Why Tokyo "cancellation was never an option"

On Tuesday, International Olympic Committee ('IOC') President Thomas Bach said cancelling the divisive Tokyo Olympics was "never an option" at his address at the 138th International Olympic Session in the Japanese capital.

Mr Bach said, "cancellation would have been easy and [we could have] drawn on the insurance."

"In fact cancellation was never an option for us."

Mr Bach used his speech to say their persistence was motivated to ensure the athletes' pursuits were not abandoned. However, the commercial and legal consequences of cancelling, including broadcasting rights, have obviously burdened the IOC, despite the potential recourse to insurance.

In addition to the IOC, the pressures Japan has faced in continuing with these Olympics have been widely reported, including discontent from its citizens, ballooning costs, a prolonged COVID-19 State of Emergency, rising infection rates and even athletes and officials, In Tokyo, testing positive to the virus this week in the lead-up.

The virus ensures the legal risks to these Games will not abate even after the Olympics begin. The fact the Games are starting at all, despite the uncertainty, is because they would have been so difficult to cancel.

The IOC has always held power over Japan in terms of control over cancelling the Olympics. The legal basis for this, the Host City Contract between the IOC and Tokyo.

Article 66(a) of this contract states, "The IOC shall be entitled to terminate this contract and to withdraw the Games from the City if:"

(i) ... ''the IOC has reasonable grounds to believe, in its sole discretion, that the safety, of participants in the Games would be seriously threatened or jeopardised for any reason whatsoever;"

...

(iii) "The Games are not celebrated during the year 2020"

The contract clearly provided the IOC with the opportunity to withdraw the games from Tokyo. However, Professor Jack Anderson, Director of Sports Law Studies at the University of Melbourne, believes broadcasting rights were a driving force for why cancellation was never an option.

"Those rights are fundamental to the financial viability of the IOC"

"Not providing the broadcasters with a Games would create an immediate contractual problem for the IOC with its key broadcasters and may also affect the future value of such rights."

The IOC would have suffered significantly, potentially losing USD $4billion in television rights revenue if the Games were pulled.

If Japan, rather than the IOC, wanted to bow to pressure and terminate the Games, even in the lead-up to the Games with record cases of COVID-19, their basis for doing so was questionable, and the financial fallout pronounced.

As Professor Anderson explains, "Under the Host City Contract, they [Japan] may have to cover the IOC for third party losses."

Both the IOC and Japan want a return on their significant investment to hold these Games, and their persistence, no matter the motivations, will be partially repaid when Bach can declare at tonight's Opening Ceremony 'let the games begin'.