Basking in the euphoria produced by the successful staging of the Games of the 5th Olympiad in Stockholm, Baron Pierre de Coubertin announced a celebration to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the modern Olympic Movement. It was to occur in Paris in June 1914 in the grand chamber of la Sorbonne, the historic birthplace of the modern Olympic Games. But first, there were matters to address. One of them, as it turned out, would have an immense impact on the future financial health of the Olympic Movement – the forging of a symbol, or logo, by which the Olympic Games might be identified. Coubertin accepted this task as his own, and set about to conceptualize the mark. He was familiar with a well-known model from which to draw inspiration. The Union des sociétés françaises de sports athlétiques (USFSA), the powerful French umbrella sports governing body, which he had served as president, adopted two simple interlocked circles as its logo in 1892. Signifying the joining of two groups, the simple two-ring symbol appeared on the jerseys of French athletes who competed internationally from 1896 until the 1920s, when it was replaced by the now well-known French National Olympic Committee symbol.¹ For Coubertin, the Olympic logo puzzle was logically simple. Inspired by the symbolic imagery of the earlier USFSA logo, the concept of interlocked rings formed the basis for the new design. By the end of 1913, a five-ring symbol appeared on Coubertin’s personal letterhead. Although Coubertin did not know it at the time, he had conceived what would become one of the most widely recognized and powerful symbols in the world.

The planned anniversary congress was no small affair. Coubertin found few sponsorship partners to help in financing the endeavor; he paid for most of it himself.² When the French President, International Olympic Committee (IOC) members, sports officials, 32 ambassadors from countries boasting National Olympic Committees (NOCs), along with almost 2,000 guests and members of the world press, presented themselves for the opening of the Congress in Paris on 13 June 1914, they were greeted in the hall by an impressive assembly of 50 Olympic flags, each one embossed with a cluster of five interlocked rings cast in blue, black, red, yellow and green set on a pure white background.³ As the Baron explained in the Olympic Review of August 1913, the five rings represented “the five parts of the world now won over to Olympism and ready to accept its fertile rivalries. Moreover, the six colors thus combined reproduce those of all the nations without exception”.⁴

Within days of the conclusion of the great anniversary celebration, Arch Duke Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo, plunging a seething Europe into war. The Olympic Games scheduled for Berlin in 1916 were cancelled. At the first IOC Session following the November 1918 armistice that signaled the end of World War I, the Games of the 7th Olympiad were officially awarded to Antwerp, the great port city of Belgium.⁵ Stymied from presenting an extravaganza due to the resulting devastation of war, Antwerp authorities focused on organizing the Olympic Games. But lingering visions of “what might have been” descended on some members of the organizing committee, the result of which was the creation of scores of exhibits and displays located around the periphery of the Olympic stadium.⁶ Inside the stadium the Olympic rings would make their official debut along with the first enunciation of the Olympic Oath and the release of doves to symbolize peace.

If Pierre de Coubertin ever harbored apprehension concerning a link between the Olympic Games and the forces of business and opportunism, the commercial atmosphere of the Olympic precinct in Antwerp confirmed his anxieties. In his speech at the opening ceremonies, the Baron challenged the assembled crowd and sports leaders to “keep away the opportunities that come forward [by profit-motivated people] whose only dream is to use someone else’s muscles either to build upon his own political fortune or to make his own business prosper”.⁷

Despite Coubertin’s pronouncement, sport leaders have witnessed the meteoric rise in the power and ability of the modern Olympic Movement to raise vast amounts of revenue from the sale of television rights worldwide and the marriage of the five-ring symbol to the products and marketing activities of various multi-national corporate businesses and manufacturing giants. For example, in the most recent quadrennium (2009–2012), the IOC, on behalf of the Olympic Movement, reported a gross income of more than eight billion U.S. dollars.⁸ By the early 1990s, only a few older IOC members could reflect back on times when each paid their own expenses to the annual Sessions, when the administrative offices in the Château de Vidy encompassed a staff of fewer than ten individuals, when world cities had to be energetically solicited to host Olympic Games, when the IOC’s annual budget was more often in deficit than in the black, indeed, to a time when truly worthy Olympic dreams and initiatives were just that, only dreams, stymied altogether by the lack of financial means to launch them.

