If you’ve ever flipped through old Codes of Points, you might have noticed something. The old tomes are typically filled with ads from equipment manufacturers like Janssen & Fritsen and Spieth. However, the 1979 edition introduced a newcomer: a full-page advertisement from ABC, the U.S. television network. This addition was no coincidence; it came on the heels of a $1.5 million deal between ABC and the Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG).
How did this partnership materialize? And in the landscape of sports contracts, was $1.5 million a significant investment? To unravel the story behind this pivotal moment in gymnastics broadcasting, let’s examine the details and draw comparisons to other agreements ABC negotiated during the 1970s. But first, let’s set the stage…
TV Rights at the FIG: A Little Background
What were the FIG’s revenue streams back in the day, before the 1978 deal? For starters, they took a portion of the ticket sales and TV rights, with the share they received varying based on the event’s supposed prestige and scale. Here are the percentages from 1976:
Royalties and TV rights
1. Meetings between affiliated federations:
Proposal made by the Executive Committee
3% of the sum yielded by the tickets sold
3% of the TV rights.
Decision (voting by a show of hands): 39 votes in favour of the FIG proposal, 1 vote against.
2. European Championships
Proposal made by the Executive Committee
According to the regulations at present in force: 10% of the total yielded by the tickets sold, 10% of the TV rights and 10% of any profit.
The Danish representative, Mr. Nielsen, points out that there are other similar competitions and it would be better if the same regulations were applied. He mentions, notably, the Pan American Games, the Asiatic Games, and the Mediterranean Games.
The president replies that this is the case when the competitions in question are gymnastic championships. On the other hand, if regional games include other sports, our regulations are not applicable.
Mr. Whiteley (Great Britain) would like to know if these fees are payable even if the event is run at a loss.
The president, Mr. Gander, replies that the terms of Art. 32 of the statutes are in force.
Decision (voting by a show of hands on the parts of the European federations): 20 votes in favor of the FIG proposal.
World Championships – Proposal made by the Executive Committee
6% of the total yielded by the tickets sold
15% of the TV rights
15% of any profit.
Decision (voting by a show of hands): The proposal made by the Executive Committee is accepted by 35 votes with 16 abstentions.
Assembly General, Extract from the minutes of the meetings held in Montreal on 15th July, 1976
FIG’s Bulletin of Information, No. 4, 1976
Sure, ticket sales and TV revenues provided some money, but predicting these revenue streams can be a gamble, fraught with uncertainty. To cultivate greater financial stability, why not abandon the variable percentages and instead secure a fixed contract with a television network? That was the plan…
1976: The Search for Direct Television Contracts
The FIG’s executive committee resolved to take a more active role in negotiating television broadcast rights. Previously, the federation had relied largely on local event organizers to manage these negotiations. Now, the FIG decided to cut out the middleman and enter directly into contracts with television broadcast companies.
9. Press, Propaganda, Television
The president of the FIG, Mr. Gander, considers that, in future, a member of the Executive Committee should deal with press and television, particularly in view of the contract that exists between the FIG and sports TV. He is of the opinion that the FIG should also enter into contracts with the various television authorities. For the rest, nothing will change concerning the distribution of the rights, but the FIG should have the same rights as the other international federations.
Mr. Whiteley (Great Britain) fears that it will be difficult for the federations to organize manifestations [i.e. events] of a certain importance if the FIG is in charge of negotiating the TV rights.
This problem will be studied by the new Executive Committee.
Assembly General, Extract from the Minutes of the Meetings Held in Montreal on July 15, 1976
FIG’s Bulletin on Information, no. 4, 1976
1978: Inking a $1.5M Deal with ABC
Two years later, the FIG achieved its goal by entering into a contract with ABC. Interestingly enough, part of the TV revenue was earmarked for supporting gymnastics in developing countries.
In his report at the 56th General Assembly, FIG President Yuri Titov highlighted the significance of this initiative, underscoring the Federation’s commitment not only to expanding gymnastics’ global reach but also to ensuring that its benefits were felt in underrepresented regions. Ostensibly, the ABC deal wasn’t just about visibility and financial stability—it was about building a future for the sport worldwide.
Last January Mr. Max Bangerter, Secretary General of the FIG, Mr. Frank Bare, Vice-President, and myself had a meeting with the representatives of different companies (NBC, ABC, West Nally) in order to study the possibility of signing a contract for the TV Right’s sale, which would enable to broadcast the FIG official competitions to the North American countries only. Having attentively examined all the proposals, we have decided unanimously to give the preference to ABC company, which pledges to pay the FIG the amount of 1 500 000 US dollars for the period 1978-1981.
In our financial negotiations, we have studied the last practice of the financial contracts with TV companies, signed by the organizers of different competitions (World Championships, World Cup, European Championships, World Championships on the rhythmic sportive gymnastics) and found that the contract signed with ABC is more profitable to the organizers and to the FIG. According to this agreement, the candidates for the organization of FIG competitions must provide — free of charge to the ABC — the basic signal of the respective National TV company. We negociated also with West Nally Group and came to the conclusion to cooperate with them in different fields of gymnastics propaganda; this should also give the FIG additional profit. We have to take into consideration the fact that the advertizing of the firms at the competitions arena is a monopoly of the FIG and may be installed only after the agreement has been signed by the three parties: FIG, National Federation and firm. Having in mind the experience of the other International Federations, we think that the intervention of West Nally as the FIG agent will be positive. How will the received profit be distributed? — The major part will be assigned to the organization of the FIG competitions. That money will be distributed not only to the organizing federations of the Championships and World Cups, but also to those which hold competitions less interesting for the TV (European Junior Championships on the artistic gymnastics, European Championships on rhythmic gymnastics, etc.). Besides, an amount of 100 000 US dollars is allot[t]ed to assist the developing countries. What does it mean? – Last April, I visited the National federations in Algier and Tunis and saw the possibilities of these federations with regard to the developement [sic] of gymnastics. As I could be convinced, they face the same difficulties as the other National federations. The major problem 18 the shortage of personnel who should work with the athletes. In this connection, the FIG intends to organize in 1979 several seminars for coaches and officials. At the same time, it would be possible to set up demonstrative performances of the best gymnasts In these countries. Another problem is the shortage of apparatus, as modern apparatus is very expensive and Federations cannot provide it to all those who are wishing to practise gymnastics. I request all the National federations to study the possibility of manufacturing simple and cheap gymnastic apparatus, which could be accessible for mass use.
