Norway's decision to give the 2022 Winter Olympic Games the cold shoulder comes coupled with the allegation that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) are getting too big for their ski boots.

The eminently civilised Scandinavians, who surely would be perfect hosts for the quadrennial snowy extravaganza, as they have been twice before, now declare they won't allow their taxpayers to pick up the $3 billion (£2 billion/€2.5 billion) tab for holding them in their capital city Oslo.

Moreover, the tiny if well-heeled nation - population just five million - apparently is appalled at the list of demands - which the IOC claim are merely suggestions - presented as requisites to ensure the fawned-upon panjandrums of the Olympic Movement are accorded the luxurious comforts to which they are regularly accustomed.

For the IOC, Norway's rejection must feel like a slap in the face from a frozen cod.

Oslo's decision to pull the plug on its bid at the 11th hour leaves only Beijing, which isn't within 120 miles of a ski-able mountain and Almaty, largest city in oil-rich Kazakhstan, a country where corruption is endemic and human rights record abysmal, as contenders after Swedish capital Stockholm, Kraków in Poland and Lviv in Ukraine also pulled out earlier this year.

Norway have won more Winter medals than any other nation, and clear favourite Oslo's withdrawal will have rocked the IOC President Thomas Bach, even if he does not publicly admit so.

The size and cost of a modern Olympic Games appear to be putting off smaller countries like Norway ©AFP/Getty Images



For it heightens concerns that the Winter Olympics, like their Summer big brother, are now becoming far too expensive, scaring off smaller countries, particularly those in Europe, after Sochi's controversial £31 billion ($51 billion/€37 billion) showpiece in February.

Norway's Coalition Government scrapped the bid because of costs, poor public support and a list of requirements from the IOC which, in a 7,000 page dossier - includes the usual five-star billeting, VIP cocktail parties and dedicated traffic lanes, but also smiles all round and a bit of a knees-up at the Palace hosted by Norway's King Harald V.

For the record this is the list of demands/suggestions from the IOC as revealed in the leading Norwegian newspaper VG.

• To meet the king prior to the Opening Ceremony. Afterwards, there shall be a cocktail reception. Drinks shall be paid for by the Royal Palace or the Local Organising Committee

• Separate lanes should be created on all roads where IOC members will travel, which are not to be used by regular people or public transportation

• A welcome greeting from the local Olympic boss and the hotel manager should be presented in IOC members' rooms, along with fruit and cakes of the season. The hotel bar at their hotel should extend its hours "extra late" and the minibars must stock Coca-Cola products

• The IOC President shall be welcomed ceremoniously on the runway when he arrives

• The IOC members should have separate entrances and exits to and from the airport

• During the Opening and Closing ceremonies a fully stocked bar shall be available. During competition days, wine and beer will do at the stadium lounge

• IOC members shall be greeted with a smile when arriving at their hotel

• Meeting rooms shall be kept at exactly 20 degrees Celsius at all times

• The hot food offered in the lounges at venues should be replaced at regular intervals, as IOC members might "risk" having to eat several meals at the same lounge during the Olympics

A meeting with the head of state of the host country ahead of the start of the Games is one of the requests the IOC makes of bidding cities ©AFP/Getty Images



Will there be anything else sir? Run your bath and shine your shoes perhaps?

"Norway is a rich country, but we don't want to spend money on wrong things, like satisfying the crazy demands from IOC apparatchiks," declared the newspaper. "These insane demands that they should be treated like the king of Saudi Arabia just won't fly with the Norwegians."

In response the IOC insist there has been some misrepresentation in the media. "The documents have been widely and often deliberately misreported," they say. "Even a cursory glance would show they contain suggestions and guidance, not demands. These were gathered from previous Games organisers and are advice on how to improve the Games experience for all."

Well, you would expect them to say that, especially after Norwegians effectively told them to take a running ski jump.

President Bach also accused the reporting of being overblown and claimed the decision not to back the bid was a purely "political" decision.

In fairness the IOC's official manual on running the Games does say that a pre-Olympic gathering for IOC members should include a meeting with the head of state, and insists upon a strict protocol for the order in which he or she should greet their guests and seating in the stadium.

Christophe Dubi (right) has claimed Oslo's withdrawal from the 2022 race for the Olympics and Paralympics was a "missed opportunity" ©AFP/Getty Images



Christophe Dubi, IOC Executive Director of the Olympic Games, reckons Norway's withdrawal is "a missed opportunity for the City of Oslo and for all the people of Norway who are known world-wide for being huge fans of winter sports." He adds: "And it is mostly a missed opportunity for the outstanding Norwegian athletes who will not be able to reach new Olympic heights in their home country.

"It is a missed opportunity to make the most of the $880 million (£543 million/€697 million) investment the IOC would have made to the Games that would have built a considerable legacy for the people."

That may be so. But it is also a timely reminder that much of the world believes the IOC, in common with certain other global sporting bodies, is increasingly out of touch with reality.

Surely Bach, seemingly more egalitarian than some of his Papal-like predecessors, and someone who came to office on a reformist ticket, can see that, and will act on it.

Eyes will be on IOC President Thomas Bach and the Agenda 2020 reform process to see what changes, if any, are made to the way bids are run ©AFP/Getty Images



The IOC's efforts to modernise under his stewardship comes to a head in Monte Carlo in December with timely calls for changes to the bid process and the "demands" placed on host cities.

Back in Norway, where the 2016 Winter Youth Olympics will still be held in Lillehammer (scene of perhaps the best-ever Winter Games in 1994), Finance Minister Siv Jensen described the IOC as "pompous" and said her country's refusal to accede to the requests "sends a very powerful message to the International Olympic Committee that it needs more modesty and be closer to the people in future Olympic events".

Quite. But will the IOC, which so often gives the impression of thinking themselves more powerful - and certainly more influential - than the United Nations with Lausanne a sort of sporting Vatican, get the message? Breath should not be held.

It may be a generalisation but it would appear that despite earlier clean-up operations some IOC members remain on a par with the freeloaders of FIFA - and British Parliamentarians - when it comes to noses in troughs.

All this leaves one wondering what sort of excesses were lavished on the IOC at London 2012, perhaps disguised under "Miscellaneous Expenditure" on the balance sheet. Probably just as well we don't know.

Meantime, it is disquieting to consider that with the next two football World Cups destined for Russia and Qatar and the inaugural European Games next year in Azerbaijan, the future of sport's biggest events may rest solely in the hands of mega-rich, largely authoritarian nations.

Perhaps it doesn't matter just as long as everyone keeps smiling.

