Most of you are likely to be well aware that Thomas Bach of Germany was indeed elected as the new IOC President at the recent IOC Congress; so no surprises there! The well-oiled machinery of his backers, most prominently Sheikh Ahmad of Kuwait, had done their job in getting the necessary support lined up. I spent some days in Europe, precisely at the time of the elections, so I was in a better position than usual to get reactions through personal contacts and European media.

It seems that during the final stages the only excitement involved the question as to whether Bach would gain an absolute majority among the 93 voting members already in the first round. As it happened, he had to wait until the second round, where he obtained 49 votes. But as had been predicted, the only candidate other than Bach who had a reasonable showing was Richard Carrion from Puerto Rico, the IOC ‘finance minister’. He got 29 votes as compared with the 49 for Bach, whereas the other remaining candidates got between four and six.

The results seemed to confirm that several of the candidacies were totally without any hope, and many are now wondering why these candidates came forward: was it just an ‘ego trip’, or did it for some of them involved a tactical step for some future situation? Indeed, many of those who did not want to see Bach elected tended to regret that his opponents had not been able to unite behind one strong opponent, who could then have stood a better chance to come across as a strong alternative.

What are the likely implications of a Bach presidency?

Many IOC insiders and external observers had expressed the hope that the election would bring about serious change, at a time when many difficult issues are brewing in the world of sports. I am talking about corruption, doping, match-fixing, suspicions regarding the way of awarding events etc. But personally I was never optimistic on that point. Jacques Rogge was never seen as a strong President in this regard, but as I see it, it is more related to the actual role and priorities of the IOC machinery.

It is a mistake to see the IOC as some kind of supervising entity for individual sports and for national sports, with a role in ensuring ethical behavior and good governance. The IOC members do not really have any interest, or any incentives, for getting their hands dirty in this way. The existence of WADA in the area of anti-doping is as far as it gets, and arguments for the establishment of a similar organ to deal with anti-corruption are quickly dismissed.

Instead, I think it comes close to the truth if one describes the IOC as the entity which organizes Olympic Games and serves as a business machinery in doing so. And for this purpose one needs a leader with business experience, a hard-nosed attitude in looking after the interests of the IOC, and a willingness to close eyes and ears to observations and arguments that would get in the way of enriching the IOC. For those who recognize that this is the priority, it seems that Bach would indeed be a great choice.

But many already express concerns that Bach and his supporters, again especially Sheikh Ahmad, who also is the head of ANOC (the Association of National Olympic Committees), will start exercising power in a ruthless and dictatorial way. The skeptics worry that there is not likely to be much room for a serious internal debate or for transparency. Media comments also suggest that the success of different sports and the various countries and regions will depend far too much on how comfortable and able they are to take advantage of such an environment. I would prefer to avoid becoming too pessimistic, and it may be safer to judge the situation on the basis of decisions and initiatives in the next few years.

What does the selection of Tokyo in 2020 suggest regarding possible bids for 2024?

Following the decision to award the 2020 summer Games to Tokyo, and the ascendance of Bach (and Sheikh Ahmad), many potential hosts are now quickly beginning to speculate about the likely impact on bids from various regions and countries for the period beyond 2020. John Ryan already wondered if USA might now be in a good position for 2024, but the prevailing view in Europe seems to be that, following Rio de Janeiro and Tokyo, the pendulum would swing back in favor of a European bid.

Of course, the situation regarding the 2022 winter Games will also be relevant. But I really wonder what European country will be prepared to come forward for the 2017 decision on 2024. Perhaps it could give Turkey a second chance, depending on the geopolitics of that region. But many assume that the Sheikh will want the Gulf Region to become the first host from that part of the world. So he just might want to see a USA bid become successful in the meantime… Let the scheming begin!

The International Handball Federation has a really bad track record when it comes to taking athlete representation seriously. The IHF President likes the idea of All-Star Games, voting for the ‘Player of the Year’ etc., but he has never shown any interest in giving the players a voice in the IHF planning and decision-making. On paper, the IHF has had an Athletes’ Commission for a number of years now, but it has never been allowed to function. It was introduced only after there was too much pressure from the IOC to do so. And some form of ‘elections’ of players to the Commission has taken place. (Former USA National Team player Dawn Allinger Lewis has been a member, together with a group of prominent players).

However, during all my years in the IHF, there was never any activity or influence. The Commission was even getting its requests for meetings denied, and it was made rather clear that there views were not sought or wanted. I am unofficially aware of situations where the Athletes’ Commission protested this situation to the IHF President, but the IHF Council (where I was a member during five years) was never officially told about the protest.

Accordingly, it is now rather interesting to see that apparently the IHF President is giving the impression that he wants to change this situation. (See the link in the 16 September Handball News Summary). It even seems to be suggested that, under revised By-Laws, the Athletes’ Commission should have such formal status that its Chair would become a member of the IHF Council, just like the Chairs of the ordinary Commissions. However, while the players have a form of ‘union’ and would be fully capable of putting forward their own candidates, the emerging IHF proposal seems to have the national federations putting forward candidates. Moreover, the idea seems to be that the IHF would thereafter pick and choose among these candidates. In my view, this would be an absurd approach.

However, this approach fits right in with the IHF President’s refusal to recognize clubs and stakeholders in the IHF. Clubs are employers of all the players on the national teams that participate in World Championships and Olympic Games. So, as I have written many time before, the clubs have a very legitimate interest in issues such as the international competition calendar, the compensation to the clubs when the players are taken away from them, insurance matters etc. But the IHF refusals have been taken so far that the clubs, through a number of German Bundesliga clubs, have now felt forced to take legal action to obtain the right to negotiate with the IHF.

Clearly, the IHF President is much more comfortable to deal with individual national federations from a position of power, with an opportunity to divide and conquer, considering the vast differences in experience and interests among national federations around the world. He does not want to deal with the top clubs, as these are generally run by strong managers in a very business-like way. And it now seems clear that he does not want to deal with the players as a group their unions. Instead he prefers to be able to co-opt some of them to give the impression of allowing some kind of real participation. One can only hope that the players do not go along with such methods.