Olympic debate

Peter Bentley comments on Paul Henderson's plans for change

That Paul Henderson is on the warpath with respect to the Olympic regatta comes as no surprise. And to a greater or lesser extent, he is right to be.

But being right does not mean that ISAF President Henderson will have an easy time getting things changed. The whole structure of ISAF, right down to the very roots of its constitution is designed to resist change. Indeed the very essence of a class association is to maintain the status quo. The National Authorities also have an interest in keeping things as they are. If you had invested tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds in a 420 and 470 squad for the last two decades, how keen would you be for the 470 to be replaced as an Olympic class?

The simple fact is that the process by which the Olympic classes are selected is based more on politics than the good of the sport. Anyone who has witnessed the unseemly lobbying, debate and decision making at an ISAF November meeting will have quickly worked out that it is all about alliances between National Authorities and Class Associations. If we vote for this will you vote for that? And the object of the exercise more often than not: to try and make sure nothing changes.

While Henderson’s suggestions for a new structure make sense, they still show evidence of pandering to the established classes. Why not simplify the situation still further? Why not have just five events, with a men’s and women’s division in each? A singlehander, a double hander, a keelboat, a multihull and a windsurfer would represent every facet of sailing in the world today. ISAF could either use the 11th medal for a mixed class or earn some brownie points with the IOC and simply hand it back. Would the Olympic regatta be any less representative of the sport of sailing or have any less worth a prize to win as a result? I don’t think so.

Whatever structure is decided upon, you can be sure that Henderson will have the devil of a job getting anyone to vote for a change in the system of selecting the Olympic classes and still less chance of actually provoking change in the classes themselves. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.

Efforts to cut the cost of wining Olympic medals and levelling the playing field for smaller nations while at first sight laudable, seem doomed to failure. The cost of an Olympic campaign has little to do with equipment and almost everything to do with people. The budgets involved in some of the ‘development’ classes look huge in financial terms, but as a part of the total cost of the campaign, technical expenditure is actually quite small. Even in a highly complex class like the Finn or Europe you can reckon on only about 15 percent of the expenditure going on capital purchases such as boats, rigs and sails.

One can quite understand the smaller National Authority’s concern about costs, but surely nobody is suggesting that, the bigger nations should not spend more on supporting their track and field athletes or their boxers. Raw talent will always win through, but well prepared, coached and supported talent will do even better.

By far the biggest cost come in travel, hotels, and most of all paying the people. If one looks at the British model (and why not, it was singularly successful in Sydney) each and every athlete get a living allowance of around £14,000 per year. Most of them are on the road between 20 and 30 weeks per year. The cost of cars, fuel, flight tickets and hotels soon mounts up. You then need to add to this the cost of the coaches, administrators and support staff. And all of them need to get to events and a hotel to stay in when they get there. Add in a team meteorologist, sailmaker and somebody to look after all the coach boats and the costs quickly mount up. By all means Mr Henderson, sort out the archaic selection process for the Olympic classes, but to do so on the issue of cost is a red herring.