Alan Hubbard is an award-winning sports columnist for The Independent on Sunday and a former sports editor of The Observer. He has covered a total of 16 Summer and Winter Games, 10 Commonwealth Games, several football World Cups and world title fights from Atlanta to Zaire.

One of the best things about the recently concluded Asian Games in Incheon were the several occasions where something happened that was totally bizarre and utterly peculiar, but also rather fantastic.

Perhaps the best instance came in cricket, where Kuwait qualified for the quarter-finals by virtue of winning a coin toss against the Maldives after rain prevented any play from taking place. This was made all the quirkier by the fact that Kuwait were captained by a 58-year-old whose son was also on the team, and were all out for 20 and 21 in the two matches they did play, the last of which ended with a 203 run defeat to Bangladesh, the biggest defeat in the history of international Twenty20 cricket.

Another memorable example came in athletics, where Iraq's Adnan Almntfage was promoted to the gold medal for the men's 800 metres after the first three men across the line were all disqualified.

As I write this, there are somewhere between 7.2 and 7.3 billion human beings living on this planet.

And the International Olympic Committee (IOC) stands to collect approximately 40 US cents (£0.25/€0.32) from each of us in return for making the next Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro in two years' time available to watch on TV.

Not directly, of course: the Olympic Charter says that the IOC "takes all necessary steps in order to ensure the fullest coverage by the different media and the widest possible audience in the world for the Olympic Games"; so the best of the action is always available on free-to-air media.

But broadcasting organisations and media agencies look set, nonetheless, to pay the IOC $2.8-$2.9 billion (£1.7-£1.8 billion/€2.2-€2.3 billion) for the right to screen Rio 2016 in different parts of the world, recouping their outlay (or so they must hope) by selling advertising and supplementary paid-for coverage and services.

Based on these rights fees, which country's viewers are the most - and indeed the least - valuable in the world?

The last time I embarked on this exercise, ahead of London 2012, I was surprised to discover that the most valuable potential Olympic viewers were not the inhabitants of the USA.

Instead, sports-crazy Australia pipped them to the post, with Japan completing the podium, and New Zealand, Hong Kong, Canada and Italy making up the minor placings

Sports-crazy Australia is no longer the nation with the most valuable Olympic viewers
©Getty Images


This time, with Australian market conditions having moved against the IOC, potential US Summer Games viewers are comfortably the most expensive, with NBC Universal paying the equivalent of around $3.80 (£2.35/€3.01) a head, by my calculations, for the right to air Rio 2016 on US soil.

I make that more than $1 (£0.62/€0.79) a head above what Australia's Seven Network agreed to pay for the right to broadcast to its domestic audience, in one of the last Rio 2016-related deals to be completed.

It is worth pointing out at this juncture that while I have done all in my power to make these calculations as accurate as I can, a number of variables - fluctuating exchange rates, precise population levels, the apportionment of fees between Winter and Summer Games - not to mention a growing tendency for fees paid to be kept confidential, means they must inevitably be treated with a certain amount of caution.

Assessing the correct valuation of Japanese viewers provides a perfect illustration of this conundrum, with the reported JPY¥36 billion (£205 million/$331 million/€262 million) price tag for this deal, covering the 2014 and 2016 Games, converting into much less in US dollar terms today than two-and-a-half years ago, when the agreement was completed.

One must presume that the IOC will have hedged itself against some of this currency market volatility; but I have no way of knowing what the effective exchange rate on this transaction will ultimately be.

The view I have taken values each potential Japanese viewer of the Rio 2016 Games at a touch under $2 (£1.24/€1.58), about half the US level, which puts Japan below Australia and Italy in fourth place in the classification.

Each potential Japanese viewer of the Rio 2016 Olympic Games can be valued at just under $2 ©Getty Images



However, I completely accept both that the reality as expressed in the IOC's financial accounts might turn out to be different, and that others might just as legitimately come up with a different valuation.

What is indisputable, if at first glance slightly illogical, is that the valuation of potential European viewers has jumped between London 2012 and Rio 2016.

For London 2012, I estimated the value of each European citizen - excluding Italians, who were already covered by their own national deal - at between 60 cents (£0.37/€0.48) and $1.

This time around, even though the Games are being staged in a different continent, the IOC has pushed up the value of each potential viewer in the big, affluent West European markets of France, Germany, Spain and the UK to between $1.25 (£0.77/€0.99) and $1.55 (£0.96/€1.22) by my calculations.

Italy, for which rights were sold to Rupert Murdoch's Sky Italia as long ago as 2009, is meanwhile I think set to yield more than $2 a head to the Olympic Movement.

The IOC has achieved this without obliterating the value of other European markets, rights to which were sold in an agency deal that should yield the Movement the equivalent of something like 50 US cents (£0.31/€0.39) per head of population covered.

Turkey, where rights were also sold separately, has ended up as the least remunerative European market for Rio 2016 as far as the Movement is concerned, at 25-30 cents (£0.15-£0.19/€0.20-€0.24) per capita.

This, however, makes no allowance for the fact that the 50 cents-a-head  pan-European agency agreement is an average price, and that follow-on deals between the agency and national broadcasters will no doubt place widely varying notional valuations on individual viewers in different countries.

The other region where the IOC has been able to make significant headway is Latin America, the sub-continent that will host the Summer Games in 2016.

Host-nation Brazil is paying, by my reckoning, the equivalent of about 80 cents (£0.50/€0.63) per head, and the rest of the region, on average, about 25 cents.

On a per capita basis, the fees paid in Africa and much of Asia remain low
©AFP/Getty Images



Fees paid in Africa and most of Asia are still very low on a per capita basis, a consequence both of widespread poverty and high population levels.

Yet here too some advance is discernible, notably in China, the most populous nation of all, which is now among the top 10 purely national territories for the IOC for broadcasting rights, while still yielding less than 10 cents (£0.06/€0.08) per head of population.

By my calculations, the IOC also still collects less than 10 cents per potential viewer from the Arab world, including north Africa, and vast swathes of Asia, from Indonesia to Turkmenistan.

The Asian territories - which also include the likes of Thailand, Vietnam and Uzbekistan - are covered by two exclusive gatekeeper deals with the Japanese advertising company Dentsu.

Even 10 cents a head is lucrative compared to the sum generated from south Asia, a zone covering not far off 1.7 billion people in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and four other territories.

This looks set, by my reckoning, to produce between 1 and 2 cents a head for the IOC.

And that is probably as good an argument for the inclusion of cricket on the Olympic programme as any.

"Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." Know who said this? The same man who also said: "Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing." (Although this wasn't an original quote). Care to guess his nationality? That's right. American.

