Truce? USOC boss calls critics 'vocal minority'

There already is strain in that truce between the National Governing Bodies and the U.S. Olympic Committee leadership.

Why?

One day after she made a public commitment to better dialogue with the NGBs – the individual governing bodies for Olympic sports in the United States – the acting chairwoman of the USOC dissed those NGB leaders who have opposed some of her actions as a "vocal minority.’’

Stephanie Streeter used that categorization in a Thursday news conference at the U.S. Olympic media summit, a meeting that allows media one-stop shopping with many of the country’s potential 2010 Winter Olympians and top USOC officials.

Since I had made a point of noting the truce in a Wednesday entry on this Blog, I also made it a point of questioning Streeter about the "vocal minority" label, since the more vocal critics included the chairman and a member of the NGB Council.

I also could have told her that a lot of other NGB leaders had been equally dismayed by the USOC board’s dismissal of Jim Scherr as chief executive in March – and Streeter’s previously deaf ear to their concerns since her taking over in what looked like a coup d’etat, since she was among the board members who ousted Scherr.

USOC thinking about asking Uncle Sam for a handout

For years, the U.S. Olympic Committee has noted, with a mix of pride and pragmatism, that its Olympic teams succeed without any direct funding from the government, making it unique in the Olympic world.

That era could be ending.

International pressure on the USOC to reduce the revenue sharing percentages it gets from global Olympic sponsorship (20%) and U.S. broadcast rights (12.75%) has led the USOC leadership to consider asking for government funding in the future.

"Potential government funding is one of the things we will examine as part of a longer term strategic plan,''  USOC Chairman Larry Probst said today. "Please don't interpret that to mean we will seek government funding. What I am saying is that is something that will be evaluated.''

Chicago bid spurs truce in U.S. Olympic family feud

In the interest of avoiding any negative publicity that could affect Chicago's Olympic bid, the leaders of the U.S. Olympic sports federations -- called National Governing Bodies in Olympic world parlance -- have declared an informal truce in their Olympic family feud with the new USOC leadership.

"Chicago 2016 is the most important objective for everyone in the (U.S. Olympic) movement, and that is the one thing that brings complete consensus at this time,'' said Steve Penny, president and chief executive of USA Gymnastics.

Penny also is a member of the NGB Council, meeting this week in Chicago as part of the annual U.S. Olympic Assembly. He has been outspoken in expressing reservations over the USOC board's decision to dump chief executive Jim Scherr and replace him on an acting basis with board member Stephanie Streeter.

Other NGB leaders also have been very critical of the leadership change, which occurred in March. Many wondered why it could not have waited until after the Oct. 2 vote for the 2016 host city, since the switch only added to a long-held worldwide impression that years of USOC leadership instability were back.

USOC boss shoots down would-be vultures circling Chicago bid

The U.S. Olympic Committee took a potshot Monday at the cities circling Chicago's 2016 Olympic bid like vultures.

Stephanie Streeter, the USOC's acting chief executive, issued a "Statement of USOC Commitment to Chicago 2016.''

That was prompted by recent stories, which drew attention on some Olympic news sites, suggesting Tulsa, Okla.; Pittsburgh, Pa.; Minneapolis; Detroit and Birmingham, Ala., are thinking about bids for the 2020 Summer Games. Such putative bids, preposterous at face value (The Tulsa Olympics?  Riiight...), would be out of the question if Chicago was selected the 2016 host on Oct. 2.

Last winter, the USOC had to tamp down interest in Denver for a 2018 Winter Olympic bid, which also seemingly depended on Chicago's failure. Former USOC spokesman Darryl Seibel said in March: "All our attention is focused on Chicago and supporting its bid.''

(As it turns out, a 2018 winter bid would have been impossible for a U.S. city, because the IOC has set an Oct. 15 deadline for national Olympic committees to submit the name of a candidate, and the USOC could not be evaluating winter bids while working for Chicago's.)

Doping, swimsuit farce and USOC network issues are back

(Clothes make the man: Germany's Paul Biedermann in the soon-to-be banned suit he said was a key factor in beating Michael Phelps at the World Swimming SHAMpionships. Photo: Martin Bureau / Getty Images)

Back from vacation and catching up on new and ongoing stories.  Here are some of them:

1. Watching Universal Sports' live stream of the World Swimming Championships, with picture quality that is clearer than ever, also makes it clearer than ever that the U.S. Olympic Committee should have thrown in with NBC-owned Universal rather than create its own U.S. Olympic Network (referred to hereafter as USON).  Not only did the USOC get on the wrong side of the International Olympic Committee on the network issue, it likely will spend at least $25 million a year -- with no return in the near future, if ever -- on the USON.  That could quickly wipe out the $100 million cash surplus with which the USOC began the 2009-2012 period and be even more telling after 2012, when USOC revenues are expected to be substantially lower than the current quadrennium.

