Evaluating the Olympic Games

by Steve Montague

The Sydney 2000 Olympic games were the best ever! So says Juan Antonio Samaranch the soon-to-retire President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). While Samaranch may be biased, after all he has said this before, he wasn't the only one to give the Olympic games of Sydney a 'thumbs up'. Anecdotal comments from journalists and visitors also indicate that the these recent games were a big success. But how can we support this gut feeling with rational evaluation criteria and evidence?


First let's look at the resources. Financially, the Sydney games seem to have recovered costs. The 'profits' might not approach those of Atlanta or Los Angeles - but then there are trade-offs which will be mentioned later.

In terms of systems and processes, outsiders have noted the efficiency and high process quality (e.g. The Sydney games avoided the glaring data processing errors of Atlanta).

The physical resource infrastructure worked well, and as an added bonus - will leave a strong legacy serving as sport and recreational facilities for Australians.

Finally, the most important resources, the people, were by many accounts the highlight. The friendly, knowledgeable help provided by staff to visitors was outstanding.

Secondly, the Sydney Olympics can be considered by its' reach. Harmony and efficiency have been relatively easy in several past games due to fewer countries participating. (eg Montreal, Moscow, Los Angeles and others have featured significant country boycotts - this automatically reduces tension within the games themselves.) It is notable that relatively few political incidents have occurred at winter games - featuring smaller numbers and a lower diversity in cultures.

Sydney reached far and wide. Physical and virtual viewership was extensive. Country participation was wide and diverse. True - the communist block has essentially dissipated as a diversity factor. However, the Soviet Union's offspring bring their own less predictable struggles, along with continued tensions along the world's traditional political fault lines (ie the Balkans, the Middle East, Africa). One might suggest that an international gathering in such an environment is riskier than ever.

In terms of the reach of delivery partners or co-deliverers (groups you don't fully contract to help - rather you depend on their good will), the Sydney games appeared to nicely leverage both corporate sponsorship and private citizen time. The games were not crassly commercial - as many have argued was the case in recent American venues. The official volunteers and even the non-official volunteers - Sydney residents - by all accounts lived up to their reputation as great guests - and even better hosts.

In summary, the Sydney 2000 Olympics showed wide, diverse and supportive reach.

Finally, one needs to consider the results, the things outside of the control of organizers and officials that happened (or didn't happen) at the event.

In terms of 'client satisfaction' it appears that both visitors and athletes were very happy with the service they received. Even without a comparative poll, the widely reported views of journalists and private individuals alike indicate that people were treated well and were happy. (Celebrations appeared to be exuberant yet sportsmanlike.)

As for results in terms of changes or impacts, the 2000 games can be recognized as much for what didn't happen as for what did. There were fewer safety incidents than in any games in recent memory. There were fewer traffic and logistical problems than the 1996 games and possibly than others. There was virtually no inter-country acrimony. There were only a few event outcomes which may have been 'decided' by tainted officiating (The women's gymnastics vault may have been fouled up in it's set up and the treatment of the Bulgarian weightlifters may have been a bit lenient - to say nothing of the allegations around US IOC drug cover-ups). The scandals were few, however, as compared to some of the overt corruption and/or incompetence displayed in past games.

On top of the direct results, the world learned about Sydney and Australia to an extent which is unprecedented. Most broadcasters and many schools around the world took the opportunity of these games to help people learn about the whole country of Australia -it's natural wonders to be sure, but also it's culture, economics and mainly - it's people. (All of the public libraries in my small Canadian city were completely 'lent out' of books on Australia for most of September.)

Yes - the Sydney 2000 Olympic games were a success. We've felt it in our gut. A framework such as the Three Rs can codify the impression. The games covered itself in terms of financial resources, it worked in a friendly and efficient way and it left an important infrastructural legacy. The event reached out widely and embraced great diversity in participation. Finally and most importantly, Sydney put on a great show while remaining safe, fair and providing the world with some new knowledge about a wonderful country.

Sydney has set a new standard for international sporting event performance. In order to fully understand that standard we should perhaps apply something like the Three Rs framework to make sure that we learn from this success.