An Olympic sized error

Civitas, 27 January 2011

Here’s a cheap joke –

‘What’s the difference between manifesto pledges and promises made to unelected sports organisations?’

You can only break the former…

Funny? Probably not, but apt given this is the main objection to the better Spurs bid for the Olympic Stadium.

The details of the saga between West Ham and Tottenham Hotspur (both fighting for control of the stadium post-2012) can be reduced to WH wanting to keep the stadium for football and athletics while Spurs wants to build a new football ground on the site.

Which should it go to? Well, the obvious choice would be the one willing to pay the most and offering the largest annual return to the Olympic Park Legacy Company. This would be Spurs. Their club is richer and their supporters are more numerous – gate receipts will be higher. A country that prides itself on its free market principles could only choose this option, if looking at it economically.

Additionally, (so I am told) WH is at the bottom of the Premier League and potentially about to be relegated. If so, their revenue/support will fall dramatically and their occupation of the Olympic Stadium will be erroneous and wasteful. No objective investor would see WH as a good punt.

The real (white) elephant in the room is the fact that a promise made to an unelected non-sovereign body is somehow binding. The International Olympic Committee demanded not just that an athletics stadium remain in the UK post-2012, but this had to be the Olympic Stadium as well. Bizarrely, this has been adopted as gospel by many, including Lord Coe. The IOC is from the same organisational family as FIFA, which few Britons would now hold as an authority. WH has, of course, jumped on that bandwagon and rather hilariously, their vice-chairman Karen Brady claimed: ‘On 6 July 2005 a promise was made in the Queen’s name.’

British officials should be making up their own minds, independent of international bureaucrats. Spurs’ offer includes the rebuilding of Crystal Palace as an athletics arena and smattering of utilitarianism suggests this is the best outcome. Bar major events such as the Games, far fewer Britons engage in athletics or watch them compared to football. Therefore, it is only right the larger area be given over to the sport maximising the pleasure of the majority.

A BBC poll has suggested that Londoners would choose WH over Spurs on the basis that we need an athletics legacy and we need it on the Olympic site. In an ideal world where money grows on trees, fine. The poll and the supporters assume that no one will be paying for choosing this less profitable option, but in reality, if the post-2012 Olympic Park delivers a loss, it will the Mayor of London footing the bill: i.e. the council tax payer. Similarly, if the track is shared with a less-than-successful football club, the outcome is unlikely to be rosy.

If the questions had asked if people would be willing to subsidise an unprofitable niche sport over say, keeping down transport costs or maintaining public facilities, the answer would very likely be ‘no’. Failing to take this critical issue into account, means the poll should be taken with a pinch of salt.

What the poll ignores is that Londoners will be only prepared to accept the Olympic athletics stadium if they are not paying. If the WH bid is accepted, they are likely to be in for a nasty shock. Long-term economic sense must prevail over unreasonable aloof demands.