OLYMPIC AGENDA 2020

THE BID EXPERIENCE
Evaluation of the Winter Games Bids 2010 – 2018 and Recommendations for the
IOC’s Olympic Agenda 2020
June 20141

Table of Contents

1 Reason Why

3

2 Methodology

5

3 The Process of Bidding

6

3.1 Selling vs. Buying the Games6

3.2 Bid Budget and Deliverables

7

3.3 Technical Evaluation vs. Host City Election

8

4 The Costs of the Games9

4.1 Budget Structure

9

4.2 Operational Risk

10

5 The Scale of the Games11

5.1 Venue Demand and Legacy

11

5.2 Accommodation of the Olympic Family

12

5.3 Sustainability and Environmental Impact

13

6 Conclusion

14

Imprint

15

2

1 Reason Why

The Olympic Games is the core of the Olympic Move-(1) Uniqueness of the Olympic Games

ment. The way the host city is chosen and the(2) Athletes at the heart of the Olympic Movement

Games are prepared and managed determines the(3) Olympism in action:

appeal, the possible impact and the value of the

keeping Olympism alive 365 days a year

Olympics and must therefore be in harmony with the(4) The IOC’s role: unity in diversity

basic values of the Movement.

(5) IOC structure and organisation

Under the presidency of Dr. Thomas Bach, the Ex-

Under point 1, the EB clearly formulates the refor-

ecutive Board (EB) of the International Olympic

mation of the bidding procedure as a major prereq-

Committee (IOC) commenced work on the future

uisite to ensure unique Olympic Games in the future.

strategic direction of the Olympic Movement. The

The bidding procedure shall be reviewed “to make itfindings will be incorporated in the Olympic Agenda

more appealing and more flexible” and “to allow for

2020, the strategic roadmap of the IOC which is ex-

more diversity”2. The EB discussed all themes duringpected to be finalised by the end of 2014.

the 126th IOC Session in Sochi in February 2014 andassigned working groups which will present concrete

The basic underlying objective is to further promote

recommendations for each theme in December 2014sustainability, credibility and youth within the Olym-in an extraordinary IOC Session in Monaco. In addi-

pic Movement. In order to achieve the set goals, thetion, President Dr. Thomas Bach invited all individual

EB identified five key themes that need to be ad-members of the National Olympic Committees

dressed in the agenda:(NOCs) as well as interested members of the public
to contribute to the debate.

Figure 1: “Olympic Agenda 2020”1

1

Source: Olympic Agenda 2020, proposed approach. 126th
IOC Session, 5-6 February 2014.

2

See: Olympic Agenda 2020, Part 1: The Uniqueness of
the Olympic Games. 126th IOC Session, 5-6 February
2014.

3

1 Reason Why

In this context, the collective of the Austrian Olym-

Yet, it would be an oversimplification to limit the

pic Committee, the German Olympic Sports Confed-

problem’s analysis to these grounds. The affectederation, the Swedish Olympic Committee and thecommittees therefore initiated a comprehensive re-

Swiss Olympic Association decided to share their lat-view of past bid processes to identify the challenges

est experience in bidding with the IOC. All four com-of the current bidding procedure as well as to pro-mittees were planning Olympic bids in the recent

pose possible solutions. This initiative shall not be

past: the Austrian Olympic Committee was consid-

interpreted as criticism, but rather as a basis for dis-ering a bid of Vienna for the 2028 Olympic Games

cussions and an impetus for new ideas which may

while the German, the Swedish and the Swiss Olym-be valuable for the development of the Olympic

pic Committees were looking into the possibility ofAgenda 2020. It is the main aim of all parties in-bidding for the 2022 Olympic Winter Games. The

volved to support the IOC in keeping the Olympic

striking element welding all four committees to-brand attractive. We are all part of the Olympic

gether is the fact that all above mentioned bids wereMovement and we strongly believe in the Olympic

not lost in the official bid process, but due to a lack

Values and the uniqueness of the Olympic Games.