By the last two decades of the 20th century, however, leaders of the Olympic Movement, with some 100 years of history and tradition on which to capitalize, began to become far wiser in the ways that money could be made through linkages with business and technology. New wisdom rapidly transferred into vast profits. Most within the Olympic Movement were mightily impressed. Not all, however, could resist the temptations that the prospect of so much money presented. The sordid details disclosed in late 1998 and early 1999 give evidence of this.

Following the revelations reported by Salt Lake City’s ABC 4 Utah (KTVX) in November 1998, the IOC found itself enveloped by a seemingly endless barrage of negative press in December 1998, and the early months of 1999. Despite knowledge of the alleged corruption reported by the media widening beyond simply the Salt Lake City bid committee, the organization’s independent research agency, Sponsorship Research International (SRi), continued their commissioned “Worldwide Study on the Image of Olympism” to examine the imagery of and attitudes towards the Olympic Movement and the Olympic Games.⁹

Identified as the most comprehensive research analysis ever undertaken on the Olympic Movement, this study formed the basis for an overall strategic marketing communications program designed to communicate the attributes of the Olympic Movement and what makes the Olympic Games “special”. The first phase of this study took place in mid-1998 and was comprised of qualitative consumer research, in-depth interviews with members of the Olympic Family (athletes, IOC members, and representatives from the NOCs and International Federations), Olympic marketing partners, and the media, followed by a quantitative consumer study in eleven countries involving some 5,500 respondents.¹⁰ The second phase was conducted in September 1999, and was comprised of a smaller scale quantitative project. Intended to validate the results of the first phase in light of the crisis enveloping the Olympic Movement, the second phase incorporated six of the original countries and Australia, site of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.¹¹

The reported findings of these studies indicated a remarkably high and enduring appreciation for the principles and values that encapsulate Olympism.¹² According to SRi, the results were consistent across all age groups, income levels and transcended all cultures. It was further suggested that the study validated the basic findings of two multi-country public opinion surveys conducted for the IOC in February and March 1999, as well as polls conducted by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) during the same period. These results indicated that despite the events related to the Salt Lake City bid process, the general public continued to hold the Olympic Games, the athletes, and Olympic values in high regard.

Although it would be foolish to suggest the Salt Lake City crisis did not exact a toll on the IOC and those associated with the Olympic Movement, it also provided an opportunity to reexamine some of the fundamental principles that guided the activities of the organization over much of the past century. That said, it should be noted that the philosophical foundation of the Olympic Movement remained intact and perhaps is even more relevant than ever before as we gather to consider the role it has in the creation of modern societies.

Whatever your position on the events tied to the Salt Lake City bid process, it is important to maintain perspective as you reflect on the Olympic Movement and its process of renewal and adaption. Consider the following abbreviated list of achievements it has had over the past thirty years:

• Olympic boycotts have become a welcome relic of the past, and the IOC has played an integral role in demonstrating the uniqueness of the Olympic Games.

• The Olympic Movement has been consistently identified as a powerful and effective social force for good throughout the world. The IOC has thus developed a comprehensive program using sports development as a tool for local socio-economic and human development in cooperation with various United Nations agencies and other organizations.

• The IOC successfully laid the foundation for the establishment of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), an international independent agency composed and funded equally by the sport movement and governments of the world.

• The Olympic Movement has become truly universal, and now includes some 205 National Olympic Committees throughout the world.

• The IOC has achieved a significant degree of financial autonomy, distributing over 90% of its revenues to organizations throughout the Olympic Movement to support the staging of the Olympic Games and to promote the worldwide development of sport. This means that every day the equivalent of USD 3.25 million is redistributed to athletes and sports organizations at all levels around the world.

