Unofficial Partner Podcast
Unofficial Partner Podcast
UP520: Olympic Provocateur: Michael Payne on Sport Politics, from Dassler to Trump
Olympic marketing pioneer Michael Payne discusses his book Fast Tracks and Dark Deals, exploring how sport became business through the lens of legendary figures like Horst Dassler, Bernie Ecclestone and Mark McCormack. He challenges federations on governance, examines whether the Olympics inhibits innovation, and addresses future issues including AI, implanted technology, and the Enhanced Games debate. Payne reflects on Beijing 2008's legacy, Trump's impact on LA 2028, and warns that political weaponisation threatens sport's ecosystem as profoundly as Cold War boycotts once did.
This episode of the Unofficial Partner podcast is brought to you by Sid Lee Sport.
Sid Lee Sport is the fame-making creative and sponsorship agency for brands in sport. Through exceptional creativity, deep sponsorship expertise, and flawless on-site delivery, they help brands, sponsors, and rightsholders unlock their full potential in sport - most recently picking up a Leaders Sports Award for their work with Lidl at UEFA EURO 2024.
Everything they do is driven by a culture of effectiveness - because in sport, performance matters. Not just on the pitch, but in the work too. So whether you want to build buzz, connect with audiences, or do something that actually cuts through, Sid Lee Sport knows how.
Visit sidleesport.com
Sid Lee Sport - where brands become champions.
Unofficial Partner is the leading podcast for the business of sport. A mix of entertaining and thought provoking conversations with a who's who of the global industry.
To join our community of listeners, sign up to the weekly UP Newsletter and follow us on Twitter and TikTok at @UnofficialPartner
We publish two podcasts each week, on Tuesday and Friday.
These are deep conversations with smart people from inside and outside sport.
Our entire back catalogue of 400 sports business conversations are available free of charge here.
Each pod is available by searching for ‘Unofficial Partner’ on Apple, Spotify, Google, Stitcher and every podcast app.
If you’re interested in collaborating with Unofficial Partner to create one-off podcasts or series, you can reach us via the website.
Hello there. Richard Gillis here. Welcome to Unofficial Partner, the Sports Business podcast. Today we've got Michael Payne as our guest, and Michael is one of sport's great insiders. He was, for many years, the head of marketing and broadcast at the International Olympic Committee, and then he worked alongside Bernie Leston as his advisor in the, uh, formula One group. Before that, he was British Freestyle Skiing Champion in the 1970s and began his career at West Nally under the tutelage of Patrick Nally. And he's written a book, which is called Fast Tracks and Dark Deals, how Sport became Business and Business Became Sport. And as ever, Michael's never dodges a question, always interested in talking about the bigger themes that impact the sports industry. How we got here and where it's going is basically the arc of the podcast. And he's been in rooms where decisions are made and has been at the top table for a long period of time. So strap in. It's a good conversation and I think you'll learn a lot. I did. This episode of the Unofficial Partner Podcast is brought to you by Sid Lee Sport. Sid Lee Sport is the fame making, creative and sponsorship agency for brands in sport through exceptional creativity. Deep sponsorship expertise and flawless onsite delivery. They help brands, sponsors, and rights holders unlock their full potential in sport. Most recently picking up a Leader's sports award for their work with Little at Uafa Euro 2024. Everything they do is driven by a culture of effectiveness because in sport performance matters not just on the pitch, but in the work too. So whether you wanna build Buzz, connect with audiences, or do something that actually cuts through Sidley Sport knows how. Visit sidley sport.com where brands become champions.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:it was funny the other day when. You did something on the NFL buying rugby. You were, you were sort of provoking on LinkedIn, one of your conclusions. And, I put that to our WhatsApp group on Unofficial Partner and, um, Alan Gilpin, who's the chief executive of World Rugby and came back and then suggested that he and, um, Brett Gosper, who's the NFL's international guy, sit down and have a beer about it. So, you know, these things travel.
Michael Payne:Well, there is more to this than maybe meets the eye. It is one of the more provocative observations I make on the future of sport in my book. kicking off on governance and the governing structure of federations that have served, you know them well for the last century does not mean that it's automatically the model for the next 50 years. I gave a speech to the IF forum in Lausanne where all of the federations were. Attending and the previous evening, who am I sitting next to In the bar that Brett Gosper. And I told Brett what I was gonna say, which prompted him to say, bloody glad I'm not there. Then tomorrow in the room.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:How did
Michael Payne:and it was,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:take it? Because they, they're, they're an interesting group, aren't they? On mass.