in national or at least regional public or political sup-The recommendations presented herein intend to

port. In Switzerland and Germany, citizens rejected

strengthen the idea of the Olympic Games always

potential bids in public referenda with 53%, in Swe-bearing in mind the vision of compact Games withden national politics decided not to support a bid andshort distances, close-by venues and a central

in Austria public opposition even received 72% in a

Olympic Village. The overall aim is to rethink thereferendum. And the trend continues: As this paper

bidding procedure in order to reduce complexity andis issued, Krakow, one of five candidates left in theincrease transparency and flexibility for potential bid

race for 2022, just had to withdraw its bid as almost

cities. It is necessary to ensure that the require-

70% of its citizens opted against hosting the Games.

ments and the procedures in place allow for more

Oslo, now one of four candidates, is also struggling

nations to successfully put forward bids in the fu-

as one of the Norwegian government parties voted

ture. Because ultimately each of the participating

against supporting the bid. The latest opinion poll

NOCs is driven by the motivation to host the Games

conducted in Norway showed that 60% of the publicin their countries and wants to open the door for fu-

was against the bid, with only 35% in favour.

ture Olympic bids.

What is the problem of established European nations

To achieve this goal, it is crucial to strengthen theto bid for the Olympics? The grounds cited soundconfidence of the public in the Olympic Movement.

very similar in all four countries: public and politics

We owe it not least to our countries to voice the dif-seemingly fear the high costs of bidding for andferent concerns which arose in the process of pre-hosting the Games, especially in the aftermath ofparing the latest bids. This seems to be an elemen-

the increase of costs that was witnessed in Sochi astary first step in order to gain more credibility andwell as concerns relating to human rights and sus-

integrity within our countries.

tainability. The situation is aggravated by the media
picturing mistrust in the IOC.

4

2 Methodology

The paper at hand has been developed in two steps:

bid cities as well as the official reports of the IOC’sin a first step, a thorough analysis and evaluation ofWorking Group and Evaluation Commission.

the past three Winter Olympic Games bid processes

The findings of this review formed the basis for thewas conducted. The results of this review were pre-subsequent workshop.

sented to the management of all four involved NOCs
in a joint workshop in Frankfurt / Main in May 2014.
The workshop provided the opportunity to openly

Discussion
Findings

andInterpretationof

Review

discuss and interpret the results, the underlying

Organised under the auspices of the German Olym-grounds and possible future actions and forms the

pic Sports Confederation, the Austrian, German,

second integral part of this paper.

Swedish and Swiss Olympic Committees met inFrankfurt in May 2014 to discuss the findings of thebid process review. The workshop team, comprising
executives of all four participating National Olympic
Committees, identified eight high priority challenges
within the IOC requirements and the bid process,Figure 2: Methodological Approach3

Review of Olympic
2010 – 2018

Winterwhich may be addressed in the Olympic Agenda

Games

Bids

2020, and discussed possible approaches how totackle these challenges.

In order to obtain reliable information on the scaleand development of bidding procedures, it was de-

The paper at hand subsumes all eight theses undercided to evaluate the bids of the past three fully

the following three major topics:

completed bid processes for Olympic Winter Games,
i.e. 2010, 2014 and 2018. The focus on Winter(1) The Process of Bidding

Games derived not only from the fact that all in-(2) The Costs of the Games

volved NOCs were engaged in bids for Winter Games(3) The Scale of the Games

lately, but was also based on the experience that thechallenges in bidding for Winter Games are even

The first of the following chapters focusses on the

more pressing than in bidding for Olympic “Sum-bidding procedure whereas the second and the thirdmer” Games.

chapter rather concentrate on the requirements the
IOC puts on bid and host cities. Each of the identified

The past three bid processes were compared andchallenges will be shortly elaborated including prac-evaluated with special emphasis on the development

tical recommendations which may already be imple-of legacy splits, costs for competition venues, ac-mented for the 2024 / 26 bidding processes.

