Olympics 2024: end of recklessness, place for vigilance and sobriety?

Interview by Wulfran Devauchelle, expert in marketing, football and American sports.

The Sport Business Observatory: According to its evaluation report, everything seems to be going well.

In the current geopolitical context, can such a demonstration still make sense?

Armand de Rendinger:

The current political and economic context is not, for me, a reason to call into question the principle of an Olympic project which could seem for some quite derisory and even out of place in relation to more important priorities in the running time.

Although it has become increasingly complex with its gigantism and its obligations that are increasingly difficult to overcome, the Olympic Games are a great mobilizing cause.

They still embody fundamental qualities for athletes, whether they are champions or not, and incidentally for the morale of a country.

The principle of the Games in themselves is not to be condemned because it would be threatened by opposing forces.

It would be reprehensible if they generated excesses opposed to the Olympic spirit and especially if they organized themselves at any cost and ignoring the promises made to the citizens of the country concerned by their organization.

Also, preparing for the Olympics does not exempt you from basic rules of common sense and good business management.

Yes for the Olympics, in France or elsewhere, but not at any price, is that right?

It is therefore in this spirit that our new interview takes place, less than 700 days before the opening ceremony of the Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games.

The IOC is not there to publicly sanction or panic the crowds.

He is there to advise and, if necessary, redirect the file if necessary.

Regarding the question on the IOC visit report, what can we remember?

Nothing new.

As is customary (and it will be so until the eve of the opening ceremony of the Games), the Coordination Commission, following the example of what is done during each of its visits made on the occasion of all the Olympic Games, considered, between work sessions, site visits and walks on the Seine, that:

.

Habitual and agreed speech of trust and circumstance.

The IOC is not there to publicly sanction or panic the crowds.

He is there to advise and, if necessary, redirect the file if necessary.

He has always done it that way and his criticisms, if they must exist, are not made in the open.

Finally, its public communication is always "tinged" with its fine Olympic and diplomatic language, which it will be up to each observer to decipher as they please.

Nothing to report then and appointment to confirm all this in 6 months, is that what should remain of this visit?

This Olympic posture is immutable and perfectly illustrates the discrepancy, which could exist between: on the one hand the actors at the heart of the device of the complex preparation of the Olympic Games with their constraints, the feeling of independent media covering the preparation of the Games and on the other hand, the objective of the IOC which is to ensure that the Olympic Games will be organized as well as possible and above all "profitable", in terms of revenue and the image conveyed.

Undoubtedly the OCOG, bathed in cordial understanding with the Olympic movement's umbrella institution, beyond the many selfies and other usual forms of communication, will not be fooled by the official speech at the end of the visit.

He should not be more satisfied with the satisfaction that will be granted to him and the encouragement lavished, knowing that the hardest part for him remains to be done in the next 2 years.

Nothing new then.

Precisely for neophytes and other lovers of the Olympic Games, this posture of the IOC sometimes seems paradoxical or even in contradiction with a certain local "feeling" and/or the reality on the ground.

Especially since on July 25, a month before this visit,

It is obvious that, given the doubts accumulating as to the respect of budgets, deadlines and "spellbinding" promises repeatedly repeated, the meeting of July 25, initiated by the new Minister of Sports and now of the Olympics, marks a turning point in the governance of the Paris 2024 file. As I told you during a previous interview, the State, which until now seemed (although largely contributing financially) to limit itself to a supporting role and to be sometimes complacent with regard to the situation presented to him by the management of the OCOG, had to at least remind everyone of their duties and especially for the government to regain control of the project as soon as possible.

Recalling, on this occasion, that the Olympic file was a national cause,

Given the state of the situation of the Paris 2024 file, recalling this is not the result of excessive pessimism or discouragement on the part of Olympic Games observers, but has the major objective of advocating the strengthening of vigilance and anticipation of problems in the management of a project.

Project oh so complex and which calls for very specific skills.

Emmanuel Macron brought together this summer the ten main ministers concerned by the Panoramic Olympics

So you are talking about a political turning point.

But at this meeting were not present, managers of essential pillars of the project, namely the

Certainly not.

Given the subjects dealt with, in particular the major one of the security of the Olympic Games, it is normal for the President of the Republic to organize a government meeting to take stock of the specific commitments of the State.

He can do this without calling the entire OCOG Board of Directors together and/or calling into question the essential role of the City of Paris (cf. the Olympic rules for organizing the Olympic Games) and the Ile-de- France in the specific case of the Paris Olympics.

