• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

SOCOG's gold medal backflip

by Simon Longstaff

A firestorm of public anger has engulfed the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG). Yet those at the centre of the conflagration are behaving as if they're dressed in asbestos. How can this be? How can some of the most experienced and savvy operators in the country have got things so wrong – again?

The first thing to be said is that none of us really knows what has been happening inside SOCOG. Of course, that is part of the problem. What we do know is that the captain of the ship, Michael Knight, has revealed that SOCOG's decision-making ability has been overtaken by events. The minister explained on ABC television's 7.30 Report on Monday night that the SOCOG board did not have the nerve to back its judgement in this matter and overrule its marketing experts.

In other words, the SOCOG board was aware of the concerns, even knew that what it proposed to do was wrong, yet went ahead anyway. This was an extraordinary admission, not least because it provides some indication of the pressures being applied to SOCOG.

Part of the problem is that SOCOG is not entirely master of its own destiny. The International Olympic Committee and other members of the Olympic family insist on their share of the prize. Large corporate sponsors gobble up yet another large slice of the pie. Apart from this, there are people from across the world with a reasonable expectation that they should be able to find a place in the sun at a global event such as the Olympics.

Then there is the issue of making the Sydney Olympics pay. The SOCOG board has been staring at a large hole in its funding base and seems desperate to meet its budget. This is not just a matter of balancing the books. There is also the simple, practical need to generate sufficient resources to mount an Olympic Games of the quality we expect, have something left over for the Australian Olympic Committee, and achieve all of this without dipping into taxpayers' pockets. Such an agenda would challenge the best of us and we should feel some sympathy for those in the hot seat.

However, although all of this is true, it is difficult to see how it can justify some fundamentally flawed decisions in which pragmatism has triumphed over the kind of principle that we would hope to see promoted at an Australian Olympics.

Three issues lie at the heart of the ticket controversy. The first relates to the decision to set aside a certain proportion of tickets for the wealthy. The second relates to the failure to disclose the true situation of available tickets as it was known at the time. The third relates to the nature of the response since the issue arose a week ago.

On the first issue, it obviously sticks in the craw of many ordinary Australians that the organisers of the Sydney Games give the impression they are more interested in financial outcomes than in reflecting a widespread and popular Australian inclination to give everybody a fair go – irrespective of wealth or position. As noted above, they may not have much choice about this. After all, SOCOG has a duty to be financially prudent.

Even so there is scarce evidence of any serious attempt by SOCOG to make the ordinary folk feel as if they really count.

SOCOG could have done a far better job of explaining its predicament. Yes, it would have been risky to draw the community into its confidence. But we can hardly imagine that a worse result for the reputation of SOCOG could have resulted.

Given the formidable talents of the team on the SOCOG board, it is difficult to believe that they could not have developed a marketing strategy that was based on giving a full account of the actual situation. Now we have seen a situation develop in which SOCOG has been dying the death of a thousand cuts – with the practice of piecemeal disclosure further eroding public confidence in almost anything SOCOG has to say.

The result is that SOCOG's credibility has hit rock bottom with many segments of the community – the same people who are underwriting the whole venture, whose cash is sitting in SOCOG accounts and who, despite this, remain pretty much in the dark about what is being done in their name.

The nature of SOCOG's response to this has not really helped. Aware of all the facts and knowing what they have been through, SOCOG board members probably feel aggrieved that there has been so little understanding of their predicament. They may be genuinely surprised by the uproar – although Knight's admission that they lost their nerve would seem to suggest otherwise. The only person to give any public sign of responsibility is Sandy Hollway, who acted in the honourable manner that he has always displayed and offered to resign.

My hope is that this scandal will galvanise SOCOG into taking a long, hard look at how it operates – not just in this area but across the board.

I still have this naive belief in the possibility of the Sydney Games marking a new beginning for the Olympic movement as it makes the transition from the unhappy events surrounding Salt Lake City and embraces a future in which the Olympic ideals are made real. This will not be brought about by wishful thinking.

There is a need for cool heads to examine policy and practice to make sure that it reflects the high ideals that the movement espouses. I still believe that the Sydney Olympics could be very special. Maybe the Olympic flame should be allowed to burn a little brighter in the halls of SOCOG. Maybe a little more light and reflection will cool the embers of public outrage.

discuss this article

---