By Sujit Bhar

India wants to host the 2036 Olympic Games. India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has confirmed this wish and the bid will be prepared and presented to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in due course. As an Indian and a sports lover, I feel excited, especially now that cricket is on the 2028 (Los Angeles) roster; at the same time, as a logical person, I see absolutely no reason why any country should host this grandiose event in its current form in the first place.

There have been enough protests around the world against the Olympic movement and the all-encompassing consumerist animal that it has become. There were protests in Tokyo, outside the Summer Games’ venues, protests will surely be in Paris next year, and for 2028, protests are already bubbling up from the thick broth of public discontent.

As the modern Olympic movement started, it tried to showcase the Fundamental Principles of Olympism, which proudly proclaims: “Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example, social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.”

Today, if anything, it sounds more like the exhortation of a despot from an election podium. There is nothing ordinary and commonplace in an Olympics today; that died with the entry of publicity and TV packages. In Atlanta (1996), we from the print media and others were initially prevented by the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) to even go into the conference room for a press meet within the Main Press Centre. The NBC held the broadcast rights and the sheer audacity of this huge corporation to even think that it controlled press conferences too, was astounding. NBC relented when we put our foot down.

We, however, could not even think of entering any arena with a Pepsi bottle (of even water) because Coca Cola had it all sealed up.

While covering the Olympics, it would be natural for any journalist to start believing that the entire show was being put up jointly by a few mega multinational corporations, and the IOC is no more than a mere tool in their hands. With the world today reeling under horrible wars and standing at the gates of another recession, the common man does not need another decision by his/her government that virtually debilitates the economy of his/her nation, just to guarantee profits for those multinationals.

This happened to Greece in 2004, when it went into at least a US $12 billion debt just for having to host the Olympics that its citizens never wanted. Among the other misadventures of the incumbent dispensation in the country was the forceful building of stadiums, elaborate civic amenities that Athens did not need and facilities that have since become white elephants. Common Greeks were so fed up that they anyway took their annual holidays to the islands as the Games rolled in and I, for one, was surprised to see such empty roads of the city in the initial days of the Games.

Later, locals told me how disgusted they were at their government refusing to listen to the common people and to common sense. As the common man kept paying back interest accrued on brand new facilities (mostly built by foreign multinationals), the Olympic Games became one of the primary reasons why Greece dived into economic disaster. The IOC did not feel a thing, and the multinationals left with their share of massive spoils.

Everybody knows that this Olympic “movement”, in its current form, leaves countries with massive debt which it can barely service. Everybody knows who is finally deputed to pick up the pieces. As a common citizen of India, I do not wish anybody to be having to delve deep into empty pockets, searching for salvation after the extra cess has been paid.

The Political Statement

Engendering economic disasters isn’t the only objective for countries. The promotion of Olympism is used as a means to political ends. Atlanta (1996), once a city with high crime rates, saw all its beggars, stragglers and the homeless mercilessly driven out of city limits for the duration of the Olympic Games. Did it fool any journalist? No. There was enough talk about it, as well as of the continuing marginalisation of the substantial coloured population of the state of Georgia which was for all to see.

It was pathetic: When almost the entire US basketball “Dream Team” (much of it intact after 1992, Barcelona), comprised of coloured athletes, when Carl Lewis was scorching the tracks, the coloured community of the city seemed kept at arm’s length.

It was, in a way, worse in Sydney (2000) where artisans from the aboriginal population of the country were showcased in designated areas throughout the Olympic park and across Sydney town, as if like museum pieces or like special exhibits in a zoo. One played the didgeridoo at a street corner, while scores of aborigine dancers, naked to the waist were made part of the opening ceremony. If this level of insensitivity, labelled a “ceremony” of civilisation, had been part of any other forum, it would have been castigated by all. Such is the power of Olympism, the “movement” and, of course, sheer consumerism that blinds all.