Vince Lombardi, hugely successful as coach of the Green Bay Packers American Football team in the 1960s, was that man - and the second quote was borrowed from another US coach cut from the same brash cloth, Red Sanders.

Lombardi would have heartily approved of the behaviour, and demeanour, of a fellow American on Sunday evening at the US golfers' press conference which followed their third successive Ryder Cup defeat by Team Europe.

The question posed to Phil Mickelson - "What worked for the US team in 2008 that hasn't worked since that time?" - was a classic journalistic invitation. At that moment, to the five-times major-winner who had not been selected to play in Saturday's matches, the question was a ball sitting up nicely on the fairway, begging to be despatched on its way to the green - and secretly primed to explode.

Phil Michelson makes his unhappiness with US team captain Tom Watson very clear at the post-event Ryder Cup press conference on Sunday ©Getty Images

Others might have walked on by. Mickelson gave this opportunity a right old crack as he celebrated the motivational skills and meticulous game-plan exhibited by Paul Azinger, the last man to captain the US to a Ryder Cup win, and, by inference, criticised the performance of the 2014 captain and eight-times major-winner Tom Watson, who sat staring into the middle distance a few seats along from him.

"Unfortunately we have strayed from the winning formula for the last three Ryder Cups," Mickelson added.

This excruciating sequence earned fierce criticism for Mickelson on either side of the Atlantic. It was not that he didn't have a point. It was not that Watson's captaincy had been perfect. The criticism effectively boiled down to two considerations: time and place.

Nick Faldo, who had captained the Europe team which lost to Azinger's men in 2008, said on the Golf Channel: "That should have been a private conversation. Phil certainly doesn't respect Tom Watson."

Colin Montgomerie, Europe's winning captain in 2010, commented: "Should we go into this one hour after we've been defeated? The answer is a flat no. You support your captain under all circumstances. In public, you respect and honour your captain."

Colin Montgomerie, pictured with the Ryder Cup after leading Europe to victory in 2010, believes '"n public, you respect and honour your captain" ©Getty Images

Without doubt, Mickelson transgressed this unwritten law. The most immediate parallel which came to mind was that of Roy Keane's bitter condemnation of the Ireland football manager Mick McCarthy and of the training facilities and general approach as the squad prepared in Saipan ahead of the 2002 World Cup finals.

Keane's simmering dissatisfaction with the Irish set-up boiled over during a team meeting and he reportedly ended up by telling McCarthy: "I didn't rate you as a player, I don't rate you as a manager, and I don't rate you as a person...you can stick your World Cup up your arse. The only reason I have any dealings with you is that somehow you are manager of my country. You can stick it up your bollocks."

Roy Keane, pictured playing for Ireland in 2001, told manager Mick McCarthy the following year "you can your World Cup up your arse" ©Getty Images

Reportedly. While the Manchester United man's outburst - an excoriating farewell to any prospect of continuing his international career under that management - went far beyond the indirect criticism employed by Mickelson, it was not made in public, albeit that it soon found its way into the public domain.

Which, according to the Montgomerie tenet, made it more excusable.

In the wake of Mickelson's comments, others have recalled Kevin Pietersen's lambasting of the England cricket coach Peter Moores during the unhappy tour of India in 2008, after which Moores was removed from his position. But Pietersen, who was encouraged to resign as captain on the same day that Moores went, claimed that he had not leaked the criticism to the media himself.

Which also made it more excusable. Although Pietersen's position on moral high ground may be about to slip given his combustive tweet yesterday signalling the impending expiry of his confidentiality agreement with the English Cricket Board following his effective sacking from the international scene in February.

England cricket coach Peter Moores (left) was not Kevin Pietersen's cup of tea during the 2008 tour of India ©Getty Images

The rule about not criticising one's coach or manager publicly works both ways. Sir Alex Ferguson was not averse to offering the odd word of criticism to those players whom he deemed to have fallen below the high standards expected at Manchester United. But he did so in the (relative) privacy of the dressing room or training ground.

Sir Alf Ramsey, who guided England to their only World Cup win in 1966 was a managerial paradigm in this respect. When the FIFA bigwigs were putting pressure on the Football Association to drop Nobby Stiles from the team following his extravagant and damaging foul on the French player Jacques Simon during the final qualifying match, Ramsey - having had Stiles's word that it was a badly timed rather than malignant challenge - threatened to resign. Stiles played the quarter-final against Argentina - and proved a model of restraint despite multiple provocations.

Ramsey's loyalty to the team ethic was evidenced impressively at the World Cup finals four years later. Peter Bonetti, a late goalkeeping substitute for the ill Gordon Banks in England's World Cup quarter-final against West Germany, had let in two soft goals as his team went from 2-0 up to a 3-2 defeat after extra-time. There was no word of criticism for the hapless keeper from Ramsey. Any such outburst would have been quite alien to this honourable man.

US Ryder Cup captain Tom Watson listens to his approach being criticised by Phil Mickelson during the post-event press conference ©Getty Images

Tom Watson, now 65, is also widely held to be an honourable man. Not for him the reaction of another sporting captain, Nottinghamshire cricketer Jason Gallion. In the wake of Notts' relegation in 2003 Gallion responded dramatically to Kevin Pietersen's request to be released from his contract, citing general unhappiness and a poor pitch at Trent Bridge, allegedly throwing the former South African's kit off the balcony and breaking his bat.

"If you build it, UEFA will come."

With apologies to Kevin Costner and the rest of those responsible for Field of Dreams, the fantasy Black Sox baseball movie, this looks like a more and more apposite slogan for a venue some 4,000 miles east of Ray Kinsella's ploughed-under Iowa corn-field: Wembley Stadium.

The recent decision by the European football body to stage the semi-finals and final of its revolutionary, continent-wide Euro 2020 tournament in London brings to five the number of showpiece UEFA occasions to be hosted at the venue with the arch in less than a decade. (And I wouldn't bet against the total rising eventually to six through the awarding to Wembley of a third UEFA Champions League final to add to the 2011 and 2013 editions.)

Why has the famous Stadium in North-West London become UEFA President Michel Platini's field of dreams?

Size, frankly, has a lot to do with it.

As a UEFA source confided around the time of that all-German 2013 Champions League final between Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund: "It's obvious that we love the place; we can accommodate 90,000 people."

Wembley Stadium's size, seating 90,000, makes it an attractive proposition ©Getty Images



Yes, the Stadium has other plus-points: "London is easy to access; the viewing experience is wonderful; it keeps everybody happy".

But, "The essential thing is we can conveniently accommodate 35,000 fans from each club."

