Olympic Crisis

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27633, 14 April 1955, Page 12

Olympic Crisis

» Australia would be unwise to take 5 lightly the warning of Mr Avery Brundage, president of the International Olympic Committee, that ■ Melbourne, even at this late stage, i might be deprived of the 1956 ’ Olympic Games. Members of the organising committee in Melbourne ( are reported to have taken the comfortable view that Mr Brundage’s • statement was intended only to ! “ shock Melbourne into action 1 although it is fair to say that they admitted the need for this touch of the spur. Mr Brundage's warning was not a bluff. Many of the European countries have been bitterly opposed to the Australian venue from the beginning, mainly because of the high cost of sending teams such a long distance and the consequent need to limit their representation. Their opposition • has increased since they have learnt of the high cost of quartering and ■ feeding their athletes in Melbourne. The disputes in Melbourne about the ; sites for the various contests, the refusal of the Australian Federal ’ Government to relax its animal ’ quarantine regulations (which has ■ meant the separation of the equestrian events from the games | proper), and the successive doubts and anxieties about the completion of the stadia and the adequacy of accommodation for visitors have all nourished this European discontent. The International Olympic Com- ' mittee will meet in Paris from June ' 9 to 17; and unless there are better assurances of Melbourne’s complete 1 readiness than Mr Brundage seems to have been able to secure on his present visit there will almost certainly be a strong move to i transfer the games elsewhere. There j are two precedents for such a course, ■ but no precedent for a change so : late m the Olympiad. European • sports writers, however, have said there are several cities on the ; Continent including Lausanne, . Budapest, and Brussels—that could ■ organise the games at short notice ’ because they have permanent • athletic facilities of the appropriate > standard and would need only to j provide housing for the athletes and ,to organise accommodation for ‘ visitors; and the same can be said . for several American cities. It is to be hoped if will not conife to this. ’ The Australian Federal Government, • the Victorian State Government, and ; the Melbourne City Council are the 1 joint guarantors of the games; but ; there seems to have been some ; reluctance to accept jointly the . heavy financial responsibilities—far t heavier, indeed, than was at first 1 realised—involved in holding this i great athletic festival But no ’ country is compelled to play host to 1 the games; and no country which seeks the privilege, and the considerable benefits of prestige and publicity that accompany it, can afford to niggle over the millions of I pounds that it will cost, or the diversion of building resources from works that otherwise would have priority. Australia, not Melbourne alone, must make good the earlier promises, now reaffirmed by Mr Menzies. Failure, as Mr Brundage has suggested, would mean national ; humiliation.