Within all this lie issues about human rights and laws of the land that had been written by people who cared about the entire population, not dividing them in sections of caste, creed, religion or ethnicity. Within all this lies the economically weaker section of society that participates in the celebration of sports superiority, but fails to feed its own, upcoming talent.

The Solution

The Olympic movement must learn to honour the traditions of the land it visits, its culture, its laws and its people. Olympism cannot stay as an elitist, big-ticket event that only the well-heeled can attend. Olympism must be moved out of the clutches of this extreme consumerism propagated by multinationals, and stadiums or other facilities should only be built if old facilities aren’t enough or in bad condition. The IOC must be part of the development process, share its profits with host countries and every person displaced due to the Games, permanently or even temporarily should be the joint responsibility of the host nation and the IOC.

The entire games can be broken up into several sections, the disciplines being handed out to different cities, countries even, while the IOC provides help. Finally, the immensely rich IOC has to bear responsibility for the real estate price speculations.

Only that can ensure true Olympism.

The proposal by former Supreme Court Judge L. Nageswara Rao to conduct elections to the executive committee of Indian Olympic Association (IOA) on December 10 was accepted by the Apex Court today.

The matter was taken up for hearing by the Bench of Chief Justice of India-designate Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli.

The Bench said in its order that on the basis of the note sent by former Supreme Court Justice L. Nageswara Rao on November 2, the Court has come to know about the comprehensive exercise, which was carried out by the former judge of this court on an expedited basis.

The Bench appreciated the ardour and enthusiasm with which the Assignment was taken and work was done in the spirit of national interest.

It also praised the efforts taken to conduct the exercise, while keeping all the stakeholders, including the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and the state associations in loop for a concrete solution.

As per the report submitted by Justice Rao, the elections should be held on December 10, 2022.

The bench in its order mentioned that as the amendments have been proposed, it is in the general interest that they should be circulated to all at the earliest, so that the general body meeting can be held on November 10.

The Court further gave liberty to Justice Rao to chalk out the modalities for circulation of the proposed amendments

With this order in place, the top court of the country ‘strictly’ forbade any other court from entertaining any petition related to the amendments in the constitution of IOA or to the election of Executive Committee of IOA.

The Apex Court further directed the IOA to make payment of honorarium of Rs 20 lakh to Justice Rao, though he had taken up the task assigned to him pro bono.

The bench ordered that no other court should entertain any petition relating to the amendments to the constitution of IOA or to the election to the executive committee of the IOA.

The Court has mentioned that if there exists any objections or confusion, it should be submitted by any person or party before the Apex Court only.

The Supreme Court bench noted that the Solicitor General had stated although Justice Nageswara Rao has indicated that he would perform the task which has been assigned by this court pro bono, but keeping in mind the magnitude of the task and the efforts which have been put in, paying honorarium to the judge looks appropriate.

The bench did not fail to add that the remuneration to the assisting counsel shall be fixed by the judge and intimated to IOA as the association has agreed to defray the remuneration as so fixed.

The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on December 7.

The Apex Court appointed former Justice LN Rao to prepare electoral rolls and conduct elections, along with amending the constitution of Indian Olympic Association on September 21.

In September, the top court of the country had stayed the August 16 order of the Delhi High Court, which had directed the Committee of Administrators to take control of IOA governance.

The Ministry of Sports Ministry had intimated that this could lead to suspension by the international committee due to the third party interference.

A final warning was issued to IOA to sort out governance issues and hold elections by December by the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

By Sujit Bhar

What happens if the Tokyo Olympic Games, already postponed once because of the Coronavirus pandemic, are forced into another postponement or even a cancellation? One of these looks very probable now, with the US government’s recent advisory to its citizens to not travel to Japan due to Covid 19. Such an advisory, just two months ahead of the Games—the Olympics are scheduled to run from July 23 to August 8, and the Paralympic Games from August 24 to September 5—is bound to shake up all Olym­pic bound nations, including India and, then, is bound to induce insomnia in financial institutions, including major insurance companies.