commodation figures, budgets and revenue potentials. All data used has been acquired only by official
sources, i.e. the application and candidature files of3

Source: Own Illustration

5

3 The Process of Bidding

3.1 Selling vs. Buying the Games
Observations
The developments in the latest bid race for the 2022
Olympic Winter Games make it very clear that it has
become increasingly difficult for established sports
nations to communicate the Olympic values and thebenefits that arise from bidding and hosting theGames. Citizens as well as politics mainly focus on
the demands the IOC makes but barely know about
the great support it provides. As a result, more andmore nations, especially European nations, either
not dare to submit an application any more or with-

Recommendations
It is utmost important to proactively communicate
the social and economic benefits of bidding andhosting the Games. But in order to do so, the IOC
has to provide interested cities and NOCs with more
information and has to support them in dealing with
IOC-related criticism (e.g. with regards to the Host
City Contract, the revenue distribution, etc.).
Furthermore, it may be necessary to adapt the IOC’s
bid terminology to serve the needs of explaining thedraw it later on as just happened in Stockholm andproject to a broader public; for example, the budget

Krakow. This trend can also be observed when look-structure is quite confusing for uninvolved citizens.

ing at the nations that re-apply for the Games: The

A crucial factor in this context is timing: It is highly

number of nations that apply for the Olympic Games

recommended that the IOC enters a dialogue pro-for a second time after an unsuccessful bid signifi-

cess with a city and it’s NOC as soon as a city ex-

cantly decreased within the past five bid cycles. In

plains interest in bidding. Apart from content-related

the current race for 2022 is no single nation that bid

support in form of concrete information, media kits

for the 2018 Winter Games.

and a more transparent and active communication,
the IOC might also think about financial support toco-fund communication campaigns in interested
countries. Such funds could be supplied by the
Olympic Solidarity Programme and would help to see
the IOC not as a counterpart but as a partner forinterested cities.

Summary›

Actively communicate benefits of bidding andhosting the Games›

Start dialogue processes with interested cities
at earliest possible stage›

Support cities that deal with IOC-related criticism with information and financial resources›
Figure 3: “Re-bidding” nations 2006-20224

4

Adapt bid terminology to serve the needs of abroader public

Source: Own Illustration / Mini Bid Books 2006-2022

6

3 The Process of Bidding

3.2 Bid Budget and Deliverables
Observations
Monitoring the development of bid budgets of thelast three bid processes reveals a remarkable trend:
the official bid budgets have more than quadrupledin the last three processes. A city bidding for the
Games 2010 spent an average budget of USD 9.5
million for the two-year-period preceding the IOC’s
host city election, whereas a city bidding for the
Games 2018 invested an average of USD 34 million.
It is also worth noting that the budgets of the firstphase of bidding increased just as much as for thesecond phase. The bid budget finances all activities
of a city during the bid process including the development of an operational concept for the Games aswell as the production of the application and candidature file. The major share, however, is spent formarketing and PR campaigns during the bid. Similar
to the development of bid budgets, the volume of acity’s application file has also increased in the lastyears. The pages of the Mini Bid Book, the file thathas to be submitted during the first phase of bidding, have almost doubled from the bid process
2014 to 2022. These developments form a sharp
contrast to the IOC’s demands to lower the thresh-

Recommendations
As it was already clearly stated in the presentation
during the 126th IOC Session, the two-phase bidding
procedure has to be reviewed “to make sure that the
IOC does not ask too much too soon” and thereby
discourages potential bid cities. This may beachieved by a restriction of both the formal procedures and the IOC’s requirements. Firstly, the efforts made by bidders may be eased by shortening
the bid phases and further reducing the international
activities of bid cities. Thus, the costs for bid cities
would automatically be reduced. Secondly, the information and level of detail that is asked for in thefirst phase of bidding should also be reduced to aminimum. This might include to not ask for binding
guarantees at this stage. Instead, the first bid phaseand the Mini Bid Book should aim at assessing acity’s general capability to host the Games with regards to its vision, its concept and venues, environmental plans as well as transportation and accommodation possibilities. Furthermore, this concept
should be developed in close cooperation with the
IOC to prevent the risk of one-way planning.

old for bidding and ease especially the first bid
phase.