No doubt there was a communication error as to the objective and the raison d'être of this meeting when it was announced, all the more so as solidarity between the political parties is sought to advance the Olympic file.

However, we cannot accuse the initiators of this meeting, in the first place the Minister of Sports, after having met all the stakeholders without exception and trying to "get them on board" the liner Paris 2024, of only playing politics. politician and communication on a file of such importance, so sensitive and on which France is putting its credibility and its image at stake.

Without political union, it is a sure failure in terms of the hoped-for success and the essential mobilization of the population behind Paris 2024.

A controversy of this nature is not the first and may not be the last?

Exactly all the more so as Paris 2024 attracts covetousness.

It is up to the government and, consequently, the OCOG to ensure this, because without political union there is sure to be failure in terms of the hoped-for success and the vital mobilization of the population behind Paris 2024. This union is all the more necessary and that following at this meeting, the State took the leadership of the project and if certain current leaders continue to be persuaded of the contrary, the French citizens will see it thus.

The State, therefore the government and not Estanguet and company, will therefore be considered responsible for the 2024 Olympics.

all the more so since the Minister of Sports and the Olympic Games constantly shows that the latter are a decisive and catalytic element of the new sports policy that the President of the Republic wants to implement for the country.

The Paris 2024 file, a national cause and a major element of this policy, is therefore a State affair, in the hope that it does not become a State affair.

This obligation therefore creates a new situation where the State, rightly or wrongly, must be in a position to assess and “recalibrate” the means needed from now on to ensure the success of the Olympic Games.

This situation is also unprecedented, because the Olympics mixed with national politics can lead to the refusal to support the Olympics in "ideological" opposition to President Macron.

Given the national political atmosphere of the moment, hardly "affected" by the Olympic grace of peace and unity, such an eventuality cannot be ruled out.

This assessment and this calibration necessarily go through an objective analysis of the situation and rational action as to the measures to be taken, even if it means calling into question what, 2 years from the opening ceremony,

The time has come to no longer promise the sublime and the ideal, but to ensure the possible in the short term, without the passion for the Paris Olympics being weighed down by a purely technocratic rationale.

Reasoned ambition and not dreams, common sense and not naivety, transparency and not lies, efficiency and not complacency … in short, competence and not amateurism, are virtues to be privileged and must remain topical.

It is up to those in charge to convince themselves of this and not to deviate from it from now on.

Paris City Hall in the colors of Paris 2024 Panoramic

But this possible and undoubtedly harmful amalgamation for the Olympic Games is already arising at the level of the City of Paris, because of the policy pursued by its Mayor Anne Hidalgo?

Yes, but there is a noticeable difference.

The Mayor of Paris, once she proved convinced in 2015 of the usefulness of the Olympic Games, got involved in the application file to obtain those of 2024 and always said loud and clear, despite the strong opposition to her method of "transforming" Paris, that the Olympics were for her a key element in accelerating the ecological transformation of her city.

In terms of its Olympic responsibility, it has the legitimacy.

It was a daring bet, but we can't blame her for the will she has always displayed, against all odds, to achieve her goals.

In the meantime, in accordance with its commitments, it "traces its way" and continues to manage growing opposition accusing it of "trashing" Paris, Olympic Games responsible or not, for this state of affairs.

Notwithstanding this, his constant determination has always overcome opposition during the Parisian elections.

A very French paradox, when we analyze the reasons for its serious failure in the last presidential elections.

Will Paris remain, with its French Olympics, this other originality that the Olympic world watches with curiosity?

Will voters have plenty of time to wait for the next municipal elections to decide on the legacy left by the Mayor of Paris at the end of her current mandate?

Only the future will tell us.

For the government taking over the leadership of the Olympics, it is on the other hand a new challenge to prevent the Olympics from being prisoners of its policy from now on.

No sooner had the July 25 meeting ended than voices were already being raised to condemn this risk and this amalgamation.

Nothing new in this matter, all the countries that have organized Olympic Games have experienced the same problem and have been able to overcome it, certainly more or less well (cf. in particular the recent Olympic Games of Tokyo 2020, Rio 2016, London 2012, Turin 2006 , Athens 2004).

However, with regard to the 5 years which have passed since the attribution of the Olympic Games to Paris, it is clear that despite the good progress of certain works within the preparation of the Olympic Games, significant and foreseeable problems remain.