Most importantly, though, a cancellation could leave the organisers—and Japan, to be specific—with a loss of up to $43 billion, according to a recent study, a postponement will incur a loss of $6.2 billion.

The US advisory came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It is what is called a Level 4 Travel Health Notice for Japan due to Covid-19, indicating a “very high level of Covid-19 in the country.” The advisory also said that there are restrictions in place affecting a US citizen’s entry into Japan.

The resistance to the Olympic Games, postponed from last year, has come from the citizens of Japan themselves. According to a recent Kyodo News survey, almost 80 percent of Japanese people want both the Games to be cancelled or postponed. Some want it pushed to 2024 (when Paris is scheduled to host the Olympic Games).

If the financial details are massive, so are the legal knots. When the first call for the postponement of the Games had come up, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) had signed an agreement with the then Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. The agreement said that the Games “must be rescheduled to a date beyond 2020 but not later than summer 2021…” The reason the IOC gave for this was that this had to be done to “safeguard the health of the athletes, everybody involved in the Olympic Games and the international community.”

That is complete hogwash. The IOC is more intent on protecting its bottomline and itself from the multiple litigations that it could face if the Games were postponed further or cancelled. The IOC has little interest in “safeguarding the health of the athletes” or of anybody else, for that matter.

MONEY MATTERS

The financial implications for Japan and the sponsors are humongous. Even if the two Games—Olympics main and the Paralympic Games—are held before empty stadiums, according to a study conducted by Prof Katsuhiro Miyamoto of Kansai University, there will be a $3.7 billion loss in spending related directly to the Games. This is 90 percent of what was originally projected for the event.

An Olympic Games is not an IPL match. It is a series of events in which an entire country participates, in which hundreds of thousands of spectators mill around, buying tickets, souvenirs, visiting venues and staying in hotels. It is a complete ecosystem in itself. The Olympic Games change the spending pattern of a people. According to Prof Miyamoto, household consumption expenditures would halve to $2.7 billion (from what had been projected) and there will be concomitant reduction in corporate marketing activity.

Other projections were about promotional sporting and cultural events which would be slashed to $8.2 billion, again half of previous levels. The entire preparatory mode of Japan’s tourism industry—which might have been an antidote to Japan’s decades-long deflationary trend—would just disappear into thin air. It can be argued that such projections for this sector were, anyway too optimistic within this Covid atmosphere, but with the waning of the first wave, there was hope that certain sections of events could be resuscitated.

For another postponement, according to Prof Miyamoto, there could be losses of up to $6.2 billion. Even if the stands aren’t empty and, with strict social distancing, the numbers are reduced to half, that segment would see a loss of $13.5 billion.

These are scary figures for Yoshihide Suga, who took over the premiership of Japan from Shinzo Abe in September 2020. With Suga forced to declare a state of emergency in several areas, including Tokyo, and then with Kyoto virtually crumbling recently under the pressure of infections, the situation is dire.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

That, however, is the tip of the iceberg of problems. When IOC President Thomas Bach claimed recently that there was “no reason whatsoever” for the Olympics not to open on July 23 and that there was no “Plan B”, he sounded pretty hollow. It has yet to be decided by Tokyo 2020 President Yoshirō Mori whether spectators will be permitted to attend the Games. And this is the face of 4.48 million tickets already sold for the Olympics and 9,70,000 for the Paralympics. Here is the rub. The tickets are valid for 2021, with only 8,10,000 of Japanese ticket holders for the Olympics requesting refunds last month. What happens if it falls through? Who picks up the tab, and who fights the numerous cases?

The organisers and IOC may face legal nightmares aplenty. What the Olympic Games involve are about 11,000 athletes, 15,000 media personnel and millions of coaches, spectators and volunteers. The entire system can barely function contact-free. People will meet people, surfaces will be touched and shared and it will definitely turn into a super-spreader event. It will be a high risk event.

If the Games are not held, thousands of contracts and sub-contracts will fall through. The force majeure part of the contracts may not help, because of the inherent limitations of force majeure.

