How the Olympic Movement "Elects" Itself

As a result of the 1998/89 bribery scandal, Samaranch presided over a process called "Reform 2000". We are supposed to believe that following this exercise the IOC is now open, transparent, and well-governed.

This is how it really works, as per the Olympic Charter. The Olympic Family nominates the IOC; the IOC elects itself and its President; and the President annoints the Olympic Family (click to enlarge):

It's a case of "you scratch my back, and I'll elect yours". At the centre lies the 115-member IOC. 15 members are elected by current athletes; 15 are nominated by the International Federations; 15 are nominated by National Olympic Committees. The remaining 70 are "individual nominations" proposed by IOC members.

The only candidates who are truly independent are the athletes (and even some of them will already have an eye on their future sport-political careers). The chance of a non-docile candidate being nominated by the IFs or the NOCs, or by the IOC itself is absolutely zero. So the chance of a consensus for change forming among IOC members is somewhere between zero and nil. As was seen when the IOC gave a vote of confidence to Samaranch by a margin of 86-1 (2 abstentions) following the disgusting scandals exposed in 1998/99 - Turkeys do not vote for Christmas.

Given its lofty goals, you would think the Olympic Movement would want to embody principles of good organisational governance. You would be mistaken. If the Maxwell, Enron, WorODCom and Tyco and Olympic scandals prove one thing, it is surely that trust and/or lofty sentiments are no replacement for good governance and sensible regulation.