Michael Paye, former marketing director of the IOC (1988-2004), is releasing a book about the behind-the-scenes aspects of the commercial development of sport, entitled Fast Tracks & Dark Deals: How Sport Became Business and Business became Sport (Chiselbury Publishing). With a foreword by former IOC President Thomas Bach and Formula One founder Bernie Ecclestone, it will be released on November 17. In the meantime, its author tells us about this book, the result of twenty months of reflection on his entire career.
Part of your book is titled "The Imminent Extinction of a Dinosaur." Were the Games really threatened with extinction in the 1970s?
Today, with billions of dollars at stake, there's competition. When I joined the IOC, there was no money, and the list of cities wanting to host the Games wasn't very long. For 1984, there were two initial candidates: Tehran and Los Angeles. Tehran withdrew due to the country's political evolution, and Los Angeles was concerned that the Games had crippled Montreal's finances. There were no prospects; most commentators at the time were writing the obituary for the Olympic Games. "It's become too big, too political, it won't continue…" »
Even Samaranch, once in Lausanne, wanted to resign as president when he saw the IOC's accounts! He hadn't realized how bad they were. People forget that the Games came so close to stop. It's important to remember that sometimes: you can't take anything for granted. At the time, sports were starting to develop on television, and it was clearly a stepping stone for the IOC to move away from bankruptcy. I was hired to create the very first sponsorship program. Few people believed in it, but it was probably a turning point from a business perspective.
And today you write that " Under Bach's leadership, the commercial performance of the Olympic Movement increased exponentially" and that "such a level of success is not easy to maintain" ».
Absolutely. The Paris Games, arguably the greatest Olympics of all time, were phenomenal. But at the same time, there are two dark clouds on the horizon: one is political—we're seeing the increasing use of sport as a political weapon, politicians using sport to push a political agenda. And then, on the commercial side: the market is undergoing fundamental changes. The broadcasting market, the way people consume sport, the sponsorship market—all of this is evolving at breakneck speed. If the IOC doesn't change very quickly, there will be a major problem on the horizon.
Isn't this change already happening? We'll see for the first time in 2028 the official naming of competition venues.
I think we're making it out to be something much bigger than it actually is. In 2002, in Salt Lake City, the figure skating event was held at the Delta Center. Half the people were calling it like this (while the venue was officially renamed Salt Lake Ice Center for the Games).Many venues have a sponsored name these days. The name is on the stadium, on the ticket, on the map, but there's no exposure within the stadium itself, on the field. If there's nothing inside the stadium, the advertising and visibility are actually quite limited. It's not as big a deal as people make it out to be.
So, in your opinion, it's more of a communication strategy than a genuinely new approach?
The TOP program has existed for almost 50 years. Clearly, it needs to evolve. Having advertising all around the track and across the athletes would give the impression that the Olympic Games are just like any other sporting event. And one of the most valuable things about the Games is that they are different. Introducing advertising around the track would completely undermine what broadcasters pay for. NBC pays a lot to sell ad space during the Games. Why not provide each of the 10.000 athletes with a one-minute clip of their performance 24 hours later? A portion of the footage is kept exclusive for the broadcaster, and then it's distributed via social media, where each athlete has an engaged and interacting community. That's the future. It's not about having a name written on the sidelines of a track.
What do you think of the debates on the involvement of companies like Total or Aramco in sponsoring competitions, at a time when sport is increasingly talking about environmental sustainability?
Let's be honest: sport needs to adopt the best practices in today's society, in terms of governance, environmental standards, and so on. But sport isn't going to solve all the world's problems either. There are limits to what we can realistically expect. If governments want to ban certain categories of partners, fine, but will they pay to fill the gap? In France, Anne Hidalgo blocked Total's sponsorship. This probably gave her credibility on environmental issues, but it left a hole in the organizing committee's budget. There could also be a debate about the presence of Coca-Cola or McDonald's in sport. Is it healthy? In Coca-Cola's case, the Games were a catalyst for introducing a wider range of beverages, including healthier options. I remember that in Sydney, under pressure from Greenpeace, Coca-Cola also changed its standards to move towards refrigeration systems without hydrofluorocarbons.
Bernie Ecclestone, Thomas Bach and Michael Payne, reunited in 2020.
What is your view on the future of the Winter Games, with the potential integration of sports such as cyclo-cross, cross-country, or even sports currently on the program of the Summer Games, such as judo? Sebastian Coe put forward this idea.
With all due respect to Lord Coe, I disagree. The brand of the Winter Games is, fundamentally, snow and ice. If you start adding indoor venues, you narrow down the pool of candidates to host the Games. I think there will be a debate after Milano-Cortina. It will be impossible for a spectator to see both skating and skiing on the same day; they'll have to choose. Is that a good idea? Do we lose something with such a dispersed Games? There are plenty of places that offer a more intimate solution. Salt Lake City will be compact. If you go to Asia—Japan, China, Korea—and Europe, you can also have more compact Games: in the Alps with Annecy and Geneva, in Austria, in the Nordic countries, and so on. To host the Olympic Games, you still have a good selection of major destinations. On the other hand, adding more indoor events would limit the options.
International federations have recently expressed some concerns about competition from private leagues. Indeed, you predict that " In the next twenty years, the NFL will try to buy World Rugby" because by bringing together American football, which has "money, ambition ", and rugby, which has "culture, contacts and platform ", the NFL "could finally achieve what it has always wanted: an international presence and a formidable talent pool ».
I wanted to illustrate the pace at which things are changing by projecting myself into the coming years. In terms of governance, no international federation should take for granted that it has a god given right to govern. Look at what happened in golf with LIV. If the NFL and World Rugby were two separate companies, considering the NFL's global ambition and its unlimited budget, from a purely business perspective, a hostile takeover would be inevitable. In tennis, years ago, we saw players rebel against theestablishment and form the ATP. The message is that if you are an IF and it is considered that you are not managing your sport properly, if you are not developing it, if you are not serving your community, someone else could come and do it in your place.
In this context, you cite the example of modern pentathlon in your book. Is the UIPM an example of boldness and renewal?
In essence, the IOC said that it was game overThe UIPM had no way out. Prince Albert, the honorary president of the federation, invited me to the Palace to ask for my help. I told him: "Sorry, but I don't think there's anything we can do, it's over. "He insisted. I assembled a group of experts who knew nothing about modern pentathlon, but who were experts in television, marketing, and branding. We spent a day with the board and the athletes' commission. We told them: " You have two options: either you ignore what we are going to tell you, and that's it, or you listen carefully, show courage, and we will replace horseback riding with Ninja Warrior." Some people looked at us like we were crazy. But in the end, we had a roadmap for reinventing sport. What do children do in the garden? They kick a ball, they shoot at each other, or they play with obstacles. It fits perfectly.
The world of sport must be careful not to isolate itself in an ivory tower. It's crucial to understand that if people don't engage, if they don't participate, if they don't watch, you weaken yourself. You must continue to evolve, to progress. Wrestling went through a similar journey about ten years ago: the leadership changed, a visionary and aggressive president, Nenad Lalovic, transformed the sport, changed the rules, and it was another sport that said goodbye to the Olympic program. No one is immune. Trck and field continues to enjoy a privileged status, but outside the Games, there are challenges. This was evident at the World Championships in Oregon, Nike's home state. (in Eugene, in 2022)They did not fill the stadium.
