ABSTRACT
This chapter addresses the governance of the 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic Games. The 2009 Olympic Congress in Copenhagen recognised governance as a central issue for the Olympic Movement and codified it in a document entitled ‘Basic Universal Principles of Good Governance of the Olympic and Sports Movement’ (IOC, 2008). The document is underpinned by a moral philosophical position, which was enshrined in the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) Code of Ethics and stipulates that ‘the basic universal principles of good governance of the Olympic and sports movement, in particular transparency, responsibility and accountability must be respected by all Olympic Movement constituents’ (IOC, 2010, C.1). Naturally, these universal principles of governance also apply to the bidding and organisational processes of the Olympic Games as well as to the planning of the imprint they leave in host cities and countries. As a cultural phenomenon the Olympic Games belongs to humanity, with its raison d’être to celebrate human excellence in all its forms. However, as a legal and economic entity the Games is an intellectual property of the IOC. The IOC is the guardian and ultimate authority of any question relating to the Games. The IOC entrusts to any given city the responsibility of hosting the Games, but the government of the host country must provide legally binding guarantees to underwrite the costs involved. Furthermore, the IOC generates substantial revenue for the Olympic Movement through two global sources of capital – the Olympic Programme (TOP – a sponsorship programme) and the broadcasting rights, which amounted to US$4.960 billion in the 2009-2012 quadrennial (IOC, 2010). The Olympic Movement is made up of three main constituent groups – the IOC, the National Olympic Committees (NOC) and the International Federations (IFs), plus the organising committees for the Olympic Games (OCOG). Hence, the Games-governing environment is inherently complex, institutionally congested and multilayered. It involves local, national and international actors, and an array of private and public interests. In order to address the main concern of this study, the chapter is structured in three parts. First, it examines the nature of governance and its relevance to the Olympic Games. Second, the chapter analyses the Games as a governance issue, and finally it focuses specifically on the key governance dilemmas exhibited in the organisation of the 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic Games.
