Forget sport! Why the Olympics is all about money for the IOC

The Olympics is without a doubt the greatest sporting event in the world. Every four years, nearly every nation comes together to compete for the glory of a gold medal and making their country proud. Even if you don’t like sport, the Olympics offers viewers and the public a chance to get involved at every level, whether it be volunteering or enjoying the Cultural Olympiad.

The London 2012 games promises to be no different, with the legacy aiming to reignite the nation’s, particularly kids, love for sport. In fact today, with one month to go to the opening ceremony, the whole nation is gearing up to host the biggest party of the year.

So surely this national event should remain truly public, ensuring that all the nation are able to watch and view the sporting events? Well, it seems that the International Olympic Committee have other ideas. This week, IOC president Jacques Rogge confirmed that the broadcasting rights to the next Winter Olympics (in Sochi 2014) and the Summer Olympics (in Rio 20126) are up for grabs, with negotiations likely to start from the end of this week.

Currently, broadcasting rights to the Olympics in the UK are solely in the hands of the BBC. The BBC has promised to show over 2,500 hours of coverage for this year’s Olympics, and has been the host broadcaster for several decades. Promising red button viewing, special channels and even 3D coverage, the BBC’s coverage has been critically acclaimed over the years.

But the IOC, looking to raise money through lucrative broadcasting rights, are looking to negotiate with pay-tv and telecommunication giants, namely BSkyB and BT (who both recently took out a lucrative, highly expensive contract for the Premiership football rights), where the coverage would be handed to them, making a nice profit for the IOC.

Although the broadcasting rights to the Olympics are protected under legislation, the IOC is looking to reach a deal where 200 hours of free-to-air content would be reserved for say the BBC (or Channel 4, who took over the Paralympics and World Athletics coverage recently) and show the rest through pay-TV or another platform.

For me, these plans and calls by the president are rather worrying. Can you imagine having to pay to watch coverage of the Olympics on a subscription-based system? No, nor can I. Not only will it be breaking with tradition, but there’s several negative consequences here.

Firstly, the coverage of the Olympics on the BBC rivals all other broadcasters. It’s free to air, meaning everyone in the UK with a television set has the ability to watch the Olympics. Compare that to BT Vision, who have around 750,000 subscribers (I am one, and I certainly don’t think it’s worth the cost), which will significantly decrease the profile of the Olympics. The legacy of the Olympics is to inspire generations and promote sport, a legacy which will be compromised if the rights go to a pay-TV channel.

Secondly, the tactics used by the president to report on such ‘negotiations’ creates a bidding war atmosphere which ultimately the BBC is going to suffer in. The Beeb already facing the burden of 25% budget cuts in Sport, has recently lost key sporting events such as horse racing to Channel 4, the French Open to ITV and most of the Formula 1 to Sky. Sky, BT or ESPN will have significantly more money to put on the table, and with the IOC increasingly looking to make money rather than promote sport nowadays, the BBC is in a difficult position.

So what should happen? Well, I’d like to think the government would step in and protect the rights of the Olympics to free-to-air broadcasting. But sadly, I don’t think that will happen. We know from recent events how close a certain minister for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is with News Corporation and BSkyB, and with the government preferring business and privatization, I doubt the government will even raise an eyebrow over the plans.

Which is where public opinion comes in. Yes, good old public opinion. The government would be wise to keep track of public opinion over the plans. No doubt sporting stars, the BBC and fans of the Olympics will protest at the plans if they get the go-ahead. I mean, just look at the petitions and condemnation over the Formula 1 rights! With London 2012 looming, surely the number of people watching and participating in the Olympics could help sway the view of the government in ensuring the rights remain free-to-air. The Olympics generate publicity, which generates interest from the public and abroad, which helps boost the economy.

Well, anything goes really. All I know is that it will be a sad day if the Olympics was privatized into the hands of a conglomerate like Sky or BT who would profit from the Olympics legacy. The IOC looks certain to back the plans, with similar circumstances on rights already agreed for countries like Italy. The IOC you’d think would be keen to retain their dwindling popularity after the furore over the sponsorship of Dow Chemicals and other companies.