You talk about originality concerning the Paris 2024 file, precisely how this would be problematic and less than two years from the opening ceremony what would be the major problems to be resolved?

Initially, unless possible external disasters for which the OCOG would not be responsible (political, social, health, weather crises, repeated strikes, disorder of the "yellow vests" type, terrorism, war, international boycott, for example) , it is useful to remember that the Games will be organized and should take place normally on French territory in 2024. Although no other sporting event than the Olympics has their degree of complexity, France has demonstrated most often (in despite the fiasco in the last Champions League football final) that it had expertise in organizing international competitions.

However with the Olympics, we are in another dimension.

No one can claim to have exhaustive expertise and competence to successfully organize their organization on their own, especially since each Summer Olympics is original in itself.

So why shouldn't France, novice as it is, succeed where other countries, however inexperienced they may have been, have been able to organize them successfully?

However, with regard to the 5 years which have passed since the attribution of the Olympic Games to Paris, it is clear that despite the good progress of certain works within the preparation of the Olympic Games, significant and foreseeable problems remain.

They were either ignored or evaded.

They are on the table today and will require drastic and immediate action.

This will prevent the next two years from being a financial and operational ordeal to respect the constraint of delivering the Games on time, while assuming the promises of responsibility and quality promised in its time to the French population.

In this perspective, can we imagine Parisian Olympic Games less spectacular, more sober and responsible in relation to the promises?

Why not, it is still necessary to specify the nature and extent of this degradation!

Olympic Games, degraded or not, will certainly be prepared and ready in France in 2024, but at what cost and under what conditions?

So many questions that call for an immediate answer to avoid the headlong rush of an OCOG sheltering behind its usual communication mantras, such as: "the Games pay for the Games", "the need for a Olympic cost" and "with the Games in Paris and the opening ceremony on the Seine, we will amaze the whole world".

Slogans such as “Made for Sharing” or “Let's open the Games wide”, however interesting or surprising they may be, cannot serve as a placebo to mask the difficulty of reality and of the preparatory work to be done.

Ditto to hide the reluctance, not to say opposition, which is expressed about the values ​​of the Olympic Games and the excessive economic importance given to them compared to other social priorities.

This work will have to be accomplished, no longer through costly communication aimed only at justifying the Olympic Games, but by focusing on the tasks to be carried out so that the Games are well organized and judged as financially responsible. and social.

This first requires a duty of transparency on the state of affairs to date, knowing that in this case and for example, from 2018 in particular with regard to the significant remuneration that the OCOG had allocated to itself, and as early as 2019 the IOC, wise economists and politicians, had already asked the OCOG to launch a drastic savings plan to counter any significant drift in future costs.

3 years later, what was the scope of the measures taken?

Has there been a change of course and/or a significant reduction in the expenditure wing?

So little, beyond simple awareness and declarations of intent.

On this theme, which is repeated with each preparation for the Olympics, as a general rule it is in the first 3 years following the awarding of the Games that changes of direction are necessary.

This was not the case for Paris 2024 despite multiple alerts being expressed about the preparation of our Olympic Games and in particular the plethora of recruitments carried out and coming from the OCOG budget.

Obviously, some did not impose themselves.

On the nature of this type of problem, which weighs heavily on the operating costs of the OCOG, the experiences of past Olympiads can serve as an example.

Until recently, the Italian government, on August 11, 2022, did not wait to resume the governance of its OCOG, in charge of preparing the 2026 Winter Games in Milan and Cortina d'Ampezzo which were awarded to it in 2019. In the circumstances, as is customary, a decision was therefore taken 4 years before the opening ceremony, where in France we have been dithering for 3 years.

Staging of personalized communication with selfies and again recently with the highlighting of the OCOG delegation during a trip to Tahiti, risks of conflicts of interest, messages, certainly relevant, intended to mobilize the general public on the day-to-day running of the sporting disciplines during the Games, but out of step with the latter's current concerns (more preoccupied with questions of purchasing power or drought and heat waves), reversal of calendar priorities in this phase of preparation for the OJ, trivialization of the various reports denouncing the risks of drift and lack of anticipation in the decision-making which was essential, etc., maintain the doubt and what is more in this period.

In fact, we are witnessing this classic phenomenon that we must anticipate and above all curb: the more we communicate (with the sole aim of mobilizing the crowds) the more opposition we raise.

