Thomas Bach in Pyeongchang in 2018
Photo: KAI PFAFFENBACH / AFP
Everything should have been so beautiful, it was arranged.
Congress in Athens, birthplace of the modern Olympic Games, with the obligatory day trip to the Peloponnese, to ancient Olympia.
Then the new crowning achievement for the President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC): the confirmation of Thomas Bach (FDP) for a second term of office, of course without opposing candidates.
But now, in the midst of the pandemic, it will only be a virtual general assembly again.
The 137th session in the history of the IOC takes place via video conference from Wednesday to Friday and ticks off 31 items on the agenda at record speed.
Only one of them is the Corona games in Tokyo in the summer, another is the re-election of the president.
Those IOC employees who always note how many heads of state and government Bach has met cannot add to the list this week.
That probably hurts no one more than the 67-year-old Bach, who rose from a humble background to Olympic champion, industrial lobbyist and finally IOC boss, who likes to be on a par with the most important politicians on the planet, such as appearances at the UN General Assembly or prove it at the G20 summit.
Bach becomes more and more powerful, the decisions more opaque
On September 10, 2013, Bach was crowned in Buenos Aires.
In accordance with the regular schedule, he takes a further four-year term of office after just under eight years.
Since Bach dominated the IOC more than any of its eight predecessors since 1894, there was even speculation that the Olympic Charter could be changed to grant him a third term.
Refined and scandalous term extensions were once the order of the day under his role model, then IOC boss Juan Antonio Samaranch.
At the end of the crisis year 1999 it was decided that presidents could only rule for eight years - plus a one-time extension of four years if re-elected.
The thought games about an extended term of office are an expression of general helplessness in the industry.
The worst is feared.
Because while the president and his small leadership force are becoming more and more powerful and the decisions are becoming more and more opaque (currently well documented in the events surrounding the 2032 Olympic bid), the influence and competence of simple IOC members is rapidly dwindling.
This was never so clear as in the eighth year of Bach's reign.
This gives rise to fundamental questions - and potentially serious problems for the IOC in the foreseeable future.
The Olympic company is mainly represented by Bach, with huge cutbacks perhaps by Bach's friend John Coates, the Vice President for whom the age limit has been lifted and who rotates in numerous functions in the Olympic business that are actually incompatible.
Who else does the world notice from the IOC, except, of course, those who are involved in numerous corruption scandals and criminal cases and make bad headlines around the world?
Who of the current 103 full members has undisputed competencies combined with unquestionable integrity?
Who comes into question when, four years from now, after leaving Bach, the task is to lead the proud and controversial supreme body of world sport into a self-determined future?
The skills deficit is obvious
A huge brain drain can be observed in the IOC.
Many members are overwhelmed with the technical requirements.
The skills deficit is a result of the President's policy.
55 of the current 103 members were accepted under Bach.
Yes, the IOC has become more female and younger, that's positive.
But otherwise?
It is difficult to see outside impulses that some new members should bring.
Most recently, for example, the former Croatian President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović and the Saudi Princess Reema Bandar Al-Saud were co-opted.
These and other personal details are little more than window dressing for the IOC.
There have never been any noteworthy oppositional currents at the IOC.
The policy of "speaking with one voice" promoted by Bach, however, is having an impact: When was the last time a member refused to follow suit on important issues?
When was there a really open debate at an IOC assembly?
Decisions are prepared in small circles.
The IOC's ethics committee is not to be taken seriously.
Its secretariat, including the compliance officer, is integrated into the administration.
Many of the currently 35 Olympic associations have better transparency and ethical rules than the IOC.
More and more of them publish minutes of meetings.
The IOC has never done this, the meetings of the Executive Committee and other bodies are kept secret.
Although there are annual financial reports under Bach, decisive details about contract sums for TV and sponsorship contracts or payments to individual National Olympic Committees remain business secrets.
The Belgian Christophe De Kepper acts as Bach's praetorian, who controls everything and corrects deviants.
The IOC Director General also represents IOC interests in international hybrid bodies and good governance structures vis-à-vis political institutions.
Those who resisted were punished
At IOC sessions under President Bach, opinions that deviated from the prevailing doctrine were very rarely expressed.
Opposing votes even less often because it is dangerous in terms of sport politics and career-destroying.
The few athlete spokesmen who temporarily resisted - Claudia Bokel, Adam Pengilly, Hayley Wickenheiser, also Beckie Scott - were punished in a variety of ways.
Another example: The Canadian Richard Pound, now the longest-serving member of the IOC, suggested after the many failed citizen surveys that the IOC should suspend the application process for the Winter Olympics, reform it and only then continue with the award of the 2022 Winter Games.
But Bach did not dwell for a minute with Pound's warning.
Instead, Beijing was awarded the contract for 2022, after a dubious process on which the last word may not yet have been spoken: The election was canceled due to alleged problems with the electronic voting system - the IOC voted again, this time on paper, and Beijing won close to Almaty.
Since then, there has been sharp criticism of the award due to human rights violations in China.
Beijing 2022 is a homemade problem, just like the 2014 Games in Sochi, Russia, in the country that has been proven to have a state doping system.
Both games remain associated with the name Thomas Bach in the public eye.
No matter how much the IOC struggles to make a different impression.
The committee and its president have a very close relationship with both potentates, Russia's Vladimir Putin and China's Xi Jinping.
Xi Jinping, for example, received the Olympic Order in 2013.
It was awarded to him by Thomas Bach.
Icon: The mirror