Summary›

Shorten the bid phases and reduce international activities›

Restrict the information and level of detail
asked for in the first bid phase to a minimum›

Eliminate guarantees in the first bid phase›

Establish a dialogue process with bidders toprevent one-way planning

Figure 4: Development of bid budgets5

5

Source: Own Illustration / Mini Bid Books 2010-20187

3 The Process of Bidding

3.3 Technical Evaluation vs. Host City Election
Observations
Each of the two phases of the bid process includes areport of an IOC commission: at the end of the firstbid phase, the IOC Working Group evaluates thetechnical feasibility of the submitted concepts andsummarises its findings in a report where each city
receives grades for its concept. At the end of thesecond bid phase, all remaining cities are analysed
in detail by the IOC Evaluation Commission whichthen composes a second report which shall assist
IOC members in electing the Host City. The final decision, however, is solely left to the IOC members
which vote in a secret ballot. When looking at the
Host City Elections of the past three bid processes it
was recognized that the technical assessment ofbids was not always sufficiently reflected in the voting behaviour of IOC members. Even worse, there
were elections where the city with the lowest technical grades was elected Host City: as happened in
2007, when Sochi was elected Host City for the 2014
Winter Games and as also happened in 2009, when
Rio de Janeiro was elected Host City for the 2016
Games. This may, however, be related to the strictprohibition for IOC members to visit bid cities during
the bid process.

Recommendations
On the one side, it seems important to revise the
IOC requirements with regards to the bid phases
and files. As mentioned under 3.2, especially the
first phase of bidding should be restricted to the development of a more general concept, focusing on
the technical feasibility and leaving room for country
specific concepts. Furthermore, the IOC should become more involved during the bid phases: it should
give more technical support in developing the concept in the first phase and get more insight in “local
realities” in the second phase. In this context, it
might be worth to think about different formats likeplanning workshops with IOC experts in the firstphase and meetings with stakeholders and open
days of bid cities for IOC members in the second
phase of bidding.
On the other side, it may be necessary to reconsider
the election mode and make the technical evaluation
an integral part of the final Host City Election. For
example, the IOC could split the election in two
equally weighted parts, one representing the technical evaluations with a ranking of all bid cities, andone representing the vote of the IOC members.

Summary›

Leave more room for country specific concepts
in the first phase›

Give more technical support in the first phase›

Get more insight in “local realities” in the second phase, consider open days of bid cities for
IOC members›
Figure 5: Assessment of “Overall project and legacy” of bid

Make technical evaluation an integral part of
Host City Election

cities for 20146

6

Source: Own Illustration / IOC Working Group Report
20068

4 The Costs of the Games

4.1 Budget Structure
Observations

Recommendations

It seems to be utterly impossible to explain thebudget structure of the Olympic Games either to thepress of a bidding city or its public. The fact that thebudget structure consists of two budgets, of which
one is normally balanced due to revenues and IOC
contributions and one that does not only contain
Games-related costs but all Games independent investments which will be carried out in the period up
to hosting the Games, remain unnoticed. Both press
and public mix and add different budgets irrespective of the source of funding or revenues. Apparently, the budget structure of the Olympic Games is
too complicated to explain to the national public. On
top of that, the figure that causes most concern
among the public, Games-independent investments,
is very hard to determine due to the different demands of developed and emerging countries.

