Duncan Mackay
David OwenWhen I read my colleague Emily Goddard's piece this week reporting that the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) chairman was calling for International Olympic Committee (IOC) members, in effect, to be stripped of their right to vote for Games host-cities, I could scarcely believe my eyes.

Yes, I can kind of understand why, if we assume that Probst sees part of his remit as maximising the chances of the Summer Games returning to the US for the first time since Atlanta 1996, he might think this.

After all, the IOC membership in its wisdom turned its back on consecutive US bids for 2012 and 2016, the latter in particularly humiliating circumstances.

And I would think that the IOC's Executive Board - which Probst told Sport Business Journal he wants to decide where the Games are held - would be very likely to accord more weight than the membership as a whole to the argument that the high proportion of the Movement's revenues derived from US companies means it is high time once again to bestow the Olympics' flagship product on the land of its prime benefactors.

What escapes me is the upside of Probst going public and actually articulating his thoughts - particularly at this precise moment, when FIFA, probably the world's second-most powerful sports body, is under sustained heavy fire for awarding the 2022 World Cup to Qatar, a decision made by an Executive Committee of 22 men.

You don't have to believe any of the allegations plaguing the Gulf state and its planners - whose closest rival in the 2022 race was, incidentally, the US - to conclude that the IOC's modus operandi is probably better.

FIFA's decision by its ruling Executive Committee to award Qatar the 2022 World Cup has led to widespread allegations of corruption ©Getty ImagesFIFA's decision by its ruling Executive Committee to award Qatar the 2022 World Cup has led to widespread allegations of corruption ©Getty Images

Indeed, FIFA President (and IOC member) Sepp Blatter himself subsequently proposed a reform that would extend the electorate in future World Cup-hosting contests to all 200-plus of the football body's member associations.

This, in case you missed it, is what Probst is reported to have said:

""I'd like to see the [IOC] Executive Board decide where the Olympic Games are held," Probst...told Sport Business Journal.

"I will probably get in trouble for saying this, but they are supposedly the most sophisticated and knowledgeable people in the membership, so I would like to see the [Executive Board] have more of a say.""

Thanks to an explanation offered by Probst in a conference call with reporters on Tuesday, we now have more of an insight into the circumstances in which the comment was made.

It seems Probst was asked at a Sport Business Journal conference what he might want to change about the IOC.

"I served that up as, you know, 'Here's an idea, here's a thought'," he explained.

"Upon further thinking about it, it might not be such a terrible idea to have the Executive Board get down to a couple of cities and then put the vote between those two cities to the full membership.

"These are all things that are just ideas at this point.

"These are things for the working groups to consider...

"That was said in the spirit of being more efficient and cost-effective than we may have been in the past."

As Probst's reference to working groups makes plain, it is blue-sky-thinking time inside the IOC at the moment, with all and sundry being encouraged to chip in ideas to President Thomas Bach's Olympic Agenda 2020 initiative.

So from that perspective, Probst's timing is more understandable.

A working group to help frame key recommendations relating to bidding procedure has even been set up under the chairmanship of John Coates, the senior Australian IOC member.

While Probst is not on it, Angela Ruggiero, another (increasingly highly thought-of) US IOC member, is.

As the USOC chairman also made clear on Tuesday, the conclusions of Coates's working group will have a bearing on whether the US ultimately decides to enter the race to host the 2024 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games, the next one available.

"We clearly want to see the output from that working group and what changes are adopted before we push the Go button on formalising a bid for 2024," he said.

"Yes, that work is going to be important to our ultimate decision."

The last American bid, from Chicago for the 2016 Olympics and Paralympics, ended in humiliation when they were voted out by the IOC in the first round of voting ©Getty ImagesThe last American bid, from Chicago for the 2016 Olympics and Paralympics, ended in humiliation when they were voted out by the IOC in the first round of voting ©Getty Images

Taking all this into account, I still cannot fathom what was to be gained, from a US viewpoint, from Probst going public on his thinking at this time.

Indeed, I can think of three ways in which the remarks might prove counter-productive.

1) If he doesn't get his way - and I have so far discerned little indication that he will, even if I would not be surprised to see "guidance" offered to members by the Executive Board and Evaluation Commissions become, in future, a little more pointed - Probst's comments give IOC members another excuse not to vote for the US candidate-city in the 2024 race.

2) If they share my analysis on Point 1, European cities such as St Petersburg, Rome and Paris - who would make formidable rivals - might conclude that 2024 is not a foregone conclusion after all and throw their hats into the ring.

3) The remarks could contribute to undermining the progress made since the 2016 bid fiasco in dissipating the air of anti-Americanism that has been detectable in and around the membership for much of the 13-year period I have been covering the Movement. Probst himself, as well as USOC chief executive Scott Blackmun and IOC members Anita DeFrantz and Ruggiero have been key players in fostering this positive change. As one European Olympic observer told me recently, "The US has reacted better to 2016 than France did to [Paris's defeat in] 2012."

As things stand, this is at worst an isolated lapse.

The 2024 Summer Olympic and Paralympic host-city will not be chosen until 2017.

USOC chairman Larry Probst, seen here with Russian President Vladimir Putin during Sochi 2014, has courted controversy by suggesting the IOC Executive Board vote for the Olympic host city rather than the full membership ©Getty ImagesUSOC chairman Larry Probst, seen here with Russian President Vladimir Putin during Sochi 2014, has courted controversy by suggesting the IOC Executive Board vote for the Olympic host city rather than the full membership ©Getty Images

It remains conceivable that the US may have no serious rival, though I would expect the IOC high command to move heaven and earth to ensure this is not the case - not out of anti-Americanism, but desire to protect its bargaining position with the eventual host.

But it would be a big mistake, in my view, just at the moment when it has rediscovered the magic formula, for the US to revert to heavier-handed tactics.

Whatever the motivation for Probst's initial comments, and the circumstances in which he made them, they could hardly fail to be interpreted in some circles as a vote of no confidence in the individuals in whose hands the US's Olympic ambitions for now – still – firmly reside.

It is probably early enough in the campaign as to make little difference, but it will be harder now for Probst to complain if his apparent lack of confidence turns out to be reciprocated.

David Owen worked for 20 years for the Financial Times in the United States, Canada, France and the UK. He ended his FT career as sports editor after the 2006 World Cup and is now freelancing, including covering the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the 2010 World Cup and London 2012. Owen's Twitter feed can be accessed here.