Michael Payne:They are, I mean, the front row had the heavy hitters. So you had Lalo from wrestling, Inmar, DeVos, you know, the new head of Aswa from equestrian, Erna. So you had a few IOC board members, ans IOC directors like the head of sport. And I mean, not to sound my own trumpet, but. A, you could have heard a pin drop B straight afterwards. The executive board members were all said, Michael, I need a copy of that speech immediately, please. It is probably one of the most provocative speeches we've heard, but you hit every single point that we have to think on and reflect.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:them? what got their goat?
Michael Payne:It wasn't so much, it's got their goat as to designed to be thinking. So I, I mean I Have you had a chance to plow through the final chapter of the book, or not yet? All right. Well, I just picked eight points outta there. One was governance and my point on the governance, if you were a company and the NFL was a company, it would be a no brainer. To take over world rugby in terms of the gap in your corporate profile and it would cost you nothing and the resources you have. But it was really designed to, on the governance issue, to reinforce that there will be change, whether it's athlete breakaways, which will continue. so that was on governance. I then dealt with. everything from AI and obviously the replacement of judges and referees, but at what stage does sport risk losing its soul if everything is technology,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah.
Michael Payne:and how do you find the balance of ensuring fairness?
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Okay.
Michael Payne:And let's not kid ourselves. How can a human eye judge a diver at the speed with which he's going into the water?
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:load, I've got a load of questions
Michael Payne:alright.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:we will come
Michael Payne:Okay.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:of divers in due course. There is a, I've got an enhanced games question. You'll, you'll, you'll be, thrilled
Michael Payne:you see who I had nominated? Who I had nominated for the good, bad, and Ugly?
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:I did see that.
Michael Payne:Oh, that's,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:There's a, there's a.
Michael Payne:I need to get, I need to get you the hard copy. It comes out on Monday. That's the proof version. And, I'm coming to London and we'll be doing a sort of a well massive signing as they come off from the printer, and get dedicated copies sent around the world.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:So let's stay in that room then the I, the, the federations, because the sports market is really interesting and the Olympics plays a very significant role, obviously, and I always think wonder. and you've, you know, one of the architects of the top program and the, the media money and the, the sponsorship money that's flooded into the Olympics since the sort of eighties. And we'll go back in time in a minute, but. Do you ever sort of think actually the Olympics is the impediment to innovation? It's quite, it's the, the federations don't have to innovate.'cause the Olympic, you've done all the work for them. The money has just come in. the, you've removed any incentive from the marketplace to change because sports have been their. And they will be there until they don't get paid anymore, presumably. But it's not a free market as such. The Olympic money has sort of sport, uh, in an, in inefficient market in many ways.'cause in some ways I sort of think, well actually the Olympics could be the best of the best sports, most popular sports and any given quadrennial. But it's not that, it's the, you know, it's still the same old sports that are still propped up.
Michael Payne:I, I, I think, I think you're being a little bit hard there. I think the IOC, if you look at how the sports program has evolved over the last 20 years, the winter program with probably a little bit more flexibility, I think has more than doubled. The number of sports and disciplines embracing, you know, all of the new trends from snowboard to ski cross and in Milano, you know, next year you'll see alpha, the sort of ski mountaineering, look at how many new sports are coming on the program in the summer program, in la. And so I think the, the IOC has done a pretty good job at. Particularly in the last, well, particularly under Sam Ranch and again under Bach, I think it lost its way under Rock with the sports program, because he was too rigid. In saying, well, the, the program can't grow. Correct. Therefore, I've gotta throw somebody off the bus to let somebody else get on the bus. not incorrect, but you needed to be realistic and creative, as to how you would allow it to evolve. I think you raised a very interesting question on the finances, where there's no question that. A significant number of the ifs are solely dependent on the Olympic revenue, which perhaps has allowed them to become too lazy to not innovate and not to step up and, generate their own funding. that you could argue that for a period of time, you know, you didn't have a queue of television stations waiting to broadcast modern pentathlon, and there wasn't a load of sponsors. And so the IOCs role was to keep certain sports alive, but equally, that can't go on indefinitely,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:it le it
Michael Payne:you know?
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:sort of. to attack from disruptors, you know, new leagues, new things that, and at the moment, and you know, you know far better than I do in terms of the amount, there's money waiting to come into sport, wants to deploy in sport, there's a live golf coming for every sport is the cliche. So federations, again, when I think about the Olympics, I think there's a model where it's an umbrella. For the most popular sports in the world is that, that's one model and it could be a free market within that in terms of sports coming in and coming and going, but it's not that. It's a sort of bull walk against that.