Force majeure is a term used in contracts to describe unforeseen events, outside a party’s control, which may exempt a party from liability. During this Covid pandemic, this insertion in contracts has saved several business contracts around the world where businesses may have experienced supply chain disruptions or interruptions that impacted their ability to perform under a contract.

However, force majeure is not intended to excuse negligence, misconduct, or any other impropriety of a party, or situations where the intervening circumstances are specifically contemplated by the parties or already accounted for in the parties’ agreement. To put it simply, only an unforeseen contingency which alters the essential nature of the performance can be considered under this. What happens when a regular contract is expected to be executed in an acknowledged and proven high-risk environment? One cannot wish away the risk factor within a Covid-ravaged atmosphere where you want to go, knowing fully well the risks involved.

Consider an event involving highly insured individuals—an athlete such as Usain Bolt would qualify as an example, though he will not be competing. Which insurance company will be willing to risk its reputation and its money in insuring Bolt in a race where there are more than enough chances of being infected? Which athlete in a contact sport—wrestling and judo, for example, as well as swimming, where the medium of water may be the cause for infection—will be insured in this specially charged environment?

Insurance providers often avoid coverage to high-risk category personnel. In India some insurance providers offer life insurance coverage to the armed forces and these insurance packages vary from the usual packages offered to the general public. Will it be possible for all Indian athletes, say, to get these specialised insurance cover for this specific period, while putting their general insurance covers on hold? This has not been looked into, either by the Indian Olympic Association or the IOC. Will the IOC or the Japan Olympic organising committee be willing to insure all participants against any possible infection during the duration of the Games? There has been no word on that. All the IOC has promised is a contingent of doctors and personnel to make sure everybody is safe—a cheap and useless promise by any standard.

EMBARASSING SITUATION

The IOC is in a fix. It stands to not only lose billions of dollars in sponsorship and television contract monies, but also stands to be sued in the billions if such television contracts are not honoured. Moreover, the IOC has the responsibility of ensuring that it recovers a certain amount of monies that it spends every year on sports promotion. The Olympic Games is the biggest property that the IOC owns. It has to sweat it vigorously to stay alive.

For Tokyo, the spectre of cancellation has not gone away altogether. The Olympic Games had been cancelled during the two World Wars. The 1940 Summer Games, scheduled to take place in Tokyo, were postponed due to war and moved to Helsinki, where they were later cancelled altogether. However, those days the Games weren’t so gigantic, economically. The loss was only for the athletes. Today every section of the Games is tied to another.

How big are the contracts that are in peril through a possible cancellation? Nearly a decade back, the NBC and the IOC agreed on a $4.4 billion deal that runs through the 2020 Olympics. The deal was extended to 2032 later, with NBC agreeing to pay $7.8 billion. How did the NBC agree to pay such a humongous amount to the IOC? The NBC had done substantial research into viewership, promotion, advertising and related factors that influence the value of a broadcast deal. These projections did not consider any pandemic situation. Even if there was a warlike situation contemplated, it would have been covered in the force majeure clause, protecting the IOC. One postponement is what the IOC can tolerate, financially. A cancellation? Never. Hence no Plan B.

Read Also: Delhi High Court asks Delhi govt to ascertain claims in plea on lacunae in Sultanpuri Covid isolation centre

It is possible that even another postponement can be adjusted relatively amicably among ­contract partners. There could be renegotiations. But with monies already paid, the IOC will remain under the obligation to deliver, and deliver quickly.

After all, it’s business all the way. And people’s lives matter little. This selfishness was evident as the Greek government went into a debt of 12 billion Euros in just hosting the Athens Olympic Games in 2004, one of the key reasons for the country sliding into bank­ruptcy later. Greek citizens had protested vehemently against the Games in a crumbling economy. Neither the country’s government nor the IOC had cared. Tokyo is reeling, under a different emergency today. And it does not matter that there is no plan B.