• The IOC unanimously approved the forty recommendations that comprise Olympic Agenda 2020, a strategic roadmap for the future of the Olympic Movement.

The global recognition of the Olympic Movement is, in part, associated with the uniqueness of its five-ring symbol and the meanings attached to it. For some, it is simply a representation of the Olympic Games, the pinnacle of sporting achievement, while for others, the interlaced rings show the universality of Olympism – a philosophy of life that places sport at the service of humankind. The general public clearly and consistently enunciated the core values they think are both most associated with and most important to the Olympic image when asked by SRi to rank a list of thirty nine words. The highest ranked attributes were: multicultural; global; friendship; peaceful; participation; festive; determination; and patriotic. More recently, four research studies, commissioned by the IOC and carried out by KantarSport, a division of Kantar Media, following the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympic Games, identified the Olympic rings as the most widely# recognized of all brand symbols surveyed.¹³ Consumer participants echoed many of the same attributes highlighted in the study conducted by SRi, strongly associating the Olympic symbol with values such as global, inspirational, friendship, peace, excellence, and diversity.

It is argued that these universal values give the Olympic brand its unique and powerful identity.¹⁴ But if the Olympic Movement is to achieve its aim of “building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practised in accordance with Olympism and its values”, the regular celebration of the Olympic Games and the audience it attracts is essential.¹⁵ The 1986 decision to stagger the Summer and Winter festivals on a biennial basis, beginning with the 1994 Winter Olympic Games, eliminated the four-year lull between Olympic telecasts. With global interest at an all-time high, Sochi 2014 reached an estimated 2.1 billion viewers in 220 countries and territories around the world, while London 2012 had a global reach of 3.6 billion people, the highest in Olympic Games history.¹⁶ Without these “massive worldwide audiences of the Olympic Games and the fact that they do embody true, deep, universal human values, the Olympic symbol would not have reached such power today”.¹⁷

The “Olympic mystique” and the powerful five-ring symbol have also helped the IOC attract some of the world’s leading multinational companies to the organization’s worldwide sponsorship program initially known as “The Olympic Program”, now “The Olympic Partners” (TOP).¹⁸ Launched in May 1985, TOP provides each worldwide Olympic partner with exclusive global marketing rights and opportunities within a designated product or service category. The global marketing rights include partnerships with the IOC, all active NOCs and their Olympic teams, and the two Olympic Games Organizing Committees (OCOGs) and the Games of each quadrennium. TOP have the ability to exercise these rights worldwide and may activate marketing initiatives with all the members of the Olympic Movement that participate in the TOP program.

The support provided by the business community has been crucial to the staging of the Games and the operations of every organization within the Olympic Movement. According to the current IOC President, Thomas Bach, these partners “are by our side all year round and not just for the period of the Olympic Games. They provide essential resources for the entire Olympic Movement, promoting and supporting initiatives that bring the Olympic values to life”.¹⁹ Corporate executives recognized the worldwide popularity of the Games as a promising vehicle for the promotion of a company’s image and products while linking it to the values of the Olympic Movement. Kevin Burke, VISA Inc. Chief Marketing Officer, highlighted this fact when he stated that “the Olympic Games provided exceptional opportunities to connect our message with consumers and drive value for our clients and stakeholders”.²⁰

Numerous editorials have criticized the IOC for its relationship with the business community, suggesting their influence in the Games was far too great. Yet without the infusion of corporate sector support and the careful nurturing of the Olympic brand, there would be fewer athletes at Olympic festivals, fewer events on the Olympic program, fewer bid cities, and greater public debt in cities staging the Games. As reflected in London, as well as other host cities since the 1984 Los Angeles Games, public debt for putting on the Games would have doubled, or, in some cases, even tripled without the gathering of commercial revenue from television and corporate sponsorship sources. “With the sheer size and complexity of today’s Olympic Games,” concedes the former IOC Marketing Director, Michael Payne, “we have reached the point where if there were no sponsors, there would be no Games”.²¹