Michael Payne:Well, you will always have the establishment wanting to protect their position, and the Olympics is not unique to that. You go into any organization or company in the world and the balance between your traditional model. And the need to evolve and, with the changes. And I, I think the new President commentary is probably gonna shake things up. She was pretty blunt in her remarks and comments to the ifs shortly before I gave my future speech. And she said, you know, there's gonna have to be changes. Not everybody's gonna be happy. I think. I mean, I was at the forefront of bringing private equity into the Olympic federations by, conceiving and brokering the CVC investment deal into volleyball
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yeah.
Michael Payne:that a lot of people at the time thought, nah. Is this a good idea? five years on, you've got a lot of ifs saying, how did that model work? How can we repeat it? And one of my remarks about the future and governance is the sovereign wealth funds. Example, what's happened with golf? the athlete breakaways sport is increasingly viewed as a very interesting, attractive asset class. So there will be disruption, and how sport manages that disruption and makes sure that it doesn't lose its soul will be. A key issue for all sports leaders in the decades to come?
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:I guess there's a question. What, what was the veiled threat that Kirsty Coventry was making to the ifs? What's the, that some of them won't be here next year. That sort of, vibe.
Michael Payne:Well, basically you've got a, you've got a scenario in Los Angeles. Where the sports program is growing, forgive me. Is it from 28 to 35 sports where LA has added several new sports, under the current structure and model? Is that sustainable for Brisbane in terms of the number of venues and resources that are required? I mean the IOC is. Frankly, playing with a little bit of smoke and mirrors, pretending that it's still capped at 10 and a half thousand athletes. I, I don't think that's true. I think the number is significantly greater in order to accommodate all these new sports. Now, Los Angeles is, you know, one of the few cities probably able to do it because they have the facilities. But post Los Angeles, you know what is gonna be the model. Does it stay at 17 days? Do you extend it to a longer period of time, to three weeks to allow more sports to go on the program? There is a debate in play about should some of the summer sports be moved to the winter program in order to so manage the, the profile. I mean, personally, I don't think it's a very good idea. I think you would be, I don't think the winter federations would accept it, and I think you would be compromising the ability to find great winter hosts. But I think what Coventry has launched with her sort of polls and reflect program is to say, listen, there's no sacred cows. Everything has gotta be put on the table and see how the Olympic movement. Should evolve and what should be the IOCs core focus? there was a very interesting remark from Ingmar DeVos, who is now the, chairman of Aswa, the summer federations, and he challenged the OC leadership to say, you need to tell us what your focus is. What is your real strategic vision? Is it. To stage the Great Olympic Games or is it to try and become a mini United Nations with all of the different policies on human rights and environment and you know, there are certainly some people who think maybe the IOC in the last few years has not taken its eye off the ball of the games, but has got so. Caught up in all of the sort of UN type aspects of the business, and is that where the focus should be?
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:is too broad. they're trying to be too many different things and they should back to being. The host of the Olympic Games, and, and I can see why, how they get there. I'd be interested to get your view on this is, again, it's a sort of slight provocation, but are we at the end of the brand purpose era and are we saying actually that sell and sport has prospered very well from that in terms of presenting itself as a, vehicle for social, purpose campaigns. The Olympics is very central to this, whether or not we're through the end of that or at the end of that cycle.
Michael Payne:I, I, no way you can say you're at the end of it. And sport is so integrated into society
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:it?
Michael Payne:that you, it's a great question to be debated, and I think it's one that is being debated in terms of how do you find your balance. Should the Olympic world have an environmental policy? Absolutely. In the way that any organization or company that is wanting to engage with, you know, the, the population at large needs to show that they are responsive
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:was interesting just on
Michael Payne:now. So,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Sorry. Go on.
