Controversial USOC Chief Elected to Olympic Board

Were it not for the money generated by the sales of television rights and sponsorships in the United States, most of the 92 members of the International Olympic Committee acknowledge that they would be meeting this week on the picnic grounds of a public park instead of at a plush resort hotel hard by the Caribbean.

Yet, in only three of the last 17 years has the United States been represented on the 11-member executive board, which has been described as the IOC’s equivalent of King Arthur’s Round Table. Only the smartest and bravest need apply.

But the United States re-asserted itself Wednesday when Robert Helmick, a Des Moines, Iowa, attorney, was elected by acclamation to a four-year term on the executive board. He had no opposition.

That firmly established Helmick, 52, as the most influential American in international sports since the late Avery Brundage, the IOC’s president from 1952 to 1972.

An IOC member since 1985, Helmick also is president of the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC), a vice-president of the Pan American Sports Organization and the immediate past president of the International Federation of Amateur Nautical Sports (FINA), which governs swimming, diving and water polo. He was a water polo player at Drake University from 1960-64.

Since Brundage retired from the IOC in 1972, the only American on the executive board has been the late Julian Roosevelt, who served from 1982 until his death in 1986. German Rieckehoff, an IOC member from Puerto Rico, said this week that even Roosevelt might not have been elected if the IOC had not felt it was important to have an American on the executive board during the 1984 Summer Olympics at Los Angeles.

“I don’t have any reservations about saying that the United States has not been well-treated (by the IOC),” Rieckehoff said. “The United States has been very generous. Nevertheless, the little people are suspicious about the big fellow.”

In the initial years after the Brundage administration, there also was resentment toward the United States because of his uncompromising style. About two-thirds of the IOC members have been elected since then, but many of them have found other reasons to take offense, not the least of which was the U.S.-led boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics at Moscow.

Helmick said that the period between 1980 and 1984, when Los Angeles was preparing to stage the Games, also was one of extreme tension between the IOC and the United States.

“There are a good many strained relationships when a country organizes the Games,” Helmick said. “It takes a great deal of compromise and negotiation.”

Left unsaid was that the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee (LAOOC) often was unwilling to compromise. It had no choice in some cases because of its commitment to private financing, which was mandated by the city’s taxpayers. But it also did not have to compromise because the IOC had nowhere else to turn. There were no other viable candidates for the 1984 Summer Olympics.

The L.A. Games reaped unprecedented financial profits, thus making it safe for cities to bid for future Games, but the IOC still slapped LAOOC President Peter Ueberroth’s wrist by refusing to consider him for membership. Helmick was elected as one of two IOC members from the United States in 1985, followed by Anita DeFrantz of Los Angeles in 1986.

More recently, the USOC has been criticized by IOC members for demanding 10% of the rights fees that U.S. television networks pay for the Olympics. From the 1988 Winter Games at Calgary through the 1994 Winter Games at Lillehammer, Norway, that will net more than $150 million for the USOC.

Helmick explained that the USOC simply is replacing lost income. When the networks sell the Olympic rings to sponsors for use in commercials, that damages the USOC’s ability to attract sponsors because it cannot offer them exclusive use of the rings.

Although it may seem mercenary to some IOC members, Helmick said that they do not understand because television in many of their countries is publicly instead of privately financed.

“There is a lot of divisiveness because the IOC is not getting the right information,” Helmick said. “It is not having these things explained. My objective is to bring the IOC and the USOC together. I have told (IOC President Juan Antonio) Samaranch that we (the IOC and the USOC) could work together instead of fighting all the time.

“What’s good for the IOC, and what’s good for the USOC, is to have a USOC member on the executive board. There is a member from the Soviet Union, and there is a member from China. It’s difficult to see how decisions can be made if major countries are not part of those decisions.”

Also considering running for the one executive board position available this year, Rieckehoff decided against it because he also believes the United States should be represented.

“Why should we always have a U.S.S.R. member on the executive board and not the U.S.?,” he asked. “That’s preposterous.”

Helmick was a candidate last September in the IOC session at Seoul, but withdrew largely for political reasons. With four Latin Americans among the six candidates for two positions, he said that he did not want them to be able to say that his candidacy cost them votes if they lost. Dividing their support, they lost.

“I wanted to be able to tell the Latin Americans, ‘Look, I stepped aside last time; now the time is right for me,’ ” Helmick said. Anti-apartheid leader Sam Ramsammy said Helmick won the African votes by supporting the successful candidacy for vice president last year of Senegal’s Keba Mbaye.

But although he is politically astute, Helmick would not win a popularity contest among IOC members. Last year at Seoul, he suggested to DeFrantz, the popular president of the Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los Angeles, that she might be more electable as a candidate for the executive board.

“During that period, there was a certain segment of the IOC that was apparently desirous that I as a person not be on the executive board,” Helmick said.

DeFrantz, 36, said she was approached during the last year by several IOC members, who encouraged her to run for the executive board.

“Talk is cheap among IOC members,” she said. “They might have just been saying that to be nice. But Bob and I discussed it and came to the conclusion that I’ve got plenty to do and I’m enjoying learning.”

She said that they also decided that Helmick is better able to represent the USOC as its president. Even when Roosevelt was on the IOC executive board, the USOC did not benefit because of his antagonism toward the USOC’s president at the time, William Simon.

“The U.S. is a very important National Olympic Committee,” DeFrantz said. “Samaranch has said that it’s the most important NOC. It’s essential that we have eyes and ears on the executive board.”

Rieckehoff said Helmick deserves a place on the executive board “because he has been of great help to every National Olympic Committee in the world who has requested for the United States to help.” He referred to a USOC program that used part of its share of the L.A. Games’ surplus to finance sports programs in other countries.

But on a personal level, some IOC members complain that they do not sense any warmth in their personal contact with Helmick.

“They think he’s distant,” said one person close to the IOC who spoke on the condition that he not be identified. “When he speaks to them, he’s looking over their shoulder as if he’s looking for someone more important. They get the feeling he believes he’s better than them.”

But a television executive from a U.S. network who also asked to remain anonymous said IOC members distrust Helmick because he is independent.

“They can’t get their hooks in him,” he said. “They’re more comfortable with someone they can figure out. But Helmick can’t be controlled. The executive board is supposed to be like King Arthur’s round table, and the king, Samaranch, tells them what to do. Helmick will do what’s best for the United States.”

Helmick said he is not concerned about his popularity.

“Like any organization like this, it’s dynamic and fluid,” he said. “People have a variety of reasons for being for or against one particular person. Alliances change quickly here.”

He said he expects to make enemies by presenting the U.S. agenda to the executive board. But he said he also believes the IOC will benefit from his election.

“I don’t believe the United States is entitled to a member on the executive board,” he said. “But in order for the IOC to make good decisions, they should have the major sections of the world represented on the executive board. I submit that a very important part of the sports world has not been represented. When we are, it will be good not only for the USOC but also for the IOC.”