Yuri Titov
Report of the President of the FIG, 56th General Assembly
FIG’s Bulletin on Informaiton, no. 3, 1978
So… was $1.5 million a lot of money? If you’re like me, you’re probably asking yourself that question. Let’s take a quick look at some of the other sports TV contracts from that time.
Context: Other TV Contracts
Taking a page from the International Olympic Committee’s strategy, the FIG secured its own deal with ABC—the television network that had financially buoyed the IOC throughout the 1970s. However, the FIG’s contract paled in comparison to the sums paid for Olympic coverage. While ABC shelled out $25 million for the television rights to the 1976 Olympics, the FIG’s agreement represented only a fraction of that amount.
The American Broadcasting Company yesterday agreed to pay $25‐million for exclusive United States television rights for the 1976 summer Olympics in Montreal.
Roger Rousseau, president of the Olympic Organizing Committee, said the $25‐million figure represented the highest amount ever paid for TV rights to the Olympic Games as well as the highest ever paid for televising a single sports event.*
NY Times, January 4, 1973
Also, compared to professional sports leagues in the United States, the price tag for gymnastics rights was significantly lower. Here’s what was recorded in a 1975 article:
Currently, the NFL is in the second year of a four-year contract calling for $60 million per year plus $3.5 million for the Super Bowl and $1.5 million for the Pro Bowl.
[…]
Baseball has just negotiated a new four-year contract with NBC and ABC for $92.8 million. The National Basketball Association is in the last year of a three-year, $27 million contract with CBS. The NCAA college football package cost ABC $15 million. NBC paid out $4.5 million to televise 90 NCAA basketball games.
Will Grimsley, AP Special Correspondent, printed in The Sun (Vincennes, Indiana), Nov. 27, 1975
Bear in mind that there were many more, say, baseball games per year than FIG gymnastics meets, so the numbers above are not great comparisons.
Unfortunately, tracking down the TV contracts for Olympic sports and their respective international federations is like competing a Yurchenko full-twisting double pike. However, we do have some insight into the price tags attached to other athletics competitions, offering a glimpse into the financial world that FIG was navigating as it sought to stabilize its revenue.
- The AAU received $25,000 for the broadcast rights to the 1962 USA-USSR track meet at Stanford.
- Two years later, the AAU received $35,000 for the 1964 USA-USSR track meet. (Source: “Joseph M. Turrini’s “‘It Was Communism Versus the Free World’: The USA-USSR Dual Track Meet Series and the Development of Track and Field in the United States, 1958-1985”)
- The AAU was guaranteed a minimum of $550,000 by CBS to broadcast at least 10 outdoor track meets from mid-May through August 1969 (Source: Robert Lipsyte, The NY Times, December 19, 1968)
- ABC agreed to pay the Soviet Union $50,000 for the TV rights to the USA-USSR track meet in 1975 (Source: AP, Printed in the Wisconsin State Journal, June 18, 1975).
One more point of comparison: The United States Gymnastics Federation reported $50,356 in royalties and TV rights for the fiscal year ending August 31, 1976 (USGF News, Nov./Dec. 1976).
*Note: The TV deal for the 1976 Montréal Olympics was a bit contentious. Here’s what Stephen R. Wenn writes in “A Turning Point for IOC Television Policy: U.S. Television Rights Negotiations and the 1980 Lake Placid and Moscow Olympic Festivals”
Montreal officials had signed a contract with ABC without IOC approval, which divided the contract’s value ($25 million) into two sums, one for television rights ($12.5 million) and one for technical services ($12.5 million). Only the television rights were to be shared by the IOC, IFS, NOCs, and the Organizing Committee, while the Organizing Committee received the money reserved for technical services. This act violated Montreal mayor Jean Drapeau’s pledge to submit the gross television money for distribution among the four parties in keeping with established IOC policy. When the IOC grudgingly agreed to this contract in exchange for a letter of agreement, which precluded this practice with future television contracts, the Montreal officials consented, but attached an addendum to the document, unbeknownst to the IOC and its legal advisers, that voided the condition and authorized the Montreal Olympic Organizing Committee to deduct 50% of each contract’s value for technical services. The oversight on the part of the IOC lawyer who failed to detect the underhanded act had been a bitter financial pill for Killanin, the IOC, and its affiliated organizations? Killanin did not want it to happen again.
Why Does This Matter?
Television contracts are still an important source of revenue for the FIG, and as a result, it’s still top of mind for the FIG leadership. For example, here’s what Watanabe wrote in his report in 2023:
Moreover, the Branding, Marketing & TV rights Commission will have to find new revenue sources in order to compensate the television rights that are now lower than in the past.
FIG Bulletin, no. 261, August 2023
As the FIG navigates the future, television revenue remains central to its strategy, just as it was during its pioneering deal with ABC decades ago.
More on 1978