The record in this area will have been the recent distressing, ridiculous and blasphemous tweet of Tony Estanguet diverting the Appeal of June 18 from General de Gaulle to make an appeal to all French people to have to support the Paralympic Games!

However, are these risks so important to be alarmed?

For some no, while others are offended by so many refusals with regard to questions that could shake the certainties of the management of the OCOG.

To put a stop to these questions, on July 27, following the government meeting, the Ministry of Sports and the Olympic Games in particular communicated on the networks that everything was under control, that the teams were united and that deadlines and promises will be kept.

Confidence in high places therefore seems to have returned and is in order.

The future will tell us quickly if this is justified and/or heralds or not important measures.

At this point, it would be fatal to enter into a deadly controversy over who is right or wrong.

The only attitude to have: demonstrate vigilance and anticipation and not underestimate any savings that could be made in the short term.

It is a question of professionalism and respect for the promises made that only the citizens will in fact be able to judge in the long term if they have got their money's worth.

Indeed, it is at the end of the Games that the accounts will be drawn up.

Seen by the French, the past will be forgotten, only will count: the quality of the parenthesis and the July-August 2024 celebration, the image of the country, the number of French medals,

the societal benefits for France and the cost borne by each citizen.

The rest and the difficulties in organizing the Games, if they are overcome, will be quickly forgotten, along with the OCOG!

According to you and despite the usual good points distributed by the IOC and by the Minister of Sports who deploys a lot in all areas under her Ministry, the meeting of July 25 should therefore lead to a rethinking of the substance and form of communication. practiced by the OCOG and intended for the general public, while ensuring that the preparatory work is carried out correctly in order to respect the commitments made by the latter?

Yes, and in an immediate and determined way.

In the first place concerning the communication and the report of the OCOG with the general public, the “Coué method” and the multiplication of positive or negative polls concerning the merits of the Games are no longer acceptable.

Communication must focus primarily on the objective of mobilizing the French people and not on selling promises through the possible know-how of the OCOG management.

On this subject, criticisms, founded or not, are emerging on the supposed “incompetence” of Tony Estanguet and his project management.

The time to take stock will be at the end of the Olympic Games at the end of 2024 and today we are only at a crucial stage in anticipating the problems to come and solving them.

Also, to avoid any controversy on this subject, a clarification is necessary.

It is not the competence of such and such that is at stake, but undoubtedly his professional inexperience to allow himself to lead a unique event of such magnitude.

Already the fact of apprehending and mastering the organization of the equivalent of 33 world championships at the same time is complex, but still it is necessary to have the experience of managing a company calling on a progressive way to multiple skills that you have to know how to identify on the market and how to manage for a given period.

Serious recruitments have been made and are doing their job, when other useless highlight questionable human resources management,

In fact, the OCOG is a victim of its own act and this in correlation with other causes for which it is not responsible: the Estanguet-Thobois-Aloïsio trio, under the leadership of Anne Hidalgo and Bernard Lapasset in particular, having led successfully applied, in a way declared himself to be responsible for presiding over and directing the organization of the Paris Games.

Did this trio have the potential to assume this position as difficult as it is prestigious?

Had he perceived the scale and the means necessary to recruit?

The question remains open.

This posture led this trio in particular to carry out “pseudo calls for tenders” to recruit certain directors and a new general manager.

This posture has led to the elimination of candidates deemed, a shame, too competent or oversized for certain positions envisaged.

The most obvious example is that of Amélie Oudéa-Castéra, whose candidacy was excluded because she presented remarkable skills and a vision of the Games.

Cruel irony of history is that 3 years later, she returns through the front door as Minister of Sports and in charge of the Olympics!

Rarely, if ever, has a person in charge of an Olympic bid taken over the presidency of his subsequent organization.

However, could we not compare the profiles of Tony Estanguet to Jean-Claude Killy (Olympic Games of Albertville 1992) and Sebastian Coe (Olympic Games of London 2012)?

All 3 are Olympic champions, presided over a candidacy for the Olympic Games, then for the last 2 presided over its preparation and organization with the success that we know.

However, there is a fundamental difference between the latter two and Estanguet.

Killy and Coe did not win (quite the contrary).

They were called upon to assume the presidency, because first of all, beyond their own qualities, they had had major professional experience in the general management of a company for more than 15 years, between the time when they left the competition scene and that of "diving back" into the world of the Olympic Games.

