event done on the cheap: it simply means we use fewer of those elements that, in the past, were nice to have rather than necessary to the organization itself, strictly speaking. What counts from now on is to focus on the very essence of the Games, and not on the added extras.

P. I. — You’ve mentioned the health crisis and the many difficulties arising from it. Among current earthquakes, there is one that was less expected: the war in Ukraine. What are its repercussions for Olympism? What capacity do you have to intervene?

T. B. — First and foremost, the Olympic movement is of its time. It undergoes therefore the vicissitudes that stem from it, whether related to geopolitical tensions, economic stability or ways of life. The war in Ukraine confirms that the IOC does not live in a bubble or in a spaceship. This conflict comes to us as a shock, at odds with the values of Olympism which, it should be remembered, perpetuate first of all understanding and the bringing together of peoples. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is neither more nor less than a violation of the Olympic charter. It pushes us to react and, from this point, we have taken a certain number of strict and clear measures. The first consists of ensuring, along with all our partner sports federations, that no sports event would be organized on Russian or Belarusian soil. Our position with these authorities is very firm: for the moment there is no possibility of these two countries, Russia and Belarus, being associated with the global sporting movement. They cannot host events that put athletes centre-stage. Then, there is another point on which we are immovable: events that depend upon our traditional partners must take place without the smallest flag, or any other emblem bearing the colours of Russia or Belarus, being visible.

Finally, you’ve heard of the Olympic Order (1); this order includes Vladimir Putin and his deputy prime minister among its recipients. For the first time in its history, the IOC decided to withdraw these distinctions immediately after the outbreak of war in Ukraine.

P. I. — What about the participation of Russian and Belarusian athletes in Paris 2024? Can we say that from now on these two nations will be ostracized?

T. B. — The fundamental principle of the Olympic Games is to unite all athletes without discrimination, including on political grounds. This is a principle on which we have always insisted: the political neutrality of the Olympic Games and of major sporting events must be respected by all political leaders. Otherwise, how could Armenian and Azeri, Israeli and Palestinian, or even American and Iranian athletes meet? Once governments decide, for political reasons, which athletes can take part in which events, international sport will cease to exist. If, in preparing the Games, we were to take into account all the existing geopolitical tensions, such an event would be impossible to organize. The question of the athletes is now a sensitive one. The protective measures taken by the IOC to counter attempts by certain governments to interfere in the autonomy of sports organizations have made us go against our values and our mission of uniting the world in peaceful competition, since we have had to prohibit athletes’ participation based solely on their passport.

Let’s also keep in mind that, in the background, there is the issue of the Olympic Games’ unifying role. In the recent past, several international leaders, as well as the United Nations, through a resolution adopted by consensus in December 2022, recalled the conciliatory nature of Olympism and its contribution to harmony between peoples.

In this respect, in several European or American leagues, we’ve noted the participation of Russian athletes whose performances are appreciated, as well as in tennis, where we see Russian and Belarusian players facing those from Ukraine.

P. I. — To hear you speak, it sounds as if the door to Paris 2024 is not definitively closed to athletes from the two countries in question…

T. B. — The IOC’s position is very clear: our sanctions against those responsible, which means, the states and governments, must be maintained. This does not prevent us from asking, with regard to athletes taken on a strictly individual and neutral basis, to what extent they can be deprived of participation in sporting events. If they respect the Olympic charter and the IOC sanctions, we cannot exclude them because of acts committed by their governments. On the other hand, we want the National Olympic Committee of Ukraine to be able to put together a strong team for the Paris 2024 Games. That’s why, very soon after the outbreak of the conflict, we created a solidarity fund for some 3,000 Ukrainian athletes and their entourage. A fund that will allow the interested parties to continue to train and take part in competitions. This aid is not a ‘one shot’: over the months, its amount has tripled. On a personal note, I traveled to Kyiv last summer to meet the Ukrainian athletes and the President of Ukraine. More than ever, the IOC stands beside the victims of this war.

P. I. — To conclude this subject, what is it important for us to retain with regard to the position of the IOC vis-à-vis the war in Ukraine?

T. B. — In order to work, the Olympics and international sport must be respected as politically neutral. If we were to take a political stand in a world now subject to so many geopolitical tensions, we would end up being crushed by these political forces.