Or, when it comes to Euro 2020, from each country.

The financial boost that this situation is delivering to the English Football Association (FA), which had hoped to host the 2018 FIFA World Cup and which, at end-July 2013, still had a hefty £274 million ($443 million/€351 million) of bank loans outstanding in relation to the Wembley Stadium funding, is far from negligible.

The FA's 2011 report and financial statements explained that that year's Champions League final between Barcelona and Manchester United generated £16 million ($25 million/€20 million) of additional turnover in the year for the FA, while incurring £11 million ($17 million/€14 million) of costs.

So I make that a profit on the event of some £5 million ($8 million/€6 million).

While I can find no such clear-cut statement of the impact of the 2013 Champions League final in the FA's 2013 accounts (which cover only the period up to July 31 because of a decision to change the group's accounting reference date), there seems little reason to suppose it would have been much different.

The Football Association can aspire to a turnover of £50 million for the three Euro 2020 showpiece matches ©Getty Images for UEFA



Based on that 2011 figure, and without trying to take account of inflation, it seems reasonable to project that the FA can aspire to at least £50 million ($80 million/€64 million) of extra turnover from the three big Euro 2020 matches Wembley was awarded.

Not bad for an organisation whose present annual turnover is around the £300 million ($485 million/€385 million) mark.

What is more, given that the three matches will come in quick succession, you might think that associated costs per match might weigh in at less than the £11 million incurred for a Champions League final that was a true one-off.

The margin made by the FA in 2020 on its £50 million of extra turnover might therefore be even higher than that achieved in 2011.

Such a windfall will probably be very welcome.

In 2011, after all, it seemed that a corner had been turned, as segmental information in the notes to the accounts showed that "stadium and non-FA event management" nudged into profit for the year, against pre-tax losses of more than £12 million ($19 million/€15 million) in 2010.

In 2012, however, the activity fell back into the red to the tune of £7.83 million ($12 million/€10 million) after £21 million ($34 million/€27 million) of interest payable had been taken into account.

And in the latest set of figures, the loss stands at £7.29 million ($11 million/€9 million) over just seven months.

To judge by the 40,000 attendance for the recent friendly victory over Norway, it looks like the England team may struggle to fill Wembley for a time now too, particularly as UEFA's expansion of the number of European Championship finalists to 24 has taken much of the tension out of Euro 2016 qualifying, at least for the bigger countries.

So the FA has cause to be thankful that Wembley has proved so well tailored to UEFA's big match requirements.

And with much of Western Europe still in the economic doldrums, it may take longer than might once have been expected for newer, edgier competitor-stadiums of similar scale to materialise.

"If you build it..."

Why is it that football always kicks logic into touch?

If there was any logic left in the incessantly intransigent game, the 2022 World Cup would not be held in stinking hot but ominously stinking rich Qatar. Not only does it not make sense logically but geo-politically, morally and climatically too.

Logically Sepp Blatter, that slippery septuagenarian, should not be attempting to cling on to power for a fifth term as President of despotic international ruling body FIFA, but handing over gracefully to Parisian Jérôme Champagne, a seemingly logical successor.

Logically, English football should be restricting the import of many mediocre foreign players and nurturing young home-grown talent for the future of the international game, about which the Premier League appears to care not one jot.

Logically too, it should, not be paying grossly obscene wages to these tyros, nor to adolescent members of Premier League  squads, some trousering upwards of £40,000 ($64,800/€51,400) a week which tempts them into the sort of errant behaviour lapped up by the red top tabloids.

Logically, both the Premier and Football Leagues should be questioning far more seriously the credentials of certain dodgy, unscrupulous foreign magnates before blithely rubber-stamping their ownership of clubs here.

Logically, Alan Pardew should not still be the manager of joint-bottom Newcastle United.

Logically, Harry Redknapp should have become the manager of England as surely he would have been a better motivational force in the World Cup than dear old Uncle Roy.

It would have been logical if the Olympic Stadium, pictured here in a CGI image showing what it will look like in 2016 when West Ham move in, had been fitted with retractable seating from the outset ©West Ham



And perhaps most logically of all as far as English football is concerned the Olympic Stadium, at the point of conception, should have been constructed with retractable seating, a la Stade de France, to avoid the expensive conversion costs when it was decided, inevitably, that its future lies with football and not solely athletics.

Which brings us to another situation that should be logical, but isn't. That incoming West Ham should be sharing the venue.

Tottenham Hotspur need a ground for one season while White Hart Lane is being redeveloped and the Olympic Stadium, where West Ham will assume occupancy in time for the 2016-17 season, is an obvious solution. But apparently far too obvious for football.

It was understood West Ham would be able to veto a potential move, even if Tottenham, or any other club, agreed a deal with the London Legacy Development Corporation.

West Ham's vice-chair, the freshly-ermined Baroness Brady of Knightsbridge (aka Karren Brady, high priestess of Upton Park), has confirmed she is firmly against sharing the venue.

"In reality they probably could - but only with our permission," she said when asked if another club could move in.

"No-one has asked us for our permission and if they did we would probably say no, depending on who it is - if you get my drift."

Indeed we do, m'lady.

So do Spurs, which is probably why they have not made an approach.

Tottenham Hotspur will need a temporary new home when White Hart Lane is redeveloped ©Getty Images



But if they did, surely the Legacy Board and Tory Brady's political buddy, London Mayor Boris Johnson, should have a quiet word in the baroness' shell-like, pointing out that sharing even for a season, would not only be a gracious gesture in view of West Ham being given such a remarkably beneficial 99-year lease deal - some of it at the taxpayers' expense - but provide welcome injection of cash.

It makes sense economically - but when did football ever care about that?

During the summer the Hammers fought off an over-ambitious ground-sharing attempt by League One side Leyton Orient, though then owner Barry Hearn at least made a few bob out of it before selling on the club to an Italian billionaire.

West Ham may have the power of veto - not indefinitely but for the first season in which they move into their new home.

They will move in time to kick off the season after next, so Spurs could not share the 54,000-seater ground for that campaign. But the following season is theoretically possible.

Spurs could move into the Olympic Stadium, pictured showing what it will look like after it is renovated, for the 2017-18 season ©West Ham



Tottenham have denied that they are in takeover discussions but are seeking financial assistance for their proposed new 56,250-capacity stadium, which is to be built on the land adjacent to White Hart Lane. The project has been beset by complications and delays, and the club's latest estimate is that the team will not be installed until the 2018-19 season, at the earliest.

Among other options mentioned as a possible temporary home for Spurs are Stadium mk at Milton Keyness and Brighton, both 50 miles or more from White Hart Lane, and the national stadium at Wembley.