15 years of experience allow them to authorize themselves to accept to preside over an event as complex as the Olympic Games, all the more so since they have been able to

surrounded by complementary and structured skills in an optimal mode of governance, the sole objective of which was to organize the Olympic Games and not necessarily to engage in politics and/or a career afterwards.

They were there to organize the Games and not to replace politicians to embody the sporting and territorial policy of the country.

Also reproaching Tony Estanguet and his management for their incompetence is a useless lawsuit, but professional inexperience, however ambitious one may be, is prohibitive and must be filled, if not replaced, by real skills where the State services and real business owners must exercise their responsibilities.

These active skills exist.

They are just waiting to be asked to take up this challenge within the framework of a short mission which must be temporary.

The budget for the Olympic Games in 2017 was around 6 billion euros, to be estimated today at 8.4 billion.

Usual drift for the Summer Olympics and we find ourselves on a trajectory which should lead us to around 10 billion in the long term.

Beyond the communication and governance that go hand in hand, what about the operational issues that present themselves as challenges for government and a restructured OCOG?

Let's just recall 3 elements "setting the scene" of the situation to date:

First, the budget for the Olympic Games in 2017 was approximately 6 billion euros to be estimated today at 8.4 billion.

Usual drift for the Summer Olympics and we find ourselves on a trajectory which should lead us to around 10 billion in the long term.

This amount, announced a long time ago by those who follow the Paris 2024 file in complete independence, essentially corresponds to a reintegration of expenditure items that were not and/or insufficiently budgeted at the outset (costs of civil servants assigned to the Olympic Games, complexity of transport, economic models for the reconversion of Olympic villages, specific Olympic services, increasing cost of external services, provisions for contingencies, etc.) and for some deliberately undervalued (security in particular).

Olympic Games budgets since 1992 Statista

Then, this drift, relatively limited compared to other Games previously organized, would not be a problem in itself, if the expected private receipts (more in cash than in products) were there and above all increasing to fill current and future deficit.

However, this is not the case and this is all the more distressing since the OCOG has always explained that there would be no additional costs, because 95% of the infrastructures necessary for the Olympic Games (positions where, as a general rule, must bear the greatest budgetary excesses) were already available.

On this subject, the public group Solideo in charge of the delivery of these Olympic structures (listed to be 64 in number!), despite a few surprises, has done and is doing its job.

Finally, Paris 2024 would therefore be in deficit more for reasons of inappropriate operation than of reckless investment.

In this context, in the absence of additional private revenue, this deficit would be an additional burden for the taxpayer.

The question in the long term will therefore be whether this deficit will be acceptable and bearable, considered as a priority investment for sport and the image of France to the detriment of other political and social priorities or quite simply an unavoidable and new expense linked to essential to poor management of the Paris 2024 dossier.

There will always be time at the end of the Olympics to know if all the promises relating to the Olympics effect will have been kept.

In this case, economists spoke in 2017 of 11 billion euros in spinoffs for the next 15 years in job creation, tourism, etc. A forecast that will always be useful to analyze and monitor.

It will be just as important to see how, through its Olympic Games, France has gone from being a country of athletes to a sporting nation, has favored the integration of people with disabilities (image, media coverage of their competitions, access to infrastructure and public transport), has enabled the sustainable development of sport at school and has encouraged the overhaul and/or renovation of the administrative layer of its sports governance (Ministry of Sports,

Whether the Olympics project has become a national cause or not, the question today is above all to ensure that Paris and France will be there for the Olympics on July 24, 2024. Already during a night parliamentary session in November 2021, the government has increased its guarantee to cover the expenses of the Olympic Games from 1.2 to 3 billion euros, expenses already marked.

This measure is in line with the spirit of the Olympic exceptional law which is essential when organizing an event of this nature where compliance with deadlines is an essential rule, under penalty of penalties.

It illustrates the government's desire to have everything ready for the summer of 2024,

In this context, beyond the problem of the operational governance of the OCOG, the problem amounting to several tens of millions of euros of current and future remuneration in the extension of the Olympic Games, the necessary actions to mobilize the French population behind the Olympic Games, particularly through the actions developed within the "Terre de Jeux 2024" program, at the current stage of progress of the work, many files are handled efficiently, when major items of expenditure must be the subject of special economic, operational and political control.

