Site of 2016 Games will play big part in USOC’s future relations with IOC, own members

USOC has a lot riding on Chicago 2016 win

COPENHAGEN — They shelved long-awaited plans for a TV network after only a month, and made nice with International Olympic Committee members who think they’re hogging the piggy bank.

They even smoothed things over with the disgruntled staffers in their own organization.

U.S. Olympic Committee leaders are on their best behavior as the host city vote for the 2016 Summer Games approaches Friday.

If Chicago wins, a lot of the USOC’s problems become more manageable. If Chicago loses, well, it’s going to be a bumpy next few months, with tricky financial issues and questions of direction likely coming to the forefront.

“What having the games in your country does, it enables you to go down a path where you can just create further opportunity for programs, for legacy building, for building international relationships, for the United States to demonstrate our commitment to the Olympic movement,” said Stephanie Streeter, the USOC’s acting CEO.

The USOC’s relationship with the Euro-centric IOC (almost half of the 106 members are European) is always a delicate thing.

The IOC needs the United States — its biggest chunk of revenue comes from NBC’s $2.2 billion broadcasting deal for 2010 and 2012 — and resents that it does. There also is lingering anger over the Salt Lake City bid scandal and, until recently, the USOC’s history of acting more like a patrician than a partner.

Add in the USOC’s propensity for dysfunction — it went through six presidents and CEOs from 2000 to 2003 — and it’s hardly a surprise the two bodies have had personality clashes recently.

“In international sport, one of the hallmarks of it, for better or for worse, is the stability of the leadership,” said Dick Pound, a longtime IOC member from Canada. “A lot of the folks in leadership positions have been there for a long time, so it’s a mystery to some to have this revolving door in the United States.”

The main issue between the two bodies is money.

The IOC shares revenue from its top sponsorship program and TV deals with the 205 national committees. The USOC currently receives 20 percent of the sponsorship money and 12.75 percent of the TV cash, and there is a lot of point-counterpoint as to why those figures are fair or unfair.

It’s been a flashpoint for years, getting so contentious earlier in 2009 that it threatened to derail Chicago’s bid. Streeter and USOC chairman Larry Probst managed to negotiate a truce, agreeing to consider paying several million dollars to the IOC in the short term in exchange for delaying further talks until 2013.

But the issue is far from settled.

Should Chicago get the games, the USOC will be able to operate from a position of strength. Negotiations for U.S. TV rights for 2014 and 2016 will begin after the vote, and it’s safe to say games in Chicago would be an attractive property to American broadcasting companies.

In fact, media mogul Rupert Murdoch recently indicated that Fox wouldn’t submit a bid unless the 2016 Games were in Chicago.

Corporate sponsorships would likely be higher for a U.S. games, too. Former USOC chairman Peter Ueberroth said last year that revenues have gone up every time the games have been on U.S. soil, the logic being that American advertisers will pay more for an Olympics in their backyard.

“It’s a huge win financially, from a sponsorship standpoint,” current USOC chairman Larry Probst agreed.

If the games go to Rio or Madrid or Tokyo, however, the IOC could force the revenue issue again, knowing it will be getting more money from those markets and less from the United States.

Then there’s the question of influence. After almost 17 years with a seat on the powerful IOC executive board, the United States lost its spot in February 2006 in the post-Salt Lake City fallout.

There was a long stretch in which building relationships with other IOC members simply wasn’t a priority. Robert Fasulo, who took over as the organization’s chief of international relations in February 2006, remembers going to the Asian Games that year and talking to a Lebanese Olympic official who, in 11 years, had never before met with a USOC member.

Fasulo and Bob Ctvrtlik, the USOC’s vice chair for international relations, have made strides to change that. Earlier this month, for example, the USOC announced it would again offer a training program for coaches from around the world.

“It’s a big world, we still have a lot of work to do and we can’t do it all in a day,” Fasulo said. “But I think we have made progress, and we’re going to continue to do the work.”

Hosting a games would accelerate the process.

“It would offer us a huge opportunity to build on what we’ve already done,” Fasulo said.

Then there’s the simmering tensions back home.

After going through CEOs and presidents like Kleenex in the early part of the decade — including two who were swept out in the USOC’s own ethics scandal — the USOC found relative stability under the leadership of Ueberroth and CEO Jim Scherr, a former Olympic wrestler who was well-liked in the movement. But Ueberroth stepped down last fall, and the transition has been, to put it mildly, messy.

Scherr was dumped in March and replaced by Streeter, a move openly questioned by leaders of the national governing bodies. While everyone is saying the right things now, it’s not clear this is a permanent truce.

Bring the games back to the United States for the first time since 1996, though, and it will be hard to argue with the direction Probst and Streeter have taken the USOC.

“This is our long-term commitment,” Fasulo said. “We have to be able to demonstrate we’re just not the words but have actions behind the words and we believe in this. And we believe in this for the right reasons.

“Chicago offers that opportunity.”