Considering the tremendous problems the NOCs
face in established nations as soon as a figure forthe cost of the Games is out, it might be worth tore-think the current budget structure. It is necessarythat the underlying structure is more transparent
and easy to understand. Dividing the costs in public
and private costs would create more transparency inthe national communication. Also, the Non-OCOG
budget could be limited to the actual Games-dependent incremental costs. The Games-independentmeasures may still be part of the overall concept andmay also have to be guaranteed, but should not be
specified in the budgets as that just leads to unrealistic and imprecise figures.
Additionally, and referring to the recommendations
mentioned under 3.1, the IOC should better explain
and clearly show the financial contributions it makes
to the Organising Committees of the Olympic
Games. This would ease the national public discussion about the cost of the Games and at the sametime help to promote a better image of the IOC.

Summary›

Create a more transparent budget structure›

Clearly divide the cost of the Games in public
and private costs›

Do not specify Games-independent measuresin the Non-OCOG budget›
Figure 6: Budget structure of the Olympic Games

7

7

Better explain and promote the IOC’s financial
contributions

Source: Own Illustration / Average bid figures 20102018

9

4

The Costs of the Games

4.2 Operational Risk
Observations
When looking into the actual budgets that have beencommunicated in the last three bid processes, twodevelopments are striking: contrary to the NonOCOG budgets which vary enormously, the OCOG
budgets, covering all operational cost, tend to growcontinuously. At the same time, the OCOG budget
still seems to be underestimated during the bidphase, a trend that is revealed when comparing the
Bid Book figures with actual ones. This comparison,
however, is quite difficult to draw as the actual

Recommendations
It seems to be of crucial importance that the IOC not
only publishes but also actively communicates thefigures on past OCOG budgets in order to encounter
public distrust in balanced budgets. As long as thefigures are not published in a more transparent andcomparable way, the field is left to speculations anduncertainty. The IOC may even consider to let an
independent financial auditor publish the figures ofpast Games to create utmost possible objectivity inbudget figures are not centrally published by thethis regard.

IOC but publication is left to the respective Organis-

Secondly, the IOC should try to enable bid cities to

ing Committee of the Olympic Games. The reason

most precisely plan the Games and its budgets infor the observed increase in the operational budget

advance. This is especially important when consid-

lies at least partly in the many uncertain aspects or-ering how badly the public takes an increase inganisers face when planning the Games and thebudget figures at a later stage. It would therefore

budgets. The numbers of sports, athletes andhelp if the Olympic programme would already be

events, for example, are not fixed at the time thefixed when cities enter the bidding process.

bidding process starts and can thus lead to an in-With regards to the most critical aspect of coveringcrease in the operational budget at a later stage.

potential deficits, the IOC should consider a joint

Apart from that, democracies face legal difficulties

mechanism run by both the Organising Committee

in guaranteeing to cover any unlimited shortfall inof the Host City and the IOC. It may for example be

the OCOG budget.

worth to think about a kind of joint insurance. In any
case, the IOC has to be part of a risk management
solution and has to communicate its engagement
properly.

Summary›

Publish and communicate figures on past
OCOG budgets by independent financial auditor›

Fix the Olympic sports programme at time ofbidding for the Games›
Figure 7: Average projected OCOG budgets8

8

Develop joint mechanism of IOC and OCOG tocover potential shortfalls

Source: Own Illustration / Bid Books 2010-201810

5 The Scale of the Games

5.1 Venue Demand and Legacy
Observations
Analysing the sports concepts presented in the bid
files of the past three bid processes, it becomes apparent that, on average, just 54% of all necessary
venues are existing when a city decides to bid for
the Games. Therefore, bid cities planned to spend
an average of about USD 400 million only for additional competition venues. The venues mostly missing are ice halls; even established winter sport cities
such as Munich or Salzburg had not enough ice halls
at their disposal to cover the IOC venue requirements. These figures clearly demonstrate that
Olympic requirements often do not refer to the postevent needs of most cities. In order to meet both
IOC requirements and the cities’ needs, many bid
cities propose to build temporary venues instead of
new ones or to enlarge existing venues with additional temporary constructions. This is however justthe lesser of two evils as temporary seating is also
not cost efficient: the average revenue potential per
temporary seat is USD 1,000, the prices for construction and dismantling are often much higher.

