PLATFORM:Sponsors and big media bought in to the Olympics because of the global platform it offers, but now they risk being exposed to the fury of protesters, writes Richard Gillis.
WHAT BROUGHT down the Berlin Wall? Demand for Big Macs? Or the boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics?
The same question that applied then applies to the calls for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics in August: should we engage with or isolate China?
European Parliament president Hans-Gert Pöttering has said European countries should consider a boycott of the Beijing Olympics if China continues to take a hardline attitude to unrest in Tibet. He joins a growing list of western politicians calling on the Chinese government to open talks with the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader.
"If there continue to be no signals of compromise, I see boycott measures as justified," Pöttering told Germany's Bild am Sonntag newspaper. This followed a statement of a similar tone from across the Atlantic. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the US House of Representatives, said: "The situation in Tibet is a challenge to the conscience of the world."
On Monday, the Olympic torch was sent on its way from Athens to Beijing, via Mount Everest. At the torch-lighting ceremony, a speech by China's envoy was disrupted by protesters from media rights group Reporters Without Borders.
The last time boycotts were used in a meaningful way was in the early 1980s. The US led an anti-Soviet boycott of the Moscow games in 1980, joined by 64 other countries including West Germany, Japan, Canada and, ironically, China. Retaliation by the Soviet-bloc countries undermined the Los Angeles Olympics four years later.
There are some parallels between 1980 and today. For the then Communist government in Russia, like its Chinese counterpart now, the five rings of the Olympics were a badge of respectability; the hosting of the games was intended as a huge PR exercise. But there are key differences between then and now. One of the most profound is the influence of big business.
In 1980, the Olympics were virtually bankrupt, limping from city to city begging for support. The amount of money gleaned from the commercial sector was negligible in comparison to today's rights-fee bonanza. Television revenue amounted to $80 million (€50.8 million) for the Moscow Olympics, mainly from the US. This year, the same figure for Beijing is $1.7 billion.
In the 24 years since the Los Angeles games, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reaped an astonishing $10 billion in broadcast revenues, according to its own figures. Sponsorship income now accounts for 40 per cent of the IOC's total revenue.
The highest tier of sponsors, the Olympic Partner Programme, comprises major brands including McDonald's, Samsung and Coca-Cola.
In this four-year cycle, which covers the Turin and Beijing games, these companies have paid $866 million, up from $663 million for Salt Lake City and Athens in the 2001-2004 cycle. The figures are for cash and value-in-hand support.
Few doubt that this money brings influence in the corridors of the IOC headquarters in Lausanne.
In 2001, when the IOC awarded the games to Beijing, the world's business leaders were united in their support: the Olympics are a Trojan horse into a market of more than a billion people.
The elevated role of business in sport makes it more difficult to see the logic of a boycott: why should athletes give up a lifetime dream, while Coke continues to flog its wares unhindered?
For sponsors and big media, the coming months are likely to prove to be a test of their resolve in the face of growing unrest. They bought in to the Olympics because of the global platform it offers. The same platform now threatens to expose them to the fury of protesters.
Amnesty International (which interestingly is not calling for a boycott) questions whether the Chinese government is keeping its promises on reform. It has expressed concern that, rather than being a force for liberalisation, the Olympics are being used as a reason to "clean up Beijing" before the city comes under the global spotlight this summer.
It is a mistake to think the Olympics will change everything in the country before the opening ceremony. "With Beijing, one of the great challenges will be to manage expectations that the Olympic Games can influence China's evolution to the extent many observers desire," says IOC president Jacques Rogge.
"It is an imperfect solution but we must continue the dialogue," says Michael Payne, former IOC marketing chief. "What is the alternative? Not to engage with China? To cut it off from the rest of the world? Is that the best way of moving forward?"
The Olympic sponsors are not about to give up on selling to China, so they should stand up and defend themselves. It's boycotts or burgers all over again.
