★ The Sports Examiner: Chronicling the key competitive, economic and political forces shaping elite sport and the Olympic Movement.★
★ To get the daily Sports Examiner Recap by e-mail: sign up here! ★
≡ NO SMOOTH SAILING ≡
Last Friday, the Los Angeles City Council approved, 14-0, a motion to approve the movement of multiple sports and venues for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games, in concurrence with the request from the LA28 Olympic and Paralympic organizing committee.
The approval was made including three amendments, for an economic impact study, clarifying events to be held at the Sepulveda Basin Recreation Area, and a third as a condition of approval:
“That the Venue Plan for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games (LA28) be amended to change the location of Sailing from the Long Beach Pier at Long Beach to the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro.”
The motion was made by 15th District Council member Tim McOsker, which includes San Pedro, who gave a boisterous, dramatic, emotional pitch to his fellow Council members which included in part:
“The winds are better and more consistent in San Pedro. …
“When LA28 came to us – came to us – and said we want to analyze it [San Pedro vs. Long Beach], we were able to analyze what it would be for the athlete: better wind and spectators.
“What will it be for safety and security? I guarantee you that San Pedro will be the safest in the history of the Olympics, given our capacities. What will it be for finances? You will hear from these guys, who will tell you, ‘oh, a new site, we’ll have to spend $10 million,’ with absolutely no math. When I came up in school, the nuns told me, show your math, show your work.
“We’ve seen nothing, absolutely nothing. But I will tell you, selling tickets to a number of maybe 10,000, or selling tickets to the number of zero, has a mathematical and financial difference. And it’s not going to be borne by Long Beach. It’s going to be borne by us.
“They will say, ‘oh, this is an Olympics where we have so many more events in Los Angeles than we had in ‘84.’ I don’t care. That’s your arguing point, that’s not my arguing point.
“My point is that moving sailing to San Pedro is better for the athlete, is better for the sport of sailing, it’s better for safety and security, it’s better for the viewer, and it’s better for Los Angles, it’s better for us financially.
“When they say it’s been studied and studied and studied, it’s been studied, show your math. Show us. So what I’m asking you today, is vote yes on this amendment. It says yes, we will approve your venue plan.
“I’m not going to question whether we should go to Oklahoma City for softball, but I do question what is obviously a mistake.
“And instead of some back room where a couple of bros making this decision somewhere, let’s do something for the sport, let’s do something for the Olympic Movement, let’s do something for Los Angeles, and most importantly, let’s do something for the spectator, that will be nobody in the other venue and thousands of people in this venue.”
His amendment passed by 12-2 and was incorporated into the overall motion, which passed by 14-0.
But on Tuesday, McOsker was back with a new motion which noted, “Subsequent to the Council’s action, LA28 issued a press release with no reference to the Council’s condition of approval relating to the sailing venue.”
And the motion:
“I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council instruct the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA),
with the assistance of the Office of the City Attorney, City Administrative Officer (CAO), and relevant departments, to report back in 7 days on:
“MOTION
“● Whether LA28 has accepted the condition of approval for the LA28 Venue Plan;
“● The City’s interpretation of the phrase: “shall not to be unreasonably withheld,
conditioned, or delayed”, as it applies to the City’s role in approving changes to the LA28 Venue Plan;
“● The City’s authority and legal standing in resolving disputes arising from financial,
operational, or compliance-related issues connected to the LA28 Games;
“● The process for resolving disputes involving third-party vendors, contractors, or
governmental agencies engaged in LA28-related activities;
“● Whether the City has established or should establish a dedicated conflict resolution body or designated liaison for LA28-related matters;
“● Options for mediation, arbitration, or litigation in the event of unresolved disputes,
including the extent to which LA28 or IOC agreements supersede local dispute resolution protocols;
“● Best practices from other Olympic or large-scale event host cities regarding dispute resolution and legal risk mitigation; and
“● Recommendations for strengthening transparency, accountability, and City oversight in all future LA28-related dispute resolution proceedings.”
The motion was sent on to the City Council’s Ad Hoc Committee on the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games, chaired by City Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who was one of the two ‘no’ votes against McOsker’s motion about moving sailing to San Pedro.
The LA28 organizers already have an agreement with the City of Long Beach from May 2024 for use of the Belmont Veterans Memorial Pier and surrounding areas for sailing in 2028.
And the LA28-City of Los Angeles Games Agreement of November 2021 includes a detailed dispute-resolution protocol, using arbitration.
As McOsker’s motion is now routed to the Ad Hoc Committee, expected to meet sometime later this month, this tug-of-war is going to go on for a while, and may end up involving World Sailing – the International Federation for the sport – and even perhaps the International Olympic Committee, which has final say on all of the venues used for the 2028 Games.
LA28 has posted no comment as yet.
¶
★ Receive our exclusive, weekday TSX Recap by e-mail by clicking here.
★ Sign up a friend to receive the TSX Recap by clicking here.
★ Please consider a donation here to keep this site going.
For our updated, 895-event International Sports Calendar for 2025 and beyond, by date and by sport, click here!
