IOC’s I Owe You

After months of debating, arguments and counter arguments, the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) finally made its recommendation for the future use of the 2012 London Olympic Stadium once the Games are over. With three viable options on the table, the OPLC had to decide between the various avenues presented to them. One of which was retaining the original plan as intended during London’s initial Olympic bid, in making the stadium a purpose built 25,000 all-seater athletics venue. Or go with one of the two football alternatives offered in the shape of West Ham United and Tottenham Hotspurs, who were both vying to use the stadium as its base for home matches.

With the potential of football matches being played at the stadium every other weekend, and guaranteeing events at the site for a large portion of the year eradicating under use, it was always likely that one of these two options was always going to get the nod. Particularly if one looks at Olympics past, 23 of the principal stadiums used have gone on to regularly stage international football matches, with eight of these stadiums becoming the home of football clubs.

As predicted the OPLC went with one of the two football selections, and recommended that the stadium be primarily used as a new home for West Ham United Football Club. Although this decision needs to be rubber-stamped by the London Mayor, Boris Johnson and two government departments, it is expected that this approval will be ratified in due course. A package that in my opinion, and to many others was won on three key factors when compared to its football and bidding rival.

The first of which is close proximity of the Hammers club to the Olympic Stadium within East London. With a 2.7 miles journey from current ground of Upton Park (Boleyn Ground) where the club have been since 1904 to the new Olympic Stadium, its locality is of key convenience to what is traditionally an East End club with key ties to the community. With this, the club’s proposal also had the backing of the local borough. As Newham, the area where both the club and Olympic stadium are situated within supported the idea of West Ham’s potential move.

A point where Spurs fell short on with the fact that if successful, their proposal would mean a relocation of 7.2 miles of the club, and its supporters out of the Tottenham area. A factor which naturally did not lend itself to most of its followers, Haringey Council where the club presently lie within, and its proposed new area of Newham and its respective council. 

The second point, was Tottenham’s proposal was based around substantially demolishing the stadium’s structure once the Games were over and turning the stadium into predominantly a football ground. A point that would cause great controversy in taking down a stadium that cost £500 million to erect. In tough economic times, the public outcry at such an act if approved would probably have been immeasurable, and a key issue which brings me nicely to ultimately the third reason why the West Ham package was successful.

The West Ham proposal would tie in with what the London Olympic bid promised in 2005, when it was selected to host the 30^th Olympiad. An Olympic bid that claimed and was won on creating a lasting legacy, and promised a staging of sport that contributes beneficially to both the East London region, and somewhat to the country in coming years. Though I personally cannot see how those not living in London or the South-East of Britain can benefit once the Olympics are over. But nevertheless this is what was intended, along with a stadium that holds athletics at its core. 

Led by West Ham club owners David Sullivan, David Gold, and vice-chairwoman Karen Brady, the trio stated publicly a 60,000 seated multipurpose stadium as part of its campaign. A plan that has been replicated in 25 of the other previous Olympic Games, and ensuring that the stated legacy the London Olympic bidding team announced is delivered. Personally I think deep down the key protagonists at West Ham United Football Club would not want an athletics track encasing the football pitch. But to secure its proposition as a favourable candidate; the club have had to digest this hurdle and find a common ground in going forward to make a strong case for residency in the Olympic Stadium.

But all this kerfuffle regarding the Games and its main stadium, has left me pondering should it really come to this grand public tussle for a decision to be made on what happens to the Olympic Stadium? Shouldn’t this have all been decided long before an Olympic bid even took place? Shouldn’t the IOC enforce that there is a prerequisite that any bidding nation looking to host the Olympics, should have to declare their chief use for what happens to the respective Olympic Stadium that they intend to use for the Games?

Naturally I do recognise that it is hard to predict the future and foresee what was set out initially if strict this course is followed, may not necessarily be executed in the long run as unplanned factors can cause forced adaptable changes. I do accept currently each nation to the best of its abilities; do try to lay out some sort of provision plan for what their stadium will be used for after the Games. However, underlined within the financial circumstances the world finds itself in and its foreseeable future, it is such sporting administrators like the IOC, FIFA, ICC and their respective equivalents that propose and offer these events of magnitude in the first instance.

With countries looking to offer diverse levels of grandeur to these events and wooing such bodies, all in an effort to help ensure these grand occurrences come to their nations and showcase their states to the world, putting on these extravaganzas are risky ventures. Especially in trying to ensure that the facilities to be used are of a particular immense code and particular standard that appeases the sporting body. Usually of which requires new buildings to be built. But as custodians of these sporting events, such bodies should take a greater responsibility in the process of building a legacy, and the venue/s use once each of their spectaculars come to pass.

A good friend of mine showed me a report that all the stadiums used in the 2010 World Cup are now running at a loss and are not overly utilised. This statistic is compounded with exactly half of the venues used to stage the football tournament, were new and specialised built for the World Cup. But stand as icons of past sporting brilliance, but an unclear future.   

Many cynics amongst you may feel that such sporting bodies are not concerned with such matters and only will look at the profit margin once their shows are all over. This possibly maybe true, but the thing that strikes me also with all this discussion is that one key aspect is being overlooked here. If we use the Olympics as an example, once the Games road show leaves the respective towns and countries in which they are held, never mind about the main stadium what happens to all the other newly laid buildings and venues aside?

In London’s case will all of the newly constructed buildings really be utilised fully? Look at the farce that was London’s Millennium Dome, a multi-million pound project that nobody knew what to do with once the building was completed. For years it was housed as an expensive derelict land that was a nonentity, until entertainment group Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) brought the site and have turned the venue into one of the most popular entertainment districts in the world. With an arena that will indeed host some of the sporting events during the 2012 Olympics. But look at how for such a prolonged period of time the site was not used and was looked upon as a white elephant. Is this what awaits the Olympic Park and its associated venues?  

With billions now seamlessly being spent to stage the Olympics successfully and £9.3 billion being spent on the upcoming London 2012 Games, future Olympic host organising committees and the IOC cannot afford to let such questions go unanswered.