Recommendations
It was clearly formulated in the presentation during
the 126th IOC Session that the IOC cannot apply a“one size fits all” approach to potential bidders. Instead, it is necessary to allow for more flexibility inthe development of a sports and venue concept toensure that the local characteristics and “topography” of a city is taken into account and the Games
concept fits into the city’s long-term development
plans. It is therefore highly recommended that the
IOC applies a more flexible approach to the sports
concepts of bid cities. An elementary first step would
be to lower the IOC’s standard venue capacities inorder to make maximum use of already existingvenues. At the same time it should be possible forbid cities to allocate a specific venue in another cityor country. For example, if the Ice hockey preliminaries could be hosted in neighbouring cities (just as
the football preliminaries in summer), it would be
sufficient to have one Ice hockey venue in the Host
City. Generally put, the decision whether to invest
in new facilities or to involve other cities / countries
should be left to the bid cities. The IOC, in contrast,
should play a stronger role in ensuring that legacy
becomes a more important element of the bid. Cities
should have to develop a “legacy concept” similar totheir venue concept and the IOC should supervise
its execution.

Summary›

Allow for more flexibility regarding the IOC’s
standard venue capacities and the choice ofother cities / countries to be involved in a bid›
Figure 8: Venue demand and legacy9

9

Ensure legacy concepts to be considered andmonitored more important

Source: Own Illustration / Mini Bid Books 2010-201811

5 The Scale of the Games

5.2 Accommodation of the Olympic Family
Observations
In order to understand the pressure which is put on
bid cities in terms of accommodation, it is necessary
to have a look at the accommodation needs of the
Olympic Family. However, in this context it must be
made clear that the Olympic Family is not “no paying
guests” but people and partners working for thestaging of the Games, i.e. the IOC, the International
Federations, the hosting NOC as well as future organisers and bid cities, marketing partners and all
accredited media. In total, the Olympic Family requires 24,200 rooms for the Winter Olympics (and42,000 rooms for Olympic Games). However, theaverage existing hotel inventory of bid cities for Winter Games is with 25,400 rooms just slightly above
the IOC requirements – spectator demands are noteven taken into account. And yet, most client groupsof the Olympic Family for which rooms are reserved
do not stay the entire period of the Games, but
mostly during peak time at the beginning and theend of the Games.

Recommendations
In order to ease the accommodation situation, theIOC might consider to limit the overall size of the
Olympic Family and the requirements for the Olympic Family’s accommodation. Both measures would
help to reduce the pressure on hotel developments
and might even help to spare Media Villages. It may
also be worth to think about a broader radius inwhich the Olympic Family may be accommodated,
at least for peak days. Currently, hotels have to bewithin a 50km radius to be considered for the accommodation of the Olympic Family. It would further facilitate the accommodation if more distant hotels could also be taken into account especially forthe needs during peak days (e.g. 50% in a 50km
radius, 100% in a 100km radius from the Games
Centre).
However, the greatest leverage could be achieved if
the IOC would organise a working system of using
all no-shows, i.e. all rooms which are reserved but
not used. Therefore, the IOC is asked to get an overview over the actual number of no-shows in the firstplace and to study the optimisation potential of room
reservations for the Olympic Family.

Summary›

Limit the total number of the Olympic Family›

Reduce the IOC accommodation requirements›

Study the numbers of no-shows, the possibilityof expanding the 50km radius and the possibility of developing a rotation system

Figure 9: Average hotel room capacities of bid cities1010Source: Own Illustration / Mini Bid Books 2010-2018

12

5

The Scale of the Games

5.3 Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Observations
Sustainability has increasingly gained importanceduring the past three bid cycles. The IOC strives tomake sustainability an integral part of the vision andthe culture of its movement. It has for example es-

Recommendations
It is very important that sustainability is understoodin the broadest sense possible, including not only
environmental but also social, ethical and economical sustainability and thereby also human rights. The

tablished the IOC World Conference on Sport andIOC has to clearly define not only its understanding

the Environment and gives awards for sustainableof sustainability, but also its values and goals in this

sports initiatives within the Olympic Movement.