Michael Payne:so just, just
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:yeah,
Michael Payne:the point, just on the environmental,'cause this illustrates it exactly. It's one thing to have a strong environmental policy on how you conduct sports events, but you know, the IOCA couple of years ago launched a program called the Olympic Forest. What's that got to do with sport? And so I think like in any company or organization, you know, it's, you know, it, it's a pendulum. And it finds its balance. You know, everything should be run by headquarters. No. The next leader comes in and says, everything should be run by the local office. Then the next one comes in and says, well, maybe there's a middle ground here. And I think we're probably from the IOC perspective, a little bit on that middle ground in terms of first and foremost, making sure that you are putting your resources and primary focus behind your product. The product is the Olympic Games. Then you look at what else do I need to do that is responsive. That is a leadership position in sport, but the product has got a lead.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:it's interesting that isn't it, because I was watching, so. Christian Klau, who is the IO you'll know obviously was the IOC director of corporate communications. He, he listed and it was Kirsty Coventry's sort of to-do list that was announced about a month or so ago. And, four new working groups, the Olympic program working group, the protection of the female category working group. And obviously there's been news this week about the trans, category. commercial partnerships and marketing working group, the Youth Olympics working group, and, a select the about the selection process of the Olympic hosts. Now, there is nothing in there about environment and there's nothing in there about climate. And I found that was an interesting omission I sort of, being slightly. Sharp elbow wondered aloud whether or not that was written with, with the next, the president of the country that's hosting the Olympics next. It felt like this is a list that Donald Trump would approve of. There was no explicit mention of climate, and I wonder if it's for that reason or for the reason that you just articulated in terms of there is a sharpening of what strategy now is.
Michael Payne:Well, I mean, let's be clear, I am no longer inside the IOC and sort of privy to,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Michael, you, you know, you are in
Michael Payne:privy, privy to what is their thinking and strategy. But I think Coventry has pulled forward their a few very select working groups or subjects that are either major issues to get your head around. Or potential problem areas that need fixing. Within that, she's staying very focused on the product and core mission, but environmental sustainability, you know, impacts and would be part of many of those working groups. The selection process for the future host city, and what does the games look like over what period. You cannot have that discussion. Without being conscious of environmental sustainability, if you're having the discussion about revenue, I would be surprised if any sponsor would let you off the hook without saying, we need to have a clear sustainability strategy tied to the Olympics. But if you put sustainability all on its own. That's where you suddenly risk running off and having projects like the Olympic Forest and everybody thinking, well, the IO C's got this massive great war chest so it can pay for all these lovely ideas and you cozy up to the UN and they suddenly see the IOC as a nice little bank. And that's where I think things can occasionally fall off the rails. I think you're probably, obviously there will be. Interesting discussions and exchanges to be had with the future, with the head of State of the Future host Olympic Games. But I don't think that list of working groups was structured in a manner that was gonna facilitate those discussions with the Donald.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:It's interesting. Yeah. By the way, I think handling the next handling Trump is an interesting question. All in its own right. Because again, when you look at, well, Infantino approach to it, it's, it feels different. But you, you have to do something. With it, and he has changed the weather in terms of just the, the assumptions that were made previously are now all up for grabs. So there's a question about did the Olympics really believe in the stuff that it was saying it believed in, is it retrenching from that becoming narrower because of Trump?
Michael Payne:No, I, well, you're throwing an awful lot of things into that question or debate and one should sort of probably, you know, if I may break it down a little bit, one, having the head of state of the next host, so actively engaged is a positive. Because at that level, the focus and the resources and the attention and making sure that it all comes together, you know, is something which the head of state can achieve. And I think that rarely has there been a games where the head of state, you know, is so vested in the success. Uh, China 2008 probably. Certainly with Hut. But you know, you go to London, you go to Paris. Yeah, the games were important, but I think for Trump and everything, he sort of stands for with his Make America Great again. It's a perfect platform. Look at, well look at what it meant for Reagan in 84 and did for his polls and everything coming out of that. Now does that mean that the road getting to the games isn't gonna have the odd. Bump along the way, particularly as you try to bring all 200 countries together and, you know, the, the US' foreign policy gets caught in the crossfire or the Olympics gets caught in the crossfire of US foreign policy. Yeah. That's gonna happen. and if I move on there to Infantino, I know he's being criticized for his focus of cozying up to Trump. Personally, I think he's doing his job. I think if that's where your World Cup is being staged and you've got issues about security and access and entry, what better than to become friends with? Number one, and I, you know, whether you agree with Trump's politics and policies or not, your actual responsibility is to ensure the successful staging of the World Cup or the Olympic Games in the United States, and if Trump is president. He's hosting on those events. You want to get him on board. And so I think he's doing correct. Now, sort of moving on from the politics, you jump on is the IOC retrenching, and putting it sort of mission sort of solely focused on the Olympic Games? I don't think so. I mean, the movement, the Olympic movement is an incredibly powerful organization. By some miracle has survived more than 125 years, which is a lot longer than any other international organization. But also being realistic, it's not gonna solve the world's environmental problems that it showcases how sport works in, in a constructive way with the environment going forward, that it isn't tone deaf. Ignoring certain things. The most recent example on the transgender, you know, I think under Bach maybe, you know, being the lawyer, there was perhaps a little bit too much focus on the human right and in the course of protecting the human right, which was a very popular sort of UN and even sort of migrating into the woke era. Did you lose something about your responsibility to protect the female athlete? Coventry's come down? I think pretty clearly on that most of the candidates for the presidential election were pretty clear in saying the IOC needs to re-look at this policy, not duck it, try and be friends with the UN and pass the hot potato onto all of the ifs. take some leadership.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:take leadership and, but it's also, it's an easier time to make that decision now in the, in the environment we're in. Now than it was for Bark, presumably.
