The opposing views of Piero Gnudi, Minister for Tourism and Sport under the Monti government and Ernesto Albanese, Managing Director of the campaign supporting the Rome 2020 bid for the Olympics. A wise decision or a missed opportunity?
“My generation still vividly remembers the 1960s Olympics in Rome: the sight of Abebe Bikila running barefoot along the street skirting the Coliseum, our athletes’ victories in all number of sports and, above all, the climate of optimism that this great event had generated throughout the country. After the long, gruelling war years and the post-war reconstruction period, Italy was then on its way to becoming a nation of widespread prosperity, and with the Olympics everyone got the feeling that this prosperity was here to stay. I think these same memories must have been on the minds of those who were called to sit on the committee set up to pursue Rome’s bid to host the 2020 Olympics. In fact, the committee did an excellent job: Rome was one of the cities that had a good chance of hosting the Games. One of the first decisions Mario Monti’s government had to make upon taking office concerned whether the Italian state was in a position to provide the guarantees required to cover the investment costs involved in the organisation of the Olympic event.
I’m in no doubt that every Sports Minister’s dreams must include being able contribute to one’s country being selected as the site for the Olympic games. The preparations for the event would certainly have generated enormous interest in sports in general
and, as happened recently in the UK, sharply spiked the number of young people practising organised sports (a number that in Italy today has fallen way below the European average). Moreover, the investments required to stage the Olympics would have given a much-needed boost to our anaemic economy. Unfortunately, the government found itself in a very tough position at the
time the decision had to be reached. The spread between Italian and German bonds had climbed to over 570 points and unnerved foreign investors who owned over 50% of the Italian national debt, fearing that the country might default, were selling off our securities; there was even a real risk that the Ministry of Economy and Finance would be unable to make its debt payments. At this critical juncture, when ordinary citizens and Italian and foreign investors alike were being asked to make enormous sacrifices and the Government was engaged in draconian budget cuts, in the name of these same austerity
measures, the government certainly could not give the impression of allowing exceptions to the rule. Furthermore, we must remember that virtually every Olympic event has gone unfailingly over budget, that the cost of staging the Games in 2004 was one reason Greece finds itself in its current predicament, and that even the 2012 Games in London cost nearly twice what they were expected to.
Given these conditions, Prime Minister Monti had no choice but to ask the government not to concede the required guarantees, and scrap the bid. And although the government unanimously approved his proposal, everyone involved did so knowing that a great opportunity was slipping through Italy’s fingers.” – Piero Gnudi, Monti government Minister for Tourism, Sport and Regional Affairs
“When seizing, or discarding, opportunities, politics is a matter of timing. Only by thinking in these terms was I able to understand the reasons that led the then Prime Minister Mario Monti to opt out of Rome’s candidacy to host the 2020 Olympics. The social and economic situation called for a rigorous control of state spending in the face of the sacrifices demanded of the Italians, and Monti’s ‘no’ would also ward off criticism and prevent manipulation of the issue. Understanding the reasons for that decision does not necessarily mean approving it, however. Monti’s was a classic ‘matter of principle’ that failed to consider the arguments in favour of the candidacy that had emerged from a study by a commission of eminent economists chosen by the very Presidency of the Council of Ministers, and coordinated by Professor Marco Fortis. The commission had positively appraised the economic spin-off of the Games for Rome and the entire country, in terms of both GDP and employment. In particular, the study had shown that the government’s investments of roughly five billion euros – spread over a six-year period – would be recouped entirely: by the inland revenue generated by the spike in consumption and investments connected with the organisation of the Games. Moreover, that figure had already been earmarked for funding infrastructures included in the Roma Capitale Strategic Plan, and none of it would have gone to organising the Games, which are self-financed with direct revenues and funding from the International Olympics Committee. It should also be remembered that in the days prior to and following Monti’s decision, the media heated up the debate over whether Rome’s candidacy should be pursued. Many voices were raised in favour, and many against. As a cautionary tale, the latter invoked Greece’s financial collapse, blamed on its investments in the 2004 Games, and recalled how government funding had been squandered on the occasion of other sports events held in Italy, from the World Cup in 1990 to the swimming world championships in 2009.
As far as Greece’s troubles are concerned, I can only point to a few statistics from a 2012 study by Bain & Co.
The cost to the government of hosting the Olympics in Athens amounted to seven billion euros, a considerable figure, but equivalent to just 2% of the massive public debt that brought the country to its knees. Moreover, the dramatic imbalance between that debt and the GDP only emerged starting in 2008, four years after the Olympic flame went out.
As to the scandals linked to great sports events, much ink has been spilt, often rather inconsiderately. There have been cases of public funds put to poor use, of course, thanks to flaws in legislation or straying functionaries. Yet, for just this reason, who, if not a government of technocrats, could have proven that investments can be managed fairly and effectively even in Italy? Instead, that typical Italian mentality prevailed: to avoid repeating the same mistakes as in the past, better to do nothing at all, rather than trying to ‘do it better’.
There was obviously no guarantee that Rome would win its bid to host the 2020 Olympic Games, but it did have a fighting chance. It would have been a unique opportunity for the Italian capital to treat itself to a restyling in the name of modernisation, as was the case for Turin in 2006. After all, Rome last got a thorough makeover in 1960 – for the Olympics. Enough. We’ve missed that boat, and who knows when the next ship is coming in. The rituals of the Olympics Committee and the likelihood that other major cities will throw their hats into the ring should keep us out of the running for years to come. All that remains is the dismay at having overlooked a magnificent opportunity for growth, capable of relaunching the country’s image and reawakening those positive energies Italy so desperately needs.” – Ernesto Albanese, General Manager of the organising Committee for the Rome 2020 olympic bid
The opposing views of Piero Gnudi, Minister for Tourism and Sport under the Monti government and Ernesto Albanese, Managing Director of the campaign supporting the Rome 2020 bid for the Olympics. A wise decision or a missed opportunity?