context. In addition, the IOC should implement a

However, it is still mainly focused on environmental

comprehensive and transparent process to monitor

impact. The growing need and public awareness forcompliance with its sustainability and environmentala more holistic approach to sustainability is not re-requirements during all phases of bidding, planning

flected in the IOC’s current criteria and procedures

and staging the Games. Monitoring may be executedfor awarding and staging the Games. The IOC re-either by an IOC internal sustainability department

quires to incorporate a sustainable and environmen-

or by an independent auditor like UNEP. It is how-tally friendly attitude in all aspects of bidding, plan-ever crucial that the monitoring body is provided

ning and staging the Games but has no monitoringwith sanction possibilities in case of non-compliance.

mechanisms or independent assessment procedures

The criterion sustainability, already a critical fact inin place to control that.

the public perception, needs to become a “hard fact”

On the contrary, most business organisations now-

within the bidding procedure. The sustainability andadays employ a Corporate Social Responsibility

environment programme should not only become a(CSR) department to embrace responsibility towards

mandatory part of the bid documents but also of thethe environment and community they operate in and

Host City Contract.

to gain credibility and integrity.

It is important to bear in mind that all NOCs agreed
to the Olympic Charter; the IOC is not and cannot
be able to force countries to obtain the Charter andto value ethical standards and human rights, but it
is responsible that the Olympic Games do so.

Summary›

Define sustainability in broadest sense including clear values and goals›

Establish monitoring process to make sustainability a binding criterion in the bid process›

Develop a sustainability and environment programme and include it in Host City Contract

Figure 10: Quote of UNEP, 200811

11

Source: UNEP, Sochi 2014 - UNEP Mission Report. p. 3

13

6 Conclusion

Breaking the challenges of the current IOC bidding

In brief, the four NOCs ask the IOC for:procedure down to eight theses can of course not›More support in bidding

provide an all-embracing analysis of what needs to›More certainty in process

be done. It can, however, give an insight in the per-›More partnership in risk›

More flexibility in scale

sonal experiences that we made in the latest bid
races. There is no claim to completeness. Still, theobservations and reflections outlined here may contribute to the debate and the future design of thebidding procedure and the Olympic Agenda 2020.
All proposed recommendations are based on the underlying aim to regain credibility of the Olympic Values and ease the efforts for cities interested in bidding for the Games. It is important to reduce complexity and increase transparency and flexibility withregards to the bidding procedure and both the costs
and the scale of the Games. The presented review
identified four main fields of action which should be
revised within the Olympic Agenda 2020.

We are fully aware that the Olympic Games is aunique and very complex project and we want tosupport the IOC and the efforts to strengthen the
Olympic Movement and the Olympic Games. The
presented recommendations therefore always bearin mind the Olympic Charter and the underlying
Olympic Values.
In case the IOC wishes to further discuss the findings of the paper at hand, the NOCs of Austria, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland will be at its disposal
at all times. We would feel very honoured if ourthoughts and work could contribute to the development of the Olympic Agenda 2020.

______________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Peter Mennel

Dr. Michael Vesper

Secretary General, Austrian Olympic Committee

Director General, German Olympic Sports Confederation______________________________________________________________________________

Stefan Lindeberg

Jörg SchildPresident, Swedish Olympic Committee

President, Swiss Olympic Association

14

Imprint

Issued byAustrian Olympic Committee
Rennweg 46-50
1030 Wien
Austria
German Olympic Sports Confederation
Otto-Fleck-Schneise 1260528 Frankfurt
Germany
Swedish Olympic Committee
Sofiatornet, Olympiastadion
114 33 Stockholm
SwedenSwiss Olympic Association
Talgutzentrum 273063 Ittigen / Bern
Switzerland

Edited and compiled by
PROPROJEKT / AS&P
Hedderichstraße 108-11060596 Frankfurt am Main
Germany

15