Michael Payne:Absolutely. I mean the, if you look at how society has evolved over the last 12 years of the Bach presidency, I mean, one of the biggest threats that I see to the future of sport. is the increasing political weaponization of how, you know, politicians are, again, using sport to serve their agenda. I joined the IOC, you know, in the, you know, in the middle of the Cold War when you know the boycotts, you know, between Soviet Union, us, you know, you had politicians using sport. And very nearly the whole ecosystem, de unraveled, uh, Sam Ranch made it his priority to get the whole boycott concept off the table by engaging with the political leaders and having, uh, an open, direct dialogue. And he was incredibly successful at that. And frankly, for the next three decades up until. The invasion of sort of Crimea, Ukraine Sport had it pretty easy. It wasn't caught in the political crossfire. Now, you know, sport is an easy sort of tool for a politician to sort of jump up on his soapbox and grab some good headlines. Suddenly you're at a tipping point where if you don't manage it correctly, the next thing you know you've got boycotts and the whole deck of cars starting to unravel.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Let's go back because the part, the fun of your book is
Michael Payne:I.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Characters like McCormack and Horse Dasla, Bernie Leston. There is a, a sort of, interesting, there's never been a biography of Dasla. I find him a fascinating character.
Michael Payne:Of Mccm.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:I've always assumed that's to do with IMG as a house of lawyers of whether or not there is, you know, whether you could do a proper one. Barbara Smits book. pitch battle was, was as close as,
Michael Payne:Excellent.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:it was. It was very good on the detail. And she had access, obviously, to the Adidas archives, but they're really interesting figures and you worked, you know, in that world, I sometimes look at, so fifa. wonder, it's a question I asked Patrick Nally when he came on. We did a few podcasts around, you know, that, that period, and it's sort of looking at the, the, the fingerprints of someone like Dassler and where you can still see traces sometimes. I think culturally can see Dassler in some of the, the way in which FIFA behaves. Today, would you, is that fair or is that too much of a stretch?
Michael Payne:Well, I think it's, it's gotta be a little bit of a stretch in the sense that when Dazzler and Nali were brokering the very first package deal for sponsorship and consolidating all of FIFA's rights, this is in the, the late seventies. I think FIFA's total number of employees was four and the sums of money. Might have been intimidating to Dazzler and Ally at the time, but you look at it today and it's petty cash. so I think it's, it's a bit of a stretch to suddenly imply that, you know, dazzlers, sort of modus operandi, you know, 40 years after his death continues to be the modus operandi of fifa. Any other organization, I think what he successfully did. Was open the eyes of sports leaders of how to begin to build a partnership and a narrative with the business community and what Mark McCormack succeeded in doing of building that sort of understanding and bridge with the athlete and getting the athlete to sort of be perceived like a Hollywood star. Dazzler, you know, drove the same agenda on the event marketing. and you know, there were some other characters in there and I was actually like, you surprised there had been so little written about the history of the business of sport, so few biographies of the key people. Who do have a sort of a tremendous, a tremendous story to tell and also built the foundations of the industry as we know it today. and having had the privilege to work for all of them or negotiate across the table from all of them, I thought, well, it'd be interesting to tell some of the stories of how it all came together.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:rish characteristic to e to each of those three bla. Would you agree with that? There's a, there's something, and I'm, I'm saying this as someone you know, it is quite appealing now when everything is corporatized it's committees and it's sort of gray men mainly making decisions. Business, you know, sport as business. There is something I quite like the. Of entrepreneurial bit those three life stories, there is something appealing about it. Do you think?
