WITH less than a year before the host city of the 2016 Summer Games is selected, it is perhaps not surprising that the row over the king-sized slice of the Olympic cake currently enjoyed by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) appears to be getting noisier.

 

Chicago’s bid, which has high hopes of success, provides an obvious pressure-point for those who believe that the US slice should be cut down to size.

 

At present, the USOC gets 12.75 per cent of the sums paid for US broadcasting rights to each successive Olympics.

 

It also has a contractual agreement with the International Olympic Committee pertaining to the so-called TOP worldwide sponsorship programme.

 

This, in the USOC’s own words, “stipulates what typically is a 20 per cent share to the USOC”.

 

“However,” the USOC goes on, “the IOC deducts from that share a management fee [which is significant in terms of the overall percentage] and other expenses - all of which means the actual percentage the USOC receives is much less than 20 per cent”.

 

By my calculations, 12.75 per cent of US TV rights fees for the 2001-04 Olympic quadrennium should have equated to $170.7 million (£110.5 million).

 

In the same period, more than 200 other National Olympic Committees got between them $110 million (£71.2 million) from the TOP programme - equivalent to 16.6 per cent of the $663 million (£429.1 million) raised overall - and a $209.5-million (£135.5 million) tranche of broadcasting money, for a total of $319.5 million (£206.7 million). 
 
Complicated situation, simple answer

 

I keep being told how complicated the arrangements are.

 

And no doubt from inside the Movement, if you are thinking about how the present situation arose and what might be done to keep everyone happy, complicated is how it must appear.

 

Looking on from the outside though, I have to say that the key issue looks glaringly simple.

 

For me, the Olympic Movement simply cannot afford to have different rules for different countries.

 

US athletes, after all, are not given bigger table tennis paddles than anyone else, or a five-metre start in the 100 metres (though come to think of it…)

 

Regarding the TV money then, I can see no problem with the USOC getting 12.75 per cent of the large sums stumped up by NBC - provided other national Olympic Committees get the same share of revenues generated from the broadcasting deals covering their respective territories.

 

Such a prospect might see the money men in Lausanne turning rather pale.

 

But with Olympic broadcasting revenues up more than 40 per cent in 2009-12 compared with the previous quadrennium, if ever there was a time when a solution could be worked out along these lines, it is surely now.

 

Moreover, such a structure would incentivise NOCs in countries which have historically got their Olympic broadcast rights on the cheap - China is one that springs to mind, but, some might argue, so is much of Europe - to help the IOC to ratchet up fees.

 

Regarding payments from TOP income, I simply can see no justification why the US should get such favourable treatment.

 

Companies not doing it for charity

 

IOC financial statements covering the four years from 2003-2006 appear to me to indicate that more than $103.6 million (£67 million) of TOP money (12.4 per cent of the total) was distributed to the USOC during this period, compared with $135.4 million (£87.6 million) (16.25 per cent) for other NOCs.

 

The fact that US corporations have traditionally provided a large proportion of funds raised by the programme is, to my mind, completely irrelevant.

 

After all, these are not charitable donations to the Olympic Movement.

 

TOP sponsors, US and otherwise, buy these rights because they see the Olympics as a powerful tool for improving their image, motivating their workforce, lifting sales and augmenting the value of their brands.

 

Or did I get that wrong somehow?

 

What will be interesting to watch if the issue remains contentious into 2009 is whether the USOC and the Chicago bid maintain a common front.

 

After all, the USOC could ill afford to see these funds reduced.

 

I was surprised in Beijing that USOC spokesman Darryl Seibel, under questioning from Roger Blitz, a colleague on the Financial Times, acknowledged that lobbying the US government for funds might be an option.

 

That was in the context of increased sporting competition from China, which topped the Beijing medals table, and others

 

Of course, with much of the industrialised world now mired in financial and economic crisis, it is hard to imagine Washington writing out a cheque for the USOC any time soon.

 

Which presumably makes hanging onto its funding from other sources, such as the Olympic Movement, all the more important.

 

Television growth affected by current climate

 

● Still on the broad subject of TV rights, does the IOC stand any chance of boosting revenues by another 40 per cent in the 2013-16 quadrennium?

 

Frankly, I very much doubt it - especially with negotiations set to take place against a backdrop of economic crisis.

 

Respectable growth, though, may not be out of reach, if early indications are a reliable guide.

 

I am given to understand that this week’s deal with Sky Italia for Italian rights to the 2014 and 2016 Games should raise €152 million (£122.5 million) - up from €112 million (£90.2 million) - a healthy 35 per cent advance.

 

The only other pointer we have so far is the four-Games agreement for Korea, announced two years ago, which foresees a near 20 per-cent increase, from $33 million (£21.3 million) for Vancouver 2010 and London 2012 to $39.5 million (£25.5 million) for 2014 and 2016. 

 

The real key, as ever, will be the US, with negotiations expected from early next year.

 

Before that, we can anticipate more European announcements, including an indication of whether virtually the entire continent will again be covered by a single European Broadcasting Union deal, or whether the process will this time be more fragmented.

 

David Owen is a specialist sports journalist who worked for 20 years for the Financial Times in the United States, Canada, France and the UK. He ended his FT career as sports editor after the 2006 World Cup and is now freelancing, including covering the recent Beijing Olympics