Each edition of the Olympic Games places the Olympic Movement at the forefront of global consciousness. Although they continue to remain unparalleled celebrations of human possibility, embedded with the unique qualities and values inherent with Olympism, the IOC has undertaken a process of renewal and adaption, as it seeks to address the challenges they are currently facing and those they see on the horizon. With its unanimous adoption at the 127th IOC Session in Monaco on 8 and 9 December 2014, Olympic Agenda 2020 has set “the strategic framework for the Olympic Movement in the coming years”.²² Some of the adopted reforms have already been implemented and a detailed plan for the remainder was presented to the IOC Executive Board in February. Calling the 40 recommendations “pieces of a jigsaw puzzle,” Thomas Bach stated that “When you put them together, a picture emerges that shows the IOC safeguarding the uniqueness of the Olympic Games and strengthening sport in society”.²³ Time will tell if his optimism is well founded. According to the IOC President, however, one thing is certain, “progress needs cooperation” and if the Olympic Movement and its stakeholders “want the values of Olympism – the values of excellence, respect, friendship, dialogue, diversity, non-discrimination, tolerance, fair-play, solidarity, development and peace – to remain relevant in society, the time for change is now”.²⁴

‍

1. The unification of the Union des sociétés françaises de courses á pied with the Comité Jules Simon to form the USFSA is discussed in John J. MacAloon, This Great Symbol: Pierre de Coubertin and the Origins of the Modern Olympic Games, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981, pp. 157–158.

2. For more on the grand scale of the Congress, as well as its agenda business, see Arnd Krüger, “Forgotten Decisions: The IOC on the Eve of World War I,” Olympika, Vol. VI, 1997, pp. 85–98.

3. Actually, Coubertin’s “new” Olympic flag made an unofficial appearance before the public on 5 April 1914 in Chatby Stadium, Alexandria, Egypt, on the dual occasion of celebrating the Pan-Egyptian Games and the 20th anniversary of the birth of the modern Olympic Movement.

4. For a discussion on the development of the Olympic symbol, see Robert Knight Barney, “The Great Symbol,” Olympic Review, November 1992, No. 301, pp. 627–631 and p. 641. Even though Pierre de Coubertin intended the Olympic Games to be an international event from the time of their reestablishment in 1896 in Athens (Greece), it was only at the 1912 Games in Stockholm (Sweden) that the participants first came from all five continents. The Baron’s original pronouncement, however, clearly enunciated “five parts of the world”, not five continents. Fifteen years later, reflecting on the creation of the symbol, Coubertin substituted the word continents for “parts”. Since 1929 the Olympic Charter has stated that the five rings represent the five continents of the world, meaning, from a European perspective, Asia, Africa, Oceania, Europe and the Americas.

5. Nine IOC members convened in Lausanne, Switzerland, in April 1919 to decide the first Olympic Games’ host following the conclusion of the Great War. Yielding to the influence of Belgium’s Count Henri Baillet-Latour, the city of Antwerp was selected over four other candidates in “a unanimous tribute to Belgium”. See Karl Lennartz, The International Olympic Committee – One Hundred Years: The Idea – The Presidents – The Achievements (Lausanne: IOC, 1994), pp. 105–107.

6. The best scholarly account of the organization of the Antwerp Games is by the Belgian researcher Roland Renson. See Roland Renson, La VII Olympiade – Anvers 1920: Les Jeux Ressuscités (Antwerp: Comité Olympique et Interfédéral Belge, 1995).

7. Rapport officiel des Jeux de la VII Olympiade Anvers 1920 (Sportsmuseum Flanders, Leuven, Belgium), p. 52.

8. For an overview of the total revenue generated from each major program managed by the IOC and the OCOGs during the past five Olympic quadrenniums, see International Olympic Committee, Olympic Marketing Fact File, 2014 ed. (Lausanne, International Olympic Committee, December 2013), p. 6.

