An Olympian Task: Reform

The International Olympic Committee is an institution steeped in power, privilege and cronyism, so it’s no wonder that reform is coming slowly--way too slowly--following the scandals surrounding the selection of Salt Lake City as the site of the 2002 Winter Games.

The sports community should not be content with current proposals. Without more intense change, the IOC may never regain the respect it once had. Reform-minded IOC members, leaders of national Olympic committees and heads of the various sports federations must increase the pressure for improvement.

The snail’s pace of current change was documented by Times writers Alan Abrahamson and David Wharton on Sunday in the final installment of a series on the IOC in this Olympic year. The report is pessimistic: It may be years before all IOC financial records are made public; the new ethics commission has yet to hire a single officer, and many IOC officials are openly laughing at a new rule against members visiting prospective Olympic sites.

The 113-member IOC still conducts its most important business--the election of its president and the selection of the Olympic sites--in secret. Ethics experts and others say it’s impossible to have a truly representative and accountable body as long as such critical decisions are cloaked in secrecy.

Historically, the IOC has made its own rules, appointed its own officials and answered mostly to itself. It is dominated by European representatives, some of them royalty. Pressure for change became overwhelming after the disclosure in December 1998 that some members of the IOC received $1 million or more in what amounted to bribes and favors from the Salt Lake City organizing committee seeking to bring the 2002 games to Utah. Two former Salt Lake officials are under federal indictment. Six IOC members were expelled, others were disciplined, and a commission was appointed to propose reforms.

Of the 50 or so reforms adopted in the spring of 1999, one of the best was a ban on IOC member visits to cities that are bidding to host games. Even so, Rio de Janeiro, seeking the 2012 Summer Games, spent $3 million to host the IOC Executive Committee and representatives of national Olympic committees for four days in May. The lavish parties did not violate the ban because the official bidding period has not begun.

A better solution would establish a site selection committee whose expenses are paid exclusively by the IOC, barring them from taking favors or being otherwise beholden to host cities or countries. The IOC, flush with cash from commercial sponsors of the games and the sale of television rights, can certainly afford it.

The Sydney Summer Games open in September and attention will be focused on the athletes, as it should be. But IOC officials will not escape further scrutiny of their organization and their personal honor. The more willingly the IOC embraces tougher reforms, the more support it will be able to retain from athletes and the public. Continued waffling will surely harm the games themselves.