IOC & U$OC rights

Members Area In the News
1

Rogge calls for a change to Olympic TV rights deal with USOC

121st IOC SessionSummer Sports0 Wednesday 7th October 2009

IOC President Jacques Rogge has hit out at an existing television rights deal with the US Olympic Committee, claiming it no longer reflects the current situation.

TIME FOR A CHANGE: IOC President Jacques Rogge believes existing TV deal must be changed

:eek:At present, the USOC receives 12.75 percent of Olympic television rights fees and 20 percent of global marketing revenues - because of the involvement of US companies - in an open-ended contract.

The IOC generates more than half of its revenues from television rights and deals with the USA tend to be worth more than the rest of the world combined.

US broadcaster NBC paid $2.2bn for the 2010 Winter Olympics and the 2012 London Games and in 1995 paid $3.5bn for the five Olympics between 2000 and 2008.

But the fact that the USOC receives a larger cut than the rest of the world put together is a sore point among IOC members, and Rogge revealed the current contract will be scrutinised in 2013.

“As you know there is a contract in place which the IOC signed with the US Olympic Committee, who receive 12.75 per cent of TV revenues,” he said.

"But the Olympic Movement feels this no longer reflects the situation today.

"We have been able to reach an agreement with the USOC to renegotiate the contract in 2013 with regards to the revenues in 2020.

“The USOC is also looking into setting up its own TV channel but they have agreed to delay any thoughts of this until after a comprehensive study has been done.”

The fact that the existing deal is so heavily weighted in the USOC’s favour, was arguably a key contributing factor in Chicago’s dramatic failure in their bid to win the right to host the 2016 Games.

Rio’s victory was just as dramatic but with the TV rights for the 2014 and 2016 Olympics yet to be sold in the USA Chicago’s defeat is likely to drive the price down.

But Rogge stood by the IOC’s decision to delay the sale of the rights in the USA, and defended the new strategy.

“We are no longer giving the rights exclusively to one partner,” he added. [b]"But in all cases the IOC will continue to drive free to air broadcast rights as a priority.

“This allows us to maximise the TV audience as well as utilising new multimedia platforms.”[/b]

2

Oct 7, 6:01 AM EDT

IOC reserve fund grows to $455 million

COPENHAGEN (AP) – The International Olympic Committee’s reserve fund is still growing despite the global financial crisis.

IOC president Jacques Rogge said Wednesday that the committee’s reserve fund grew to $455 million at the end of August. At the end of 2001, the fund was worth $105 million. It grew to $422 million by the end of 2008.

The IOC can “be confident about the future,” Rogge said.

On other issues, Rogge said the IOC will continue to demand that broadcasters deliver the games on free TV. Speaking to a meeting of the IOC, he also said the committee will work closely with Interpol against irregular betting and match-fixing.

Rogge described the fight against doping as “our absolute priority” and said the IOC would have “no hesitation” about calling in police to investigate suspected doping.

IOC marketing revenues in 2009-12 will climb to at least $883 million, “and negotiations are still underway,” Rogge said. Sponsors have already pledged $563 million for 2013-16 “and more are in the pipeline,” he added.

The IOC’s television revenues grew to $3.8 billion for 2010-12 and $920 million has been secured so far for 2014-16.

3

Can someone explain, outside of jealousy, why it is a big deal the US receives a greater % of the revenues than any other country, when the contribution is significantly greater than what they (the US) receive as it is?

4

Besides any of this, lets look at the math. If the USOC gets more than all the rest of the world combined, that’s at most 24% of the money coming in worldwide going out. Think about what the IOC does with the rest of the loot.

5

probably goes to their own pockets…ummm…But as far as a greater number of t.v. partners it seems this might lead to a lose or maybe a gain in true coverage, wonder what it will really lead to???

6

They got 3.5 billion last time and now Rogge is complaining about sharing. Sounds like the guy is pretty dumb to me - a sentiment I gathered after his idiotic comments about Bolt in Beijing.
It’s called biting the hand that feeds you.
Under him, the IOC will wind up with a bigger share of a much smaller pie, but this is what happens when small minds are more concerned with others getting anything than the amount the IOC gets. I wonder what Dick Pound must think of all this since he’s the one who engineered the current mega-deals.

7

I couldn’t agree with you more. The IOC is being myopic in their greed and as such will generate a much smaller surplus. Depending on how revenues are measured, if the US generates more than 50% of revenues, then having >50% of the available commission makes sense (I would make allowances based on how sponsorship revenues are generated - US firms may be pumping in the money, however exposure in the global market is one factor that needs to be taken into account when attributing the revenues. For instance Although VISA are an American based firm, the international market for credit and debit cards is less saturated than the US domestic market and the Olympics may increase revenues for visa to a greater degree in these countries.)