Michael Payne:Well, entrepreneur. No question. And by definition, an entrepreneur is always gonna be suddenly somebody who is pushing the boundaries and who is thinking and thinking outside of the box. I think if you were to call Bernie Helston a rogue, he would chuckle and take it as a compliment. If you were to call Mark McCormack as a rogue, you would have the full weight of the IMG legal system breathing down your neck. Um. You know, and you can be friendly. Well, Dazzler was remarkably low profile. and his, he was fascinated by the sports politics of it all, and frankly, the power. And he wanted to keep his Adidas sports equipment front and center. He became increasingly aware that he couldn't actually afford to pay large sums of money to FIFA to keep Adidas as the official ball. But what happened if he found somebody else to pay the bill, starting with Coca-Cola? and that's housed for the whole story began to develop. I mean, it's, it's laughable. When you see the sums of money that were involved in endorsement deals in the late seventies or the early eighties, I mean the very, some of the very first top sponsorships that I sold, total value,$3 million for four years, all rights. And you know, dasla had the vision that. If you could pull this all together, there was a very big pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Not everybody held that same vision. Most people thought that it was too complicated, too political, couldn't be pulled off. You know, even people like Dick pounds sat on the fence and said, I'm not sure this is gonna work. he was given his marching orders by Sam Ranch to make it work and. Thank God he ab obeyed his leader and waited in and made it work. But you go back to the, the, the mid eighties, it was real touch and go as to whether we were gonna pull this off.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:The, the, the bit about Dassa I find interesting, which is there's a sort of almost John Lere aspect to it. You know, the, there's the private, the files on p, the dossiers, the collecting of data and information on individuals, and there's a great quote in your book. The stars was sort of tipping their hat to him in terms of, you know, well, a real player misquoting that, but that's sort of.
Michael Payne:No, but, but sorry, but you telling me that there wouldn't have been similar files kept on every single UN organization. And there would've been people who were looking, whether it was in Washington or Moscow, or in latter times Beijing, anybody who was looking to cultivate influence to set global strategic policy. Of course, they're gonna be setting files and running their own intelligence network. The only thing that's perhaps shocked everybody. The sports world was doing it as well, and one individual s staler, who was also at the forefront of the whole eastern block engagement with sport. And so he played a, a unique, sort of role as a broker in helping, you know, to. Consolidate, you know, the global sports world and keeping them all on one single, you know, same sheet of paper. I mean, people maybe are not aware of just how brutal the politics were at the time in building this up. I mean, the politics are still brutal today, but different. And you know, I tell one story in the book, in the early days of negotiation to create the top program. And I'm in negotiation with the Vice President of the United States Olympic Committee, and we're out trying to explain this new model program, and he said, so you're gonna go and sell sponsorship to all of these American companies like Coca-Cola and Kodak? And I said, well, yes, we're gonna approach co. Coca-Cola and Kodak and IBM, but these are global companies. Most of their business is now probably outside of America. I know, but they're American headquartered companies. Then you're gonna take the money and redistribute it to all the countries around the world. And we said, yes. That's the mission, you know, to the solidarity for supporting everybody. So he said, so let me get this straight. You are gonna take American money and give it to the communists and steal our gold medals. Get the hell out of here. That's what we were up against in, in building this program and you know, sport was at the forefront of the Cold War.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:It's interesting, isn't it? I, again, one of the themes I think of the book and, and this this version of history is the.
Michael Payne:What do you mean this version of history? There's another version.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:are lots of versions of history. Michael, you haven't got, you haven't got a monopoly on, on the, uh, on history. But there is a question about, um, the relationship of America and America's role because we're seeing it now. It's, there's a sort of them and us through it. It was communism. It's now the Muslim world there is an other. Of someone at one point through the, let's say, Olympic story, and America is so central commercially, as you just outlined in terms of the sponsorship, but also the tv, the media rights, the NBC deal. Just explain how it works, because does that skew how the IOC looks at the world? Is it, is it viewed through an American lens? The way in which it's, it's sort of worldview.