Namely: the overall security of the Games, transport and traffic within the capital, the quality of the athletes' village, the extent of the media village, the dispersion and distribution of sports venues,

as well as their official acceptance by the international sports federations concerned, the services offered to Olympic VIPs and the recurring question concerning the cost of choosing the location of the surf in Tahiti and of course the feasibility of the lavish and sumptuous project of the opening ceremony Games on the Seine.

As for this last project, as the weeks go by, it turns into a headache, particularly coming up against the reality of cost and security problems.

Pour tous ces postes, la balance coût-utilité-faisabilité-sobriété dans les temps impartis doit être traitée avant toute prise de décision.

À vous entendre, tout est possible quant à l'organisation des JO, mais selon vous quels seront les critères qui prédomineront pour juger de leur succès ?

La préparation de JO fait toujours l'objet de critiques, de doutes et de remises en cause de certaines promesses. Leur succès quant à lui est toujours évalué, comme une chance ou une malédiction*, selon des critères propres aux différents acteurs concernés par les Jeux.

Pour les athlètes, c'est leur confort afin d'accomplir les meilleures performances possibles. Pour leurs accompagnateurs, ce sont la logistique et les facilités mises à leur disposition. Pour le CIO, c'est le prestige de l'image de JO qui lui est renvoyé et les bénéfices engrangés. Pour la France, ce sont évidemment les retombées économiques et sociétales et sa capacité à démontrer au monde entier qu'au travers des JO elle a su inscrire dès aujourd'hui la révolution digitale et les nouvelles technologies dans la transformation de la gouvernance et le développement futur du sport. Pour le gouvernement, c'est le respect des promesses économiques et sociales annoncées. Pour les territoires hors Paris, les sponsors et les médias, c'est la notoriété et le retour sur leurs investissements. Pour la population française, ce sont la couverture médiatique, la qualité de la fête, l'accès à la billetterie et au final, le nombre de médailles obtenues par les athlètes français. Enfin pour les optimistes et les « amoureux » des vertus olympiques et des JO, c'est l'organisation d'une manifestation planétaire responsable, éthique dans tous les sens du terme, contributive au rayonnement du sport et à la hauteur du prestige de la France et de sa capitale Paris.

Quant à l'ardoise financière finale, donc de l'impôt pour le contribuable, elle sera jugée plus tard par les citoyens, au même titre que le nombre de médailles, sachant qu'en la matière, la France, bien qu'ayant peu investi, a mis la barre très haut !

Pour conclure avez-vous confiance quant aux mesures qui devront être prises par l'État et les responsables d'un COJO revisité pour aboutir à une manifestation digne de la France ?

Nonobstant un environnement politique et social peu propice, oui. Quand on voit l'action menée depuis 5 mois et quelques décisions prises par le gouvernement en matière de sport et de diagnostic de la situation réelle du dossier Paris 2024, tout en restant réaliste quand en l'espèce le sans-faute politique est impossible, on peut être relativement optimiste. Par contre est-ce que tous les objectifs, au travers des JO de Paris, seront atteints ? Rien n'est moins sûr et ce d'autant plus que les investissements que certains de ces objectifs réclament depuis longtemps n'ont pas été effectués en leur temps pour être atteints dès 2024.

Pour la manifestation des Jeux elle-même, encore faut-il que l'État se donne les moyens pour renégocier avec le CIO certaines obligations olympiques devenues insupportables et stipulées dans le contrat liant la Ville de Paris, l'État et le CIO. Cette renégociation était impossible (question de conflit d'intérêts) au préalable, quand Tony Estanguet se trouvait à la fois Président du COJO et membre du CIO. Encore faut-il aussi que l'État soit disposé à passer en temps réel du stade de stratège à celui d'opérationnel et que le gouvernement ne travestisse pas la réalité. En effet ce dernier le fait souvent par négligence et/ou crainte de démobiliser la population et d'ajouter inutilement du stress au stress déjà ambiant. Ensuite il est indispensable que celui-ci agisse vite d'ici la fin de l'année, comme le proposent déjà les différents rapports d'audit internes et externes, car le temps presse. La proximité de l'arrivée d'échéances incontournables ne fera que croître la pression sur les responsables des Jeux Olympiques et Paralympiques de Paris.

Finally, it would be just as inappropriate to perpetuate this "thought" which has been creeping in for some time among politicians in particular, confirming that those responsible for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics would be lucky and were more politically and economically savvy to have left those of 2024 in Paris.

*cf.

the book: The 2024 Olympic bet, Chance or curse?

24 challenges to overcome (Editions Vigot)