Wembley could well provide a partial solution even if there is a limit to the number of events that can take place there.

Wembley, with its 90,000 capacity, might be oversized for Tottenham's needs but it could suit Spurs' fans for the occasional major fixture.

Yet one ground share that would be even more logical is with fellow north Londoners Arsenal. Somehow, that appears unthinkable such is the bitter rivalry between the two clubs.

Yet Spurs have shared with Arsenal in the past. During the First World War, White Hart Lane was requisitioned by the War Office as a munitions factory so Tottenham played their home matches for four seasons at Arsenal Stadium, later to be called Highbury, plus a few at Clapton Orient. Then, during the Second World War, Highbury was used as an Air Raid Precaution station and a First Aid Post so Arsenal played their matches at White Hart Lane.

The fact is that while ground sharing in Europe and elsewhere is acceptable, in Britain it is regarded as an anathema, as the cities of London, Birmingham  Manchester, Sheffield, Bristol, Bradford  and  Glasgow will testify.

Why? Surely it is, er, logical.

Alas, in football, Logic is only recognisable as the name of a cheap centre-back from central Europe.

Alan Hubbard is an award-winning sports columnist for The Independent on Sunday and a former sports editor of The Observer. He has covered a total of 16 Summer and Winter Games, 10 Commonwealth Games, several football World Cups and world title fights from Atlanta to Zaire.

Sporting action in Incheon at the Asian Games over the last 10 days has been engrossing but also fantastically endearing in a heart-warming sort of way.

This event is a hotchpotch of some of the strongest powers in world sport together with some of the pluckiest underdogs, with many of the most popular sports supplemented by others that are rarely known outside Asia, and a few, it would seem, barely known within Asia either...

This all makes for a fascinating feast of sport in all its glory. And it is great for us journalists as well, who have sporting greats to write about, like Lin Dan and Lee Chong Wei in their badminton semi-final yesterday, as well as the weird and wonderful. Cases of the latter range from the Kuwaiti golfer who finished 122 shots off the lead, to the three Nepalese athletes who have gone missing, and the 39-year Uzbek gymnast who was winning medals before her rivals were born.

Right now in the cricket is another good example. This morning Kuwait - who lost their first match in the Twenty20 competition against Nepal with 103 balls to spare after being dismissed for 20 in 14 overs - overcame Maldives without a ball being bowled. The reason? They won via a coin toss after rain delayed the action to the point of no return.

In the current match, South Korea, represented by a group of baseball players recruited by English coach Julien Fountain purely to play at these Games, smashed and hit their way to 88-5 in 10 overs in thrilling fashion against Chinese opponents with a wonderfully cavalier approach to fielding, littered with flamboyant dives and audacious run-out attempts, with the latter invariably resulting in overthrows.

Take a bus to a different venue, and you can see sepak takraw, a Southeast Asian speciality of beach volleyball requiring the ball-control of a footballer, the flexibility of a gymnast and the aggression of a taekwondo player. Or you can watch kabaddi, the national sport of Bangladesh, which seems to bear something in common with the schoolyard game, British Bulldogs, albeit with even more violence.

Or you can see the best divers in the world, a high jumper with a personal best of 2.43 metres and a Japanese wrestler, Saori Yoshida, who has virtually never lost in her entire career.

Kabaddi is one sport virtually unique to the Asian continent ©AFP/Getty Images





The point I am trying to make is that the Asian Games have a charm and appeal that I have never seen at any other event I have attended, and this should always be remembered when the event is criticised, or minimised in significance.

Yes, there are challenges.

Twelve years ago, I looked on from what seemed like half a mile away as Paul McGinley, the calmest bat in the Belfry, rolled in the decisive 11-foot putt to claim the Ryder Cup for Europe.

This week, the 47-year-old Irishman captains Europe against Tom Watson's Americans at Gleneagles, in Scotland's Perthshire, in the biennial sporting classic that demonstrates unfailingly how golf, the most individualistic of games, can also be a gripping team sport.

Like many of the most satisfying sporting competition formats, the three-day Ryder Cup is a slow burner, with a rhythm more akin to a cricket Test match than a 100 metre dash or a football cup final.

This allows plenty of time for pondering weighty issues, and two of the questions you might hear chewed over between the peppered flags and gut-wrenching putts that are the contest's stock-in-trade are the following:

1. Why don't we have more sports events in which the teams involved represent continents?

2. Why can't Europe, by which people normally mean the European Union (EU), devise more institutions that are as popular and successful as its golf team?

This second issue seems particularly topical this year, given the recent independence referendum in Scotland and other separatist pressures around the continent, not to mention the waxing influence of eurosceptic parties such as the United Kingdom Independence Party.

I think with both these subjects, a good starting-point is to recall why this week's home team is Europe, and not Great Britain.

Hard to believe now, but four decades ago the Ryder Cup was dying on its feet.

The Ryder Cup was in anything but rude health when the United States' grip on the contest saw them win nine out of 10 between 1959 and 1977 ©Getty Images



Why? Because Great Britain was just not competitive: the USA won nine of the 10 contests between 1959 and 1977, with the 1969 encounter at Royal Birkdale ending up tied.

It was only in 1979, with the inclusion of Europeans, such as Spain's Severiano Ballesteros, that the team from the eastern side of the Atlantic became a worthy opponent for that from the west - and then not immediately, with Europe winning the cup (for the first time since Great Britain's win in 1957) only in 1985.

The formation of this particular continent-wide sports entity, then, came not from a popular clamour for a European golf team per se, but rather from a desire to engineer a worthwhile contest.

In this way, the European golfers ushered into the team fulfilled the same function as the handicap in a horse race, which uses weight discrepancies to try and allow horses of different abilities to compete on equal terms, producing an exciting and unpredictable finish.

Seve and his fellow Europeans were lumps of lead under the US saddle.

It was not until 1985 that the United States' opponents, now competing under the European flag, won the Ryder Cup ©Getty Images



Under normal circumstances, I think that a continent is just too big and diverse a thing to command natural sporting allegiance.

This to me is demonstrated by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) competitions over the years featuring continental teams, sometimes alongside individual nations.

I have to say, speaking as someone who takes a moderate, though far from intense, interest in athletics, that they have never really captured my imagination; I had to do a Google search to discover that the event I had in mind is now called the IAAF Continental Cup and that it was staged this year in Marrakech, Morocco.

Anyway, to summarise: had British golfers been better, a European Ryder Cup team simply would never have been needed.

That said, over the past 30 years, this European golf team, which assembles once every two years, has undeniably become very popular.

