USOC Puts Hold on Television Network

By Alan Abrahamson

BERLIN, Germany, August 17. LARRY Probst, the chairman of the United States Olympic Committee, did what he came to Berlin to do. Meeting with International Olympic Committee Jacques Rogge, the two agreed Sunday that the USOC's television network, announced in July to enormous controversy, would be delayed until the USOC has "resolved all issues of concern to the IOC."

Probst, in a brief news conference Sunday afternoon, also said precisely what he needed to say. "We want," he said, "to work cooperatively with the IOC."

Now the question: is it all enough?

The concerns are both near- and longer-term.

In the near term, of course, is the impact on Chicago's 2016 chances. "The USOC wants to do everything it can to help support the Chicago bid," Probst asserted Sunday.

There can be no question, however, that that the controversy over the network posed a significant threat to Chicago's bid. The IOC is due to make its 2016 vote on Oct. 2; Rio de Janeiro, Madrid and Tokyo are also in the race. The USOC is Chicago's "partner" in the campaign. The IOC had warned the USOC in July not to go ahead with the announcement of the network but the USOC nonetheless pushed ahead — concerned, Probst said Sunday, that word would get out and it wouldn't be able to control the story.

As it turned out, the USOC almost immediately lost control of the story. And the controversy within Olympic circles has since proved relentless. It summoned for many the tension and conflict inherent in a dispute that has been running for the past several years between the USOC and IOC over the USOC's share of certain marketing and broadcasting revenues — a dispute that the two sides had announced in Denver in March they had agreed to try to resolve amicably.

Why, many influential Olympic figures wondered, would the USOC — after saying in March it wanted to be a real partner — take such unilateral action in regards to the network, particularly after it had been warned explicitly not to do so?

Was that the sort of "partnership" the IOC would be buying if on Oct. 2 it went Chicago's way? If the IOC were genuinely about to undertake a fundamental restructuring of its business and marketing relationship with the USOC, far and away the most important of the 205 national Olympic committees in the world, would the IOC want to afford the USOC the leverage of giving the Games to an American city?

To allow the controversy to continue to rage would have been, from a raw political standpoint, untenable. So the USOC essentially had no choice but to "delay" the network.

The twist — not often seen in the USOC's dealings with the IOC — was Probst's acknowledgement that the USOC erred. It made a mistake. It was now trying to make amends.

In "hindsight," he said, the notion of announcing the potential launch of a network could have been handled "more thoughtfully."

"No question we underestimated the intensity of the reaction we got from multiple constituencies," Probst also said Sunday, flanked by the USOC's two international relations point men, vice president Bob Ctvrtlik and international relations staff director Robert Fasulo.

"We anticipated the reaction would have been neutral or positive. It was a miscalculation on our part. The execution of this could have been better," he further said.

Rogge and Probst have, in the few short months they have known each other, forged a genuinely constructive working relationship. They met here Saturday — for not even an hour — and agreed in what Probst described as a "cordial and productive and constructive discussion" to the "delay."

Chicago 2016 chairman and chief executive Pat Ryan later Sunday issued a statement that said, "We applaud Larry Probst and the USOC for making a strong statement of partnership by stating that the USOC would secure the full support and cooperation of the IOC before moving forward with the Olympic Network. It is important not only for the USOC and IOC relationship but also for the USOC's role within the Olympic movement."

All of which, of course, leads to the longer-term question.

Is it "delay" — or it is the sort of "delay" that signals, even though nobody can say so, "never going to happen"?

Is the launch of a U.S. Olympic Network a question of how and when? Or if?

By any measure, not much if anything is likely to happen before early October, Probst saying diplomatically Sunday, "I suspect we won't be making any significant progress in the next 50 days."

As Probst also acknowledged Sunday, there remain a host of issues yet to be settled. "I think you've seen the list of concerns they've expressed," he said, referring to the IOC. "I think the impact on the sponsors, the impact on the broadcast partners, the impact on athletes, the impact on national federations, some questions about programming. It's on the list and clearly it's a significant consideration for the IOC. It's something that, you know, we want to be as thoughtful about as possible."

It's also something the USOC said Sunday it will now wait to do until it gets the "full support and cooperation of the IOC," which traditionally moves cautiously, before moving forward.

To hand the IOC such control, in the lengthy business-related history between the two entities, marks nothing less than an extraordinary step by the USOC. It may be unprecedented.

"He's somebody I can work with," Probst said of Rogge, and this may be the key point of all that transpired Sunday, because in the Olympic business, relationships are everything. "And I think he feels that way about me."

Content provided by: Universal Sports

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

Welcome to our community. We invite you to join our discussion. Our community guidelines are simple: be respectful and constructive, keep on topic, and support your fellow commenters. Commenting signifies that you agree to our Terms of Use

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x