But that’s the case for most sport nowadays sadly, it’s not about the taking part or being a representative for your country, it’s about making as much money as possible. The Olympics would just add to a long list of sports which have been sold out to big companies so that orgaisations like the IOC can make a tidy profit.

Pictures courtesy of Wikipedia

Is Vince Cable the only honest politician in Cabinet?

I feel rather sorry for Vince Cable. Throughout the recent Leveson inquiry, Mr Cable has remained quiet. A defeated champion of the people, he was one of the first people to criticise the Murdoch's, yet was hastily condemned by ministers and the newspapers over his actions.

It was way back in late 2010 that Cable's honesty got the better of him. Only six months into his role as Business Secretary for the coalition government, the Liberal Democrat was set up by journalists from The Daily Telegraph who posed as his constituents and arranged a meeting with Mr Cable. Undercover, the journalists asked questions which Mr Cable answered openly and honestly.

One of the questions Cable answered regarded the current bid by News Corporation, founded and chaired by Rupert Murdoch, to takeover the satellite broadcaster BSkyB, for which it has a stake in. Mr Cable's role as Business Secretary means that he is in charge of takeover's, including media affairs. Offering an un-bias review into the takeover, the Business Secretary is meant to examine all the evidence for/ against the takeover, with an objective stance.

Which is where Mr Cable's views got in the way, jeopardising his objectivity. Speaking to whom he thought were his constituents, Mr Cable told the undercover journalists that he had "declared war on Mr Murdoch", and that "I think we are going to win."

The resulting furore over his comments resulted in him losing his responsibility for media affairs, with the review into the BSkyB takeover being referred to Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt. There were even calls for him to be sacked from his position as Business Secretary.

Now fast-forward to April 2012 and it seems similar circumstances are occurring again, this time with Jeremy Hunt. Before the takeover was abandoned following revelations of phone hacking at News International (the owners of titles including The Sun and the now defunct News of the World), it was rumoured that Jeremy Hunt would accept the takeover. The Conservative party have always been firm friends with the Murdoch's, as the Leveson inquiry has revealed, and with Mr Hunt's strong stance against the BBC, it would seem appropriate to accept the takeover. After all, BSkyB is creating billions of pounds for the UK economy, whereas the government are pumping money into the BBC. If it wasn't for the phone hacking allegations and calls from Ofcom for the review to be delayed, he would probably have accepted the takeover.

So the revelations that Jeremy Hunt was said to have an 'improper realtionship' with News Corporation following a series of leaked emails between the Mr Hunt's adviser and a PR adviser for News Corp came at no surprise. This is the man who didn't bother sending the BSkyB bid to the Competition Commission or listen to the calls from Ofcom to abandon the bid. In fact, it wasn't until after the phone hacking scandal came to light that the bid was rejected by the government, despite many years of allegations surrounding phone hacking being public knowledge.

It's fair to say his incompetence and bias in favour of the Murdoch empire has significantly damaged his reputation, and yes calls have been made by the opposition for Mr Hunt to resign. Yet not to the same extent as when calls were made for the resignation of Mr Cable.

Now I don't tend to think that two wrongs make a right, but in this case, wasn't Vince Cable right all along? He was cornered into admitting what he really thought, which in a situation like a constituency meeting, is perfectly acceptable. It's the public's right to hear the truth, and that's exactly what Vince Cable gave them.

In fact, the Press Complaints Commission agreed. They found that the Daily Telegraph had not acted in the public interest. It later emerged that the two undercover journalist's had been links to News International. A coincidence perhaps?

Vince Cable merely told the truth. Maybe it did undermine his objectivity, but I commend him. He had the guts to speak the truth to stand up against Mr Murdoch. Fast forward to 2012, and now all the politicians are doing it.

So following an interview with Sky this weekend, where he said he feels 'vindicated by BSkyB', maybe we should be praising Mr Cable for being an honest politician. He was right all along.

Pictures courtesy of Wikipedia