That McGinley putt in 2002 triggered football-style chants of "Yew-rupp! Yew-rupp!" in the verdant heart of eurosceptic Middle England.

It is hard to conceive of anything else - anything - that could do that.

"This victory has to be more uniting for Europe than the euro ever will be," observed a Norwegian journalist at the press conference with the winning team, and who today could disagree with that assessment?

With nine wins and a tie in the last 14 Ryder Cups, Team Europe has just as undeniably been very successful.

Indeed, it is hard to think of another pan-European, or EU, institution in any field that has proved itself so consistently to be greater than the sum of its parts.

Team Europe - the best thing to have come out of the continent? ©Getty Images



Perhaps then there is an argument for conducting a study to identify a formula transferable to other European institutions so as to imbue them with some of the Ryder Cup team's positive qualities.

Thinking, though, about examples of other Europe-wide entities or initiatives that have been both successful and popular - the Marshall Plan for one; NATO for another - I am not at all sure that the conclusions of such a study would be very much to our liking.

Both of these European success stories, you see, required considerable North American input.

And the Ryder Cup golf team is no different: as the competition's website explains, "Jack Nicklaus [the great US golfer] was instrumental in calling for the change with Lord Derby, President of the PGA, and in 1978 it was announced that the next Ryder Cup, at The Greenbrier in West Virginia, would be Europe vs the United States."

I am starting to wonder if some American also had a hand in a fourth trans-European success story that came to mind - the InterRail railcard used by many of my generation to travel around Europe as students.

If we Europeans are not to be forced to admit that Americans sometimes appear to know what is good for us better than we do ourselves, I think it might be advisable to view the European Ryder Cup team as a glorious sporting one-off, not a model to try to duplicate in different walks of life.

Let's enjoy the mysterious sporting alchemy that seems to click in whenever the Ryder Cup team gathers for what it is over the next three days, and not seek to overburden it with broader significance.

It is virtually certain that one of the people Katherine Grainger talked to before making her decision this week to return to the British team set-up after taking two years off was Sir Steve Redgrave.

Unlike the man who has five Olympic rowing golds to his name, Grainger did not announce, after winning the double sculls with Anna Watkins at the London 2012 Games: "If you ever see me near a boat again, you have my permission to shoot me."

That was Redgrave's position after claiming his fourth Olympic gold at the 1996 Atlanta Games in the pair with Matt Pinsent. Four years later, aged 38, and suffering from colitis and diabetes, he partnered Pinsent, James Cracknell and Tim Foster to gold in the four at the Sydney Olympics.

With characteristic good sense, Grainger - who will be 40 by the time of the Rio 2016 Games - is downplaying her return.

Katherine Grainger (left) and Anna Watkins celebrate winning the Olympic gold medal in the double sculls at London 2012 ©Getty Images

"I'm not really making long-term plans," Grainger told BBC Sport this week after getting back into a single scull for the first time in two years on Monday at the British training base in Caversham, where all those intending to try for the Rio 2016 team had to show their face in training by Tuesday of this week according to the British Rowing timescale.

In 1947 Fred Daly, the son of a blacksmith, became the first Irish golfer to win the Open Championship. He went straight into the Ryder Cup team that year - another first for Ireland - and played in the next three Ryder Cups too. Daly lifted Irish golf to another level, gaining recognition worldwide for himself and his countrymen.

Many more Irish golfers have lit up the Ryder Cup since then, appearing in every decade and in all but a few of the subsequent matches. Irishmen have played stellar roles in several matches, among them Christy O'Connor and his nephew, Christy Junior, Eamonn Darcy, Ronan Rafferty, David Feherty, Philip Walton, Paul McGinley, Darren Clarke, Padraig Harrington, Graeme McDowell and Rory McIlroy.

Why has it taken so long, then, for an Irish captain to emerge? Scotland, Wales, Spain and Germany have all had the honour but never, before now, has an Irishman led the team.

Golf in Ireland, like rugby and several other sports, is an "all-Ireland" sport that crosses political boundaries. Players from the Republic represented "Great Britain" for many years until the team name was changed to "Great Britain & Ireland" in 1973. There was another change in 1979 when the fixture became, as it is now, Europe v the United States.

When Europe attempt to win the Cup for a third time in succession at Gleneagles this week, they will at last be led by an Irishman, Dubliner McGinley, whose credentials for the job are impressive to say the least.

Paul McGinley, whose credentials for the job are impressive, will captain the European side as they bid to win their third straight Ryder Cup this weekend ©Getty Images



McGinley sank the winning putt in 2002, a 10-footer that left Jim Furyk on his knees at The Belfry. Two years later he went out last in the singles and easily beat Stewart Cink at Oakland Hills as Europe won again. A Welshman, Ian Woosnam, was captain when Ireland hosted the match for the first time in 2006. McGinley contributed a half in retaining his unbeaten singles record.

McGinley was vice-captain in the victories of 2010 and 2012. If Europe clinch their second hat-trick of the century at Gleneagles it would give him an unrivalled six-out-of-six record in the event that McIlroy, the game's top player, calls "the best golf tournament in the world".

McGinley was diplomatic when asked, in a recent interview for Golf International, why there had never been an Irish captain before.

"We've had great players in the past such as Eamonn Darcy, Des Smyth and Philip Walton, right back to Christy O'Connor who played in 10 Ryder Cups and Christy Junior, too. For one reason or another they were up against serious contenders when their chances of Ryder Cup captaincy came along. That's why it didn't happen for them. I'm just delighted the cards fell into place for me."

Darren Clarke, who was a rival to McGinley for the job, was also wary of saying anything that might cause offence, bearing in mind that he has hopes of being a future captain. When asked if it was unfair that Ireland had never had a captain he replied: "No, I don't think it's unfair at all. Some players don't want the job and before Europe as a whole came on board, nobody particularly wanted it. Let's hope Paul McGinley is the first of many [Irish captains]."

Christy OConnor said he would have loved to captain the Ryder Cup team ©Getty Images



This version of events, that "nobody particularly wanted it", does not sit well with the legendary Christy O'Connor, who will be 90 this year. He told Paul Kelly, author of the lavish 2006 book Ireland and the Ryder Cup: "I would have loved it. With my experience I might have been able to do the job better than others." Some captains, he said, were too defeatist, whereas "the Irish just hate to lose". O'Connor recalled the 1955 match, his debut, when "the general feeling among the players travelling to America was that we were on our way to be slaughtered. And that was the feeling for many years. I am not totally condemning the captains of the time, but I believe they should have been more strong-willed and in control of the team. They should have been telling our players 'Let's go out and win' rather than 'Let's go out and put up a good show'.