Michael Payne:I would say much to the fury frustration of America, the IOC does not view it through an American lens as far as America is concerned. The IOC views it through way too neutral international or even. anti-America lens. I mean, look at the current debate between WADA and USADA on doping. So I think to the IOCs credit over the last half century, it has been able to navigate a very fine line of embracing all. Cultures, regions and bringing everybody into the tent. certainly when it was selecting host cities, the IOC would go out of its way to keep the American influence at a distance. that in the earlier days when clearly they were signing a much bigger percentage of the check. the, the perception was that there was major US influence, and that didn't stop the US Congress and Senate from trying to do a hostile takeover of the IOC because they wanted to control, and didn't like the sort of freedom and flexibility. today, the revenue model is spread. A lot further, A lot. I mean, it's a lot broader. and I think the, probably the relationship between the IOC and the U-S-O-P-C is as good as it's ever been and as respectful as it's ever been. But that doesn't mean that, politicians or the head of USADA or whatever, not gonna be continually throwing hand grenades and stirring the pot.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:just, I'm interested in that. Question and whether it's an American lens or, or not. But it's when you then start to look at the whole city question and you get to things like Beijing and the question is engage or isolate and the messaging, all the row, you know, into Beijing 2008 was all about engagement. And we're seeing the same conversations around sports washing and Saudi and Saudi games and all of that. So the same arguments are in play that they've always really been. What are the lessons of Beijing, do you think? Cause obviously from a, you know, wishy-washy, liberal British perspective. I, I So you bridle against, oh, well they're di dictatorships. We shouldn't be hosting games in dictatorships. You shouldn't be or autocracies then. I, but what's, how does that land within. The IOC and the, that question, I guess using Beijing as a route into that because the, it was gonna be an opening up and it felt like an over claim. the power of sport to open up China. Yeah. That isn't
Michael Payne:Well,
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:didn't work.
Michael Payne:well, I think you, that that's to be debated, I mean, to sort initially play your words back at you or being sort of a liberal wishy-washy, English Anglo-Saxon point of view. yeah. When you are. Sitting at, in the hot seat at the IOC or the hot seat at fifa, you are running a global organization and you have to take on board all points of view and culture, and there is not one model size fits all and the Anglo-Saxon view of the world is one, but the global South has a. Somewhat different view and it's a incredibly difficult fine balancing act. did the IOC mismanage expectations as to what could be achieved out of Beijing 2008? You know, the political world all wanted. The IOC to go there. The corporate world all wanted the IOC to go there. I was still at the IOC when that decision was taken and it was universally acclaimed. Did the staging of the Olympic games open up China? Absolutely. I've been back multiple times since, and it is a totally different country. Did it bring in democracy in the way that it is understood to be in the Anglo-Saxon environment? No, I'm not sure the IOC at the time ever said it was going to be, but there was an expectation and, you know, pushed by some of the liberal agenda to say, come on, IOC, pull up your, pull up your roll up your sleeves and, and get on with it and, fix the world. And, you know, should there been a little bit of pushback from Rob in saying, guys, let's be realistic here as to what we can and can't achieve. And do you know, with hindsight? Probably, but I think, I mean I've been going to China, since the late eighties and have witnessed phenomenal transition. You speak to the people on the street living there and you know, they talk about the evolution. You know, do they all want the vote? Nah, not necessarily. And you can turn around and say, I mean, you wanna be brutally provocative. Do democracies work in countries with a population of a billion people? You could even argue, do democracies work in countries of 250 million people because currently they're struggling
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Let's talk about
Michael Payne:politics or.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:I mean, I think it's, it's fascinating how, you know, they are. And just on that, in terms of people who don't much like democracy, I, my mind went to Peter Thiel. So Peter Thiel is obviously the money behind the enhanced games. And I promised you in enhanced games, but your conclusions the book are throwing things forward in terms of challenges for sport more generally. And the, I find the enhanced games an interesting. Because it's poking at something, which I think is, is quite an interesting idea. But I don't like the money behind it and I don't like it's the execution of it. But I think they're, they're pushing, an agenda of, of sort of human progress, In a world of AI and it's backed by a lot of Silicon Valley money, is an agenda there, which you know, may or may not like, but there is something in there that interesting. What do you think about the enhanced games, whether it's the enhanced games or just whatever replaces it?
Michael Payne:Well before. Before one gets perhaps on the specifics of the enhanced games, if one has a broader discussion about what an athlete is able to do to enhance his performance. And one of my observations about the future is currently, you know, with doping. It's prehistoric compared to what's coming down. We are very close to the era where with technology, it's not about wearing the technology. The technology is gonna be implanted in the body, and when you are dealing with electrodes implanted in the knee. What's natural, what's artificial? How far away are we from the day where every athlete is gonna have to walk through a metal detector to get onto the field of play in order to see what's he got implanted in his body. You are already doing it with cycling. You know, all the bicycles for the Tour de France have gotta be x-rayed to see if they're carrying little batteries inside them. Yeah. What's the, where do you draw the ethical issue of take? Take a child that is born with an eye defect and at birth has his eye or her eye replaced with some sonic eye, and then suddenly, lo and behold, 18 years later. When the, when little Johnny or Sarah steps out onto the shooting range or the archery range with their bionic eye, they're suddenly way ahead of anybody else. What's natural, what's artificial? You know, there's a footballer with a heart pacemaker. Should he be allowed to compete? So I think, and the point, the challenge I put to the federations are. Get ready guys. You are. And girls you are onto a real rollercoaster of defining the ethics of where do you draw the line. Now you get to the enhanced games and Peter Thiel. I mean, the original premise for this, as I understand it, is they want to experiment and create new lines of drugs. Will be, will allow you to live longer and open up new aspects of healthcare. And, you know, the athlete is seen as a very good r and d
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Yep.