9. Sponsorship Research International, “Worldwide Study on the Image of Olympism,” Marketing File, 1999, p. 3, International Olympic Committee Archives.

10. The eleven countries involved in the first phase of the study, including sample size, were as follows: Brazil (500); China (500); France (501); Germany (501); Greece (500); Indonesia (512); Japan (500); Mexico (508); Russia (503); Senegal (500); USA (500).

11. The seven countries involved in the second phase of the study, including sample size, were as follows: Australia (501); Brazil (500); China (500); France (500); Russia (504); Senegal (500); USA (504).

12. For a complete overview of the fundamental principles of Olympism, see International Olympic Committee, Olympic Charter (Lausanne, International Olympic Committee, December 2014), p. 11.

13. The data collection, conducted between February 24 and March 18, 2014 on consumers involved 36,000 online interviews evenly distributed across genders and age groups (8 to 65-year-olds) in sixteen countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, United Kingdom and the United States of America). The data was weighted by contribution of eligible population to better represent the world population. For a summary of the four research studies (Consumers, Athletes, Spectators, and Broadcast), see “IOC Research Sochi 2014”, KantarSport, accessed April 19, 2015, http:// www.olympic.org/Documents/Games_Sochi_2014/Research-directive-Kantar.pdf.

14. According to Jean-Noël Kapferer, the Olympic brand transcends sport and can be identified as more than a brand. See “The Power of the Rings”, International Olympic Committee, April 4, 2015, accessed April 18, 2015, http://www.olympic.org/news/the-power-of-the-rings/242525.

15. International Olympic Committee, Olympic Charter (Lausanne, International Olympic Committee, December 2014), p. 15.

16. For additional marketing information on Sochi 2014 and London 2012, see International Olympic Committee, Marketing Report, Sochi 2014 (Lausanne, International Olympic Committee, July 2014); and International Olympic Committee, Marketing Report, London 2012 (Lausanne, International Olympic Committee, December 2012).

17. Jean-Noël Kapferer, “The Power of the Rings”, International Olympic Committee, April 4, 2015, accessed April 18, 2015, http://www.olympic.org/news/the-power-of-the-rings/242525

18. For a complete discussion of TOP, see Robert Barney, Stephen Wenn, and Scott Martyn, Selling the Five Rings: The International Olympic Committee and the Rise of Olympic Commercialism. Revised Edition, Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, University of Utah, 2004.

19. International Olympic Committee, Marketing Report, Sochi 2014 (Lausanne, International Olympic Committee, July 2014), p. 43.

20. International Olympic Committee, Marketing Report, Sochi 2014 (Lausanne, International Olympic Committee, July 2014), p. 80.

21. Olympic Marketing Fact File (Lausanne: International Olympic Committee, 1998), p. 7.

22. “The Power of the Rings”, International Olympic Committee, April 4, 2015, accessed April 18, 2015, http://www.olympic.org/news/the-power-of-the-rings/242525.

23. “Olympic Agenda 2020: Strategic roadmap for the future of the Olympic Movement un- veiled,” last modified November 18, 2014, http://www.olympic.org/news/olympic-agenda-2020-strategic-roadmap-for-the-future-of-the-olympic-movement-unveiled/241063.

24. Olympic Agenda 2020: 20+20 Recommendation (Lausanne: International Olympic Committee, 2015), p. 3.

‍

MARTYN Scott G.,"The power of a sympol: Enabling Olympic dreams and initiatives through",in:K.Georgiadis (ed.), Olympic Movement: The process of renewal adaption, 55thInternational Session for Young Participants (Ancient Olympia,23/5-6/6/2015),InternationalOlympic Academy, Athens, 2016, pp.138-147.

‍