"Every team had passengers. And that added extra pressure on the top four or five players who had to play every match."

Despite playing in 10 successive Ryder Cup teams O'Connor was never asked to be captain. His regular partner was Peter Alliss, the BBC commentator who appeared eight times and had a magnificent record, given that Britain usually lost badly.

"I think it's a great pity that Christy was not named as captain," Alliss has said. "I myself would have liked to have been the captain of a Ryder Cup team. We were both part of teams that won [in 1957] and teams that tried. Certainly Christy deserved it, not only for his brand of golf and his enthusiasm, but for his desire to do the very best not only for himself but as a representative of Irish golf."

Some people, said Alliss, wondered if O'Connor was articulate enough, whether he could make a good speech. "It was something that never bothered the Americans. They chose their captain on merit. It didn't matter a toss whether he was a great speaker or not."

A simpler verdict came from author Kelly. "There should have been an Irish captain before and it should have been Christy O'Connor. The old boys club at the PGA over in England saw to it that it never happened." The PGA used to be in charge of the Ryder Cup, before the European Tour took over.

OConnor Junior was critical of the decision to appoint Ian Woosnam as captain of the European team for the 2006 contest at the K Club in Ireland ©Getty Images



O'Connor's nephew, Christy Junior, was a fierce campaigner for McGinley. He, like his uncle, was keen to be captain and made an effort in 2004, only to be rebuffed. "They turned me down on the grounds that a Major winner should captain the side. I have never heard such rubbish. Sam Torrance (2002) never won a Major and Mark James (1999) made one of the biggest balls-ups when he lost a huge lead to the Americans."

O'Connor Junior was a hero of the 1989 match, also at The Belfry. Against Fred Couples, who was the world number one at the time, he hit a two-iron over the water at the last hole to 4ft from the hole. It is one of the most famous shots in the history of the Ryder Cup.

He felt "hurt" that his uncle had never been appointed and was severely critical of the decision to appoint Woosnam in 2006. Having an Irish captain in Ireland would, he said, have been "almost like a 13th man on the team".

The lack of an Irish captain was, he said "bordering on an overwhelming sense of anti-Irishness" - until McGinley's appointment.

Now McGinley has set the trend, it could start a flood. Padraig Harrington will surely follow him as captain fairly swiftly, and Darren Clarke is a live contender, too. But it has been a long wait.

Brian Oliver, author of '"The Commonwealth Games: Extraordinary Stories Behind the Medals", and a former sports editor of The Observer, was weightlifting media manager at London 2012 and Glasgow 2014.

The International Paralympic Committee seem to have got themselves into a bit of a twist over Oscar Pistorius.

First, they said the six-time Paralympic champion, found guilty of culpable homicide by a Pretoria court, would be free to return to top-level competition as soon as he has served whatever sentence he receives next month, maybe even as soon as Rio 2016.

"Yes, we would allow him to compete if he is clear to do so and has served his punishment," an International Paralympic Committee (IPC) spokesman told insidethegames, a statement which raised more than a few eyebrows, and some hackles, too.

Which may be why the IPC's British President and International Olympic Commitee member Sir Philip Craven quickly averred that while Pistorius will be free to return to competition once he has satisfied the South African legal system, the organisation would not "promote" any comeback, claiming: "This is definitely not the case. The response we have made has been taken out of context."

International Paralympic Committee President Sir Philip Craven was quick to say the organisation would not "promote" any comeback to the track by Oscar Pistorius
©Getty Images



Subsequently comes the curious discovery that there was no mention of Pistorius, who, in international terms is the most famed figure in the annals of the Paralympics, was not even mentioned in their list of 25 most celebrated moments over the past quarter-of-a-century selected by the 13 members of the IPC Board from around 750 highlights submitted by the public.

The IPC insist there was "no ulterior motive" in his absence and say that he was mentioned several times further down the list.

Odd that don't you think, considering Pistorius' many golden moments?

Some might question whether trigger-happy Pistorius, once the prized Paralympian poster boy, and a history-making Olympian, has become an embarrassment to them, as OJ Simpson was to America's grid iron game, and is discreetly being airbrushed from their history.

Maybe that is too cynical a view. What we do know now is that it is highly unlikely we will ever see the Blade Runner in action again - at least in Britain.

For the immigration authorities, stung by recent accusations of laxity over allowing convicted criminals into the country, would almost certainly bar him.

This means there would be no chance of him appearing at the IPC World Championships in London in 2017 even if he is available.

According to Home Office sources, his conviction for the shooting of girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp is deemed such a serious offence that he would be denied entry to the UK whatever sentence he is given, following a recent toughening of immigration laws regarding criminal convictions.

Oscar Pistorius is unlikely to be allowed into countries like Great Britain and the United States to compete, but Brazil may be a different story ©Getty Images



One sports personality who has already been turned back because of his criminal record is the former world heavyweight champion Mike Tyson, refused entry to promote his autobiography. Tyson has served three prison terms, including one for rape.

Another world champion boxer, Floyd Mayweather Jnr, suddenly called off a planned promotional tour here earlier this year when it became apparent that he might have similar visa problems.

Two years ago, Mayweather spent two months in a Las Vegas jail for a domestic assault.

Other overseas sports figures who have fallen foul of the law, including those convicted of drugs offences, could well find themselves a GB exclusion zone.

It would be equally difficult for Pistorius to compete in the United States, where visa structures are even more draconian.

But one wonders whether Rio 2016 might be more welcoming for, as we know, Brazil takes a somewhat relaxed attitude to allowing in those convicted of criminality. The late British train robber Ronnie Biggs would have testified to that, as would several German war criminals.

The Paralympic icon will certainly be missed by a sport he bestrode on his famous prosthetic blades, winning gold in the T44 200 metres at Athens 2004 before claiming three golds at Beijing 2008 in the T44 100m, 200m and 400m. At London 2012 he won a further two gold medals in the T44 400m and the T42-T46 4x100m relay.

Would Oscar Pistorius even be welcomed back by sports fans if he chose to make a return? ©Getty Images



Would he be welcomed back anyway? Sports fans are notoriously forgiving, as many drugs cheats have discovered.

Remember the ovation accorded Dwain Chambers at Crystal Palace when he returned after serving his doping ban?

Fellow athletes themselves are less acceptable of felons.

I imagine Jamaican-born American Olympic track star Sanya Richards-Ross, the 400m legend who was once a close friend of Pistorius, expressed the feelings of many contemporaries when she declared he should be banned for life. "At the end of the day, there was a woman that ended up dead. I don't think he should have the privilege of competing in the sport anymore."