P. I. — The border between sports diplomacy and diplomacy in general is sometimes very fine. Politicizing sport is nothing less than playing politics. Over time, have the responsibilities of the IOC changed?

T. B. — It’s unwise to ask the IOC to solve problems that the chancelleries themselves cannot solve. On the one hand, it is not our role; on the other, we are not equipped for it. The IOC, in certain geopolitical matters, has shown that it can break the ice and that it has the power to open doors, knowing that these initial steps sometimes turn out to be crucial. In this respect, examples speak louder than long speeches: when South Korea was chosen to host the Winter Games in 2018, we said, within the Committee, that we had to make room for North Korean athletes. Discussions with Seoul were tight: it took a change of president for the option we supported to be retained. We succeeded, on the day of the opening ceremony, in having the athletes of North Korea parade with their South Korean neighbors in a single, unified, Korean team. Seen from afar, one might think that these are small adjustments that only concern the planet of sport. In actual fact, the IOC opened a door on the occasion of those Winter Games, during which the highest authorities of South Korea and North Korea – two countries in a state of war – met and agreed to continue their dialogue. This led to high-profile meetings between South Korean President Moon Jae-in, United States President Donald Trump and North Korea’s Supreme Leader Kim Jung-un.

In the end, all these political negotiations will not, unfortunately, have produced the expected results. This shows very clearly the limits of the IOC in its commitment to peace: we can only open the doors; it is up to the politicians to cross the threshold.

P. I. — You’ll have heard it said that the Games have become the ultimate showcase for sports business, and that’s not a compliment. In the cross-hairs is an economic area that is constantly growing, between pharaonic contracts and an inflation in rights of all kinds. What’s your view of it?

T. B. — Do you know many events, not just sporting ones, in which financial partners do not display their logo on the pitch, or even behind the scenes? Where brands, on D-Day, do not deploy any commercial or marketing initiatives? It’s quite simple: there are none. At the Games, only one emblem, universally known, has the right to be used: the Olympic rings, and the corporate sponsors have understood this perfectly. They accept it all the more readily because, with the unprecedented media coverage of the event, they have the leverage to promote their image. Let’s talk about financial flows. Of course, the Games generate cash inflows, but who are they intended for? Certainly not to the IOC, its administration or its machinery. Some 90% of the amounts we collect are redistributed to sports stakeholders, via national Olympic committees and international federations. As a result, sport at every level is the first to be irrigated in this way and, through it, multiple layers of society. Money from sport that goes to sport: our philosophy is unchanging.

P. I. — You are serving your second term as head of the IOC at present. Are you already thinking about the succession? Do you have a goal of setting up programme that your successor will be charged with bringing to fruition?

T. B. — At the IOC, we have been working with a roadmap since 2014: Olympic Agenda 2020, and, since 2021, Olympic Agenda 2020 + 5. These sets of strategic goals have led us to modernize the Olympic movement on numerous levels and prepare it for the future. Paris 2024 is a key meeting which makes it possible to implement several of these advances, which I mentioned previously. I work daily to ensure that the IOC is an instrument of both stability and sustainability. Without solid foundations, its ambitions cannot be achieved. From this point of view, we are constantly striving to consolidate this base.

P. I. — Your personal and professional career has been largely dedicated to Olympism and to sport in general. If you had to write your memoirs, what would be your most memorable memories?

T. B. — Let’s be clear, I’m not about to write my memoirs! Concentrating on my task is what matters most to me. The Paris 2024 Games are fast approaching and demand attention. Recounting memories, or identifying the most significant ones, would take a lot of time, as the world of sport in general and the Olympic movement in particular are fascinating environments, for several reasons. On the one hand, because they are aimed at billions of people, on the five continents, who are interested in sport. On the other hand, because the Olympic Games are of particular importance in the fields of culture, politics and the economy. These interrelationships must be based on our Olympic values, which I hope will be eternal: excellence, solidarity and peace. For me personally, it all began with my Olympic gold medal (2). More recently, I had the opportunity to address the leaders of the G20, emphasizing these same values and the unifying role of sport.

Several decades have passed between these two dates, which speaks to the richness that sport provides, with its share of encounters, events and unforgettable adventures!