The Olympic System: Toward a Geopolitical Approach

VIII •

 Pascal Gillon

A

nnales

 

de

 G

éoGraphie

, 

n

° 680 • 2011

Beijing Games confirmed this success with 220 countries or territories covered. 

We should therefore not be surprised by the sway this partner holds over nego-

tiations. Competition formats must be changed to be more telegenic. In table 

tennis, the diameter of the ball was increased in order to make it more visible 

onscreen, and the number of points in a set was changed to add suspense. For 

Beijing, the swimmers had to appear for finals at nine o’clock in the morning local 

time (a biological heresy), so that they could be broadcast at prime time in the 

United States. The media’s influence over the competition does not stop there. 

Selection of the host city provides an opportunity to “penetrate” a new market. 

The selection of Beijing opened up sponsors’ access to a fabulous market . . . 

Finally, the media even has an influence over the sports schedule for the Games 

because the telegenic factor becomes one of the most important criteria for intro-

ducing a sport, as revealed very clearly by the Olympic Programme Commission. 

In its August 2002 report,

16

 we note, among many key principles, the following 

consideration: “The interest for a sport as shown by the public and the media 

must be considered a key factor in analyzing the sports, because it is essential to 

the Games’ success.”

For the moment, and thanks to considerable financial support from the 

media, the Games remain the last sporting event where advertising is not present 

or where restrictions are imposed on the dimensions of ads worn by athletes. 

However, we have strayed far from the founders’ ideal. The image of the Games 

has become first and foremost a commercial enterprise, above and beyond the 

rhetoric about Olympic values: “Market studies reveal that an association with the 

Olympic Movement boosts partner companies’ image and prestige in the minds 

of consumers.”

17