Such an opinion may be academic as, at 27, Pistorius could be jailed for up to 15 years on October 13 on a charge that is the equivalent of manslaughter, although a shorter term, even a suspended sentence, is thought to be more likely.

However, as far as sport is concerned, I agree with those who say his sentence must be a lifetime ban, and that we should see no more Oscar-winning performances from the terminally disgraced South African.

Alan Hubbard is an award-winning sports columnist for The Independent on Sunday and a former sports editor of The Observer. He has covered a total of 16 Summer and Winter Games, 10 Commonwealth Games, several football World Cups and world title fights from Atlanta to Zaire.

International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Thomas Bach has a knack of producing his best speeches when you are least expecting it.

In February at the Zimny Theatre in Sochi, the German delivered an address to open the IOC Session immediately after a speech by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Not having had the chance to hear a leading international statesman speak often, I was just finishing off an article leading with Putin's comments, when Bach launched into a venomous criticism of world leaders for "trying to score points" by missing the Winter Olympics. It forced a hasty rewrite.

Last Saturday (September 20) at the Olympic Council of Asia General Assembly in Incheon, something rather similar happened, Sitting in the back row in an early-morning, post Asian Games Opening Ceremony slumber, I pricked up my ears to hear Bach start redefining the sporting landscape.

"In the past, people have said sport is nothing to do with politics, or with money and business," declared the lawyer and former fencer. "This attitude is wrong and we cannot afford it anymore.

"We have to partner up with the politicians who are running this world, and with international Governments. To ensure the functioning of worldwide sport, we must be politically neutral but realise that our decisions have political implications."

Thomas Bach, speaking alongside OCA President Sheikh Ahmad Al Fahad Al Sabah, at the General Assembly in Incheon ©Getty Images




It was not what he was saying that was so significant more the sheer fact he was saying this publicly. For it is the worst kept secret in sport that the Olympics and the IOC, as with the rest of the sports world, has been affected - controlled even - by political machinations ever since the Games began.

You would need a whole book to document the extent of this, but, for a brief introduction, Governments can promote sport to bring people together within their country, to provide an avenue for a restless youth or to raise the morale of a nation ravaged by other problems. The London 1948 Olympic Games, happening so soon after the Second World War, and Salt Lake City 2002, after 9/11, are two great examples. Construction required for hosting sporting events can also help regenerate communities or, alternatively, make problems worse, with Barcelona 1992 a case of the former and Montreal 1976 one for the latter.

In an international sense, a state can use sport to project a state to the world, from Adolf Hitler with his Nazi propaganda at Berlin 1936, to South Korea illustrating its shift from dictatorship to flourishing Asian "Tiger" at Seoul 1988, to the recent events in China and Russia designed to showcase the emergence, or re-emergence, of a global superpower.

All manner of people, ranging from athletes to Governments to external interest groups, can also use the Olympics as a platform to make a political point. Examples include the "Black Power" salutes by Tommie Smith and John Carlos at Mexico City 1968, the mass boycotts at Montreal 1976, Moscow 1980 and Los Angeles 1984, and the horrific terrorist attacks that scarred Munich 1972 and Atlanta 1996.

One of the most famous examples of the Olympics being used for a political protest: the Black Power Salute by Americans Tommie Smith and John Carlos at Mexico City 1968
©AFP/Getty Images



The IOC and other governing bodies have always been affected by this. One recent example that comes to mind involves Kosovo, where the IOC are reluctant to grant Olympic recognition despite the majority of the international community recognising the Balkan Republic. Although there are other issues, the cusp of the matter is that , with Kosovan independence is such a divisive issue in international politics, and various influential countries remaining opposed, it is too much of a political risk. Others cases of this nature have occurred throughout the entire realm of Olympic history...

But in all this time the IOC and other sports bodies have resisted admitting such links exist. "Sport and politics should be kept apart", declared IOC President Avery Brundage in the 1930s. Eighty years later, Sochi 2014 chief Dmitry Chernyshenko effectively reiterated this. "Any political talks or discussions are not appropriate for the Olympic Games," he said. "The Olympics is not about politics."

Although sport has always maintained it can help make the world a better place, the fact that they have for so long avoided openly admitting its links to the real world, and occurrences therein, has been a central ambiguity. Yes, the Olympics has striven for "a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity", but can you really do this only by setting a sporting example, or do you have to direct integrate with the rest of the world?

That, I feel, is what Bach was getting at in his speech. In the last 12 months there has been a more outward, a more obvious, effort to court international leaders as well as to made an actual difference. In a release sent out to mark his one-year anniversary as President earlier this month, the IOC proudly wrote that he had already met 81 heads of State and Government, spanning countries across the world, of different political persuasion and with different levels of development.

Put 12,000 fans in an arena and they'll undoubtedly make some noise. Stick 12,000 Polish volleyball fans in a similar space and they'll create a symphony of shouts, screams, singing and song that'll have you searching the nearby seat for you recently misplaced ear drums.

My first out-of-office assignment for insidethegames was always going to be filled with trepidation.

Not even my previous experience of covering Championship football matches for national newspapers on a freelance basis could prepare me for the task of single-handedly representing such a well respected company within the industry as a full-time employee.

Having been told on Monday (September 15), the day from which my contract commenced, that I will be travelling to Liechtenstein in October ahead of January's European Youth Olympic Festival, I knew the dress rehearsal - a trip to the Globe Theatre in London, synonymous with William Shakespeare - to cover an international fencing exhibition match between Great Britain and Germany, had to go to plan, or at the very least somewhere close to plan.

Donning a dark grey suit and my newly acquired insidethegames tie - bright green in colour with pink dots - wasn't entirely comfortable on a scorching hot Thursday afternoon but I had no other choice. Even my landlord expressed his sorrow for me as I set off for Bletchley train station with my hefty bag of journalistic tools hanging over my soon-to-be-sweaty shoulder

My only previous encounters with the sport of fencing had come sitting in front of a television but I was keen to remain open minded and embrace the evening to its fullest. In all honesty, I was primarily concerned about securing the necessary interviews and establishing a secure Wi-Fi connection inside the venue in order to be able to file my copy. The bane of most journalists' lives.

As well as writing this blog and reporting on the event, I was tasked with uploading photos to insidethegames' Facebook page, for which I had been assigned as an administrator. Taking pictures of the action and the venue seemed reasonably straightforward but naming people in captions far less so. The embarrassment of asking an "important looking person" for his or her name wasn't a particularly endearing prospect.

The Globe Theatre in London was a fitting venue for the exhibition ©Getty Images