Richard W. Pound is a former vice president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and chair of the IOC Marketing Committee.

A photo presents the front profile of Richard W Pound.

Richard W. Pound

Richard W. Pound was one of the first IOC members to speak out in 2020 in support of postponing the Tokyo Olympic Games as the preparations for the Games were “clearly sliding into an abyss” due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some people suggested that the Tokyo Olympics should be canceled, but Pound felt delay was a better option than cancelation. COVID-19 was not the only crisis the IOC faced. On July 9, 2021, the European Parliament passed a non-binding motion, calling on EU member states to boycott the 2022 Winter Olympic Games in Beijing. Pound says history shows that the Olympic boycotts in the past have never achieved their objectives. This interview was taken on July 23, 2021, a day before the delayed 2020 Tokyo Olympics opened.

CNS: On the eve of the Tokyo Olympics, an opinion poll showed that more than half of the Japanese were still opposed to holding it. What did the IOC think of the voice of the people?

Richard W. Pound: There are always different voices. There was also a lot of negative information about health risks in the run-up to the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. Some media and researchers claimed that the athletes would die in the Olympic Village because of the smog. But the success of the Olympics proved that such talk was just crazy.

For the IOC, with the best scientific and medical knowledge available to us, we made a commitment to the Japanese Government that holding the Games would not significantly increase the health risks to the athletes and the Japanese. The government told us that they would handle the public opinion. Therefore, we no longer tried to explain to the Japanese public why they should not be concerned any more.

I think the public will change their mind eventually. Negative opinions will disappear once the Games starts and people find it so well organized. Five billion people around the world are expected to watch the Games, and there will definitely be an Olympic fever.

CNS: Some professionals like IOC member Kevan Gosper have said that the United Nations or World Health Organization (WHO) may decide to postpone or cancel the Olympic Games under special circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Is it feasible?

Richard W. Pound: The Olympic Games are held by the IOC. It is the IOC that invites athletes from all over the world to participate, not the WHO or the UN. These invitations are non-governmental. In fact, the only official involvement at the government level is when the head of state or government of the host country speaks at the opening ceremony and declares the Games open. Of course, the government is also responsible for providing security and other routine services for the Games, but they are not the organizer.

As the organizer of the most complex event on earth, we work closely with professionals in sports science, medicine and other fields. Our job is to guarantee the participation of over 200 countries and regions as well as over 40 individual sports organizations. It involves more than 10,000 high-level athletes, and there’s never a do-over. You can never say to an athlete, “You ran a great 100 meters, but would you mind doing it again as our timing system just went down?” It is appropriate for the IOC to have the final say.

CNS: Given the challenges faced by the Tokyo Olympics in terms of cost, the pandemic and public opinion, do you think the IOC should consider choosing a permanent host city to solve these difficulties altogether?

Richard W. Pound: The IOC has discussed this issue many times with the conclusion that the Olympic Games does not belong to any one country. If a permanent host city is chosen, it will most likely be in a developed country. Some countries, such as Guatemala or Honduras, may never have the chance to host the Games due to their size or poor infrastructure. It’s also hard for the world to accept that the IOC will spend money in a particular country forever.

Besides, as the emerging countries develop, they also ask to participate in international affairs, including hosting the Olympic Games. When we started the IOC’s global marketing program in 1988, our work was based on the market size rather than the number of Olympic medals. That’s why we didn’t consider Brazil, Russia, China, India and other big Olympic countries as their markets were not developed. But suddenly, many countries have become important economies in the world, changing the Games. In the past, 90% of the Olympic Games were held in Europe, but now it is also held in Asia, South America and other regions.

With the development of technology, the world is becoming smaller. The first modern Olympic Games was held in 1896 with only a dozen countries participating, when international cooperation was a new invention and the meaning of “international” was very narrow.

Nowadays, with more convenient transportation and developed communication, we are able to keep the IOC functional during the pandemic. The invention of radio and television has made it possible for the world to watch the Games in time; close-up footages and slow-motion playbacks also make the global audience part of the Games.

To sum up, the Olympic Games has benefited from the development of human society, and the whole world is now able to share the Olympic experience of the athletes. This is a two-way relationship. I am confident about the future of the Games.

CNS: In the 1980s, Western countries boycotted the Moscow Olympics and the East European states of the then USSR boycotted the Los Angeles Olympics. Now, some Western politicians are once again using boycotts as a political tool. Do you think a mass boycott will happen again?

Richard W. Pound: I’m optimistic on this issue as I know boycotting the Olympics just doesn’t work, especially when the purpose of boycotts is to change the behavior of the so-called “target countries.” In 1980, some countries boycotted the Moscow Olympics because of the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. What was the result? The Soviet Union continued to occupy Afghanistan for another decade.

The Olympics is not influenced by politics. Our choice of Tokyo and Beijing does not mean we support any politics. What we consider is their abilities to organize the Games well. There is no doubt that both the Japanese and Chinese governments have the capability.

Our focus is on the young athletes. They had been preparing for the Olympics for a decade or more, but boycotts would keep them out. When a politician says, “We must boycott an Olympic Games,” he is not saying “we,” but “You athletes must boycott and give up your dreams as we are not happy with the policies of the host country.” This is in fact a violation of athletes’ human rights to participate in sports competitions voluntarily. It is very short-sighted and negative, and will destroy the dreams and hopes of athletes all over the world. There are lots of things a government could do to express its ideas without ruining its own athletes.

CNS: Can politicians who advocate boycotts be persuaded by this view when the IOC talks to them?

Richard W. Pound: Now that history has shown that boycotts don’t work, would a government still stick to it? Historically, Olympic boycotts have never achieved their political goals, and if a government is stubborn about this, then there must be something wrong with it.

Of course, there will always be disagreements between governments and tensions between big countries. But it’s worth noting that when some U.S. politicians started talking about boycotting the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, some of the more experienced said that it would not work.

The IOC stressed that boycotts are not the only viable diplomatic option in a complex international environment. In today’s world with all kinds of complex relations, some special channels of communication are very precious, and the Olympics is one. Why destroy the unique channel of communication that has been built up since 1896? During the Olympic Games, athletes from different countries, religions and different political positions come together and compete peacefully and amicably. In a complex and increasingly polarized world, the Olympics is an oasis of co-existence.

I went to the 1960 Olympics at the height of the Cold War with the stereotype that the Soviets and we were two worlds apart. But when we saw the Soviet swimmers practicing as hard as ours were and competing as intensely as ours did, we realized that they were human beings just like us. We don’t share the same language or background, but we would like to seek common ground while shelving differences.

CNS: The IOC has always been an independent non-governmental organization, but under the current international situation, does it rely more on cooperation with governments?

Richard W. Pound: We are a sports organization existing in a political world. It is very important for us to understand that the Olympic Games or the IOC cannot control the world. But our view is that at the international level, the Olympics is a means of communication, and at the domestic level, it could promote economic, social and sports development. We’re trying to explain to the world that the Olympics is a useful tool, and that we’re willing to do whatever we can to help the world with it.

That’s why IOC President Thomas Bach goes to the G20 Summit, and the IOC attends the UN General Assembly as an observer and addresses the assembly at least once a year. It’s all part of our missions. Although we are not political, we are fully aware that we live in a political world.

(Interviewed by Cao Ran)