Michael Payne:play. Now you look at the history of doping and steroids in the sport where whole generations died early. Massive health problems, you know, with the whole East German, you know, whether it's the East German and, and the US are not clean or saints on this because they invented a lot of the, doping steroid products in their university labs. There has to be a responsibility of the sports leadership to protect the health and whether it's. The debate about what drugs or supplements you can take, whether it's the debate in NFL or rugby about concussion, there is a responsibility to protect the health. Otherwise, at a certain stage, if it spins outta control, you know, parents are not gonna allow their athletes to go into the sport Now. I used to sit on the board of the IOC, and on one of the rare occasions that I would see Sam Ranch lose his cool and poise was listening to the scientists talk about the latest doping protocols. And it wasn't that Sam Ranch was remotely Pro-D doping. His point was could somebody just explain to me why does drug a. Okay. And why drug B isn't, can you just give me a simple definition of what we're trying to deal with here and never got a straight answer? You know, why is it legal for a middle distance runner to take painkilling injections on his knee after he is twisted his ligament and his body is telling him to stop? And yet he's overriding what his body's telling him to do with medical support that's legal, and yet you're doing damage to your body. So I think the whole debate, we're only at the very beginning of how this is gonna play out. When you get to, as I said, technology being implanted in the body.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:it's also the, the, the federations and the IOC and the, you know, the official sport will be positioned as in the same way as a sort of regulator, government regulation against tech. it will be an impediment to progress. That's, that's the way in which. framing of that debate will be on the Silicon Valley sort of libertarian side. So they'll say, right, actually no, we want, we want to get out of the way. Every impediment, which includes government and sports governing bodies are a sort of quasi government in there, in that, debate.
Michael Payne:So, so I mean, I mean, have the debate and find out what is fair and works worldwide. Nevermind the athlete. What are you doing with sports equipment? You've already got running shoes that. Can evolve during the course of the marathon. I think we are not far away from the day that the tennis racket will evolve between individual, not matches or sets or games, but in between the middle of a point. Now you can argue that technology, you know, take my sport, sport of skiing. You know, the way that technology has evolved to sports equipment, it's night and day, what the athletes are using to ski with today than they were half a century ago. Most people would say, good, but go back to my tennis racket example, and probably most people would say, no, no, hang on a second. That's not, that's not correct. What's correct, what isn't?
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:And where's the line?
Michael Payne:I'm not responsible for deciding.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:What's the, just to finish us off, did you enjoy WR writing the book? Was it an enjoyable process?
Michael Payne:I I is a sort of, I
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:I.
Michael Payne:didn't start out to write it sort of autobiographical. I just started that. There's so little written about the history of how this industry came about and how it evolved. I've been very privileged to have been at the forefront of that. You got a few books on the NFL or the NBA, but there's nothing globally Also no real in-depth profile autobiographies on the key players behind it all. And so I thought, well, you know, had a bit of spare time. It was fun to go in and research and, and the more he got in there, you know, the more it sort of said, well, hang on, I knew all these people very well, firsthand, worked with them, negotiated with'em, you know, very different characters say between a Sam Ranch and a Bernie Leston. Yet very similar in some ways. And so it was fun trying to sort of put it all together. and you know, it's perhaps slightly longer than a few people expected, but I was equally told don't dare edit any of it out'cause there's too many good stories.
Richard Gillis, Unofficial Partner:Well, listen, good luck with it we will it in the, um, in the show notes to the podcast, but it is a really enjoyable read, so congratulations on it.
Michael Payne:Well, super. Thank you. And, I say I look forward to getting you the, the hard copy and, uh, you know, look forward to any. You know, feedback or commentary or debate from, you know, what the hell were you thinking when you wrote that? Or, uh, and maybe get one. Yeah, I know. It's, it's, it was, it was fun.