 

2. I asked USON major domo Norm Bellingham, the USOC's chief operating officer, for comment about the financial risk involved (and five other questions), and he politely declined comment on any of them in an effort to "work quietly and effectively with our Olympic partners.''  That clearly referred to problems with the International Olympic Committee, which had blasted the USOC for going forward with the network announcement after being told to hold off.  "Since the announcement of our network, there have been several conversations and exchanges of information between the USOC and the IOC,'' Bellingham told me in an e-mail sent the day before I left on holiday. "Both sides have expressed a determination to reach a solution that is in the best interests of the Olympic movement in the United States and worldwide.''

Numbers game: IOC would be taxed without NBC revenues

Want to know why the International Olympic Committee is backing NBC in its dispute with the U.S. Olympic Committee over the U.S. Olympic Network?

 

It is pretty clear from the numbers in the IOC's 2008 tax filing.

 

Tripp Mickle of Sports Business Journal first posted information about the filing Tuesday. His story emphasized the IOC's $383.3 million profit on a record $2.4 billion revenue for the fiscal year that ended Dec. 31, 2008, noting it was 68% greater than the $228.6 million profit from the previous Summer Olympic year, 2004.

 

The revenue figure that struck me was $1.73 billion in global TV rights for the Beijing Olympics.

 

What the filing wasn't required to say is NBC paid $894 million of that -- a little more than half the total.

USOC words, actions, attitude do Chicago Olympic bid no favors

Since the April day in 2007 the U.S. Olympic Committee announced it had selected Chicago over Los Angeles as the U.S. candidate for the 2016 Summer Olympics, the USOC has done Chicago few favors.

In fact, USOC words and actions over the last year have possibly undermined Chicago's bid and made a mockery of the USOC mantra of an "unprecedented partnership" between the national Olympic committee and a bid city.

 

It began last October, when Peter Ueberroth, in his final public speech as USOC chairman, rebuked the arguments of International Olympic Committee members critical of the USOC's stance in a revenue sharing dispute with the IOC. Ueberroth also reminded everyone in no uncertain that the U.S. corporations still contribute more than 60%of IOC revenues.

 

Chicago 2016 had no advance warning of what Ueberroth would say, which was certain to offend some 2016 voters, no matter if  his points were valid.

The inside stuff: IOC letter to USOC on network dispute

The Chicago Tribune has obtained a copy of the letter sent by the International Olympic Committee to the U.S. Olympic Committee, in which the IOC advised the USOC to hold off on its announcement of a U.S. Olympic cable network.

The USOC chose to go ahead, which put the Chicago 2016 Olympic bid in an awkward position, as Kathy Bergen and I reported in Thursday's Tribune.

An image of the letter is located to the right (click on it to read). Below the jump is an official statement from the IOC, which echoes the strong criticism of the USOC leveled by IOC executive board member Richard Carrion of Puerto Rico and reported in the story.

Click on the thread for the official IOC statement.

Verbruggen on IOC-USOC money flap: Never a serious proposition from USOC

Over the past several months, I have blogged about the ongoing revenue-sharing dispute between the United States Olympic Committee and the International Olympic Committee.

Each time, I have taken the position that former USOC Chairman Peter Ueberroth was correct in taking a hard line about not reducing the USOC share. Sometimes, I have criticized the behavior of two people speaking out on the issue, former IOC member Hein Verbruggen of the Netherlands and current member Denis Oswald of Switzerland. (Oswald is one of three people negotiating for the IOC; the others are Gerhard Heiberg of Norway and Mario Vazquez Rana of Mexico.)

Not long ago, Verbruggen, who has called the USOC share "immoral,'' e-mailed to object to my characterization of him (and Oswald) as "intemperate'' and to contest my basic premise in all the Blogs:  that the USOC is entitled to and needs the revenue it receives by contractual obligation from both the IOC's global sponsorship (TOP) program (20 percent) and U.S. television rights (12.75 percent).

Verbruggen contended in his original e-mail that I had not given him adequate opportunity to explain his convictions in the issue. I wrote back that I had done so, immediately after his first "intemperate" statements a year ago in Greece, but that he had not answered my questions.

A plus for Chicago: IOC-USOC dispute has calmed

LAUSANNE,  Switzerland -- Chicago's Olympic committee certainly had to feel good about one question that wasn't asked after presenting its bid plans Wednesday to International Olympic Committee members.

The ongoing revenue-sharing dispute between the IOC and the U.S. Olympic Committee did not come up, according to IOC member Gerhard Heiberg of Norway, who has been involved for three years in negotiations on this issue.

To Heiberg, that means the members have accepted the agreement announced in late March for a new framework to the negotiations.

"I have not had any IOC member come to me and say, 'This was not right. You should have done it differently,' '' Heiberg said Thursday. "On the contrary, they have said it is fine that this has been put off until after the [2016 host city] election on Oct. 2 so it doesn't interfere, which is what I wanted to achieve.  I haven't had anybody talking to me negatively about this.''

 

The fractious negotiations had become a negative for Chicago's bid.