Risk Management

5 Times Animals Posed Risks to International Games

Critters of all shapes and sizes have presented unique risk management challenges for sporting event organizers.
By: | June 28, 2018 • 5 min read

Over one month, 32 teams from around the global compete in a total of 64 matches, spread over 12 venues in 11 different cities. At least 1 million spectators will descend on Russia to watch the 2018 FIFA World Cup live, while millions more view from living room couches and barstools around the world.

Any event on such a scale comes with unique risk management challenges.


“The challenges are unique to when and where an event is held,” said David Boyle, contingency underwriter, ArgoGlobal. “The organizing committee for an international sporting event like the World Cup has to think about the safety of players, staff and spectators, the political climate and any potential for civil unrest, cyber exposures, environmental exposures and legacy exposures associated with facilities abandoned once the games are done, among many others.”

But one that even the most astute of risk managers may overlook? Animal exposures.

“You have to think about the welfare of any animals involved in the event itself, as well as the threats to human welfare that local wildlife may pose,” said Joanna Makomaski, president, Baldwin Global Risk solutions, and a member of the Organizing Committee of the 2015 Toronto Pan Am Games.

Here are some ways that critters of all shapes and sizes have presented unique risk management challenges for sporting event organizers:

1. Kangaroo goalie interrupts soccer game in Australia.

A local marsupial couldn’t resist getting in on the action at a National Premier League soccer match in Canberra, Australia on June 26. After clearing a fence, the ’roo hopped onto the field and took up residence in front of a goal post. A pickup truck was eventually used to chase the animal away from the game.

Fully grown kangaroos can range from five to seven feet tall and weigh in at 60 to 200 pounds. In addition to powerful kicks, they can deliver deep gashes with the nails on their front paws. Getting too close risks serious injury.

While this was one match and not a multi-event spectacle, it demonstrates that the security of outdoor venues should consider threats beyond human beings.

Stadiums for events like the World Cup or Olympics are often erected solely for the purpose of those games, and may be intruding on the natural habitat of a variety of creatures. Event organizers have to consider not only how their presence impacts the environment, but how the environment might in turn impact the games.

2. Geese halt men’s water skiing in Pan Am games.

Water skiers at the 2015 Pan Am Games in Toronto were similarly interrupted by local wildlife. This time, a flock of geese decided it wanted a front row seat to the men’s slalom event. While the geese didn’t pose as much of a safety threat, their interruption does have consequences for the outcome of the competition and the organization of the games.

One Chilean skier, for example, had to restart the course after a goose blocked his route. He could argue that the distraction threw him off and lead to a poorer performance. Or, if he did well, his competitors could allege that the second chance allowed him an unfair advantage.

In the end, disputes could come down to faulting the organizing committee for poor planning.

Any delays caused by the roving geese could also impact scheduling of events for the rest of the day, which could in turn affect the plans of third parties like TV broadcasters, food and drink vendors, or even spectators.

3. Wild dog euthanizations draw international ire at Sochi Olympics.

Ahead of the 2015 Winter Olympics in Sochi, local authorities planned to put down more than 2,000 stray dogs roaming the streets, fearing they could be a danger to visitors.

David Boyle, contingency underwriter, ArgoGlobal

After a few video-recorded euthanizations went viral, animal rights activists launched counter campaigns and began rounding up the dogs themselves and moving them to shelters on the outskirts of the city. But not before the government’s actions gained worldwide criticism.

While the presence of the dogs ultimately did not interrupt the Games or pose a safety threat to visiting spectators, they did open the door for condemnation of the local authorities and potential protests.

It’s incumbent upon the organizing committee to communicate and coordinate with local authorities to manage any safety risks and determine the best course of action.

“Communication with local regulators and law enforcement is absolutely critical to ensure everyone is on the same page regarding a safety and security plan,” Boyle said.

4. Animal athletes in Rio come with an Olympic-sized price tag.

The set of challenges changes when the animals are the athletes.

More than 200 horses competing in dressage, jumping and evening in the 2016 Summer Olympics had to travel to Rio de Janeiro from 43 countries, requiring freight planes outfitted with temperature-controlled, custom-designed horse stalls attended by specialists called “Flying Grooms.” A report by the Miami Herald said their transport cost roughly $20,000 to $25,000 per horse, mostly covered by the Olympic Organizing Committee.

The Committee is also responsible for the horses’ on-site stay.

To stock each horse’s 170 square-foot stall, the Committee reportedly shipped in 50 tons of Timothy (a type of hay) from the U.S., 10 tons of Bermuda grass, three tons of alfalfa, four tons of carrots, a half-ton of apples, and 6,000 pounds of oat and corn cereal grains.

According to a report by The Daily Telegraph, top-range show jumping horses at the Olympics range between $700,000 and $15 million in value, so the stakes for protecting these animals are high.

5. Trained monkeys take up security posts.

You’ve seen bomb-sniffing dogs at the airport and patrolling venues. Organizers of the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi, India, however, took it a step further.


Athletes complained that the intrusion of wild monkeys, snakes and dogs was making their living quarters unsafe and threatened to boycott the event. So organizers turned to an unconventional yet simple solution.

They recruited local Langur monkeys to drive the offenders off.

Langur monkeys are known for their aggression, which makes them suitable defenders, but are also known for intelligence, which makes them amenable to being trained. Handlers from the Delhi suburbs were brought in to scope the athletes’ village and keep the more dangerous predators away — a more effective and cost-conscious solution than hiring extra security workforce.

In the case of this year’s World Cup, no known animal threats have yet emerged — except a cadre of creatures allegedly able to predict winners and losers. The only risk they pose, however, is to the wallets of superstitious sports bettors. &

Katie Dwyer is an associate editor at Risk & Insurance®. She can be reached at [email protected]

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

Exclusive | Hank Greenberg on China Trade, Starr’s Rapid Growth and 100th, Spitzer, Schneiderman and More

In a robust and frank conversation, the insurance legend provides unique insights into global trade, his past battles and what the future holds for the industry and his company.
By: | October 12, 2018 • 12 min read

In 1960, Maurice “Hank” Greenberg was hired as a vice president of C.V. Starr & Co. At age 35, he had already accomplished a great deal.

He served his country as part of the Allied Forces that stormed the beaches at Normandy and liberated the Nazi death camps. He fought again during the Korean War, earning a Bronze Star. He held a law degree from New York Law School.


Now he was ready to make his mark on the business world.

Even C.V. Starr himself — who hired Mr. Greenberg and later hand-picked him as the successor to the company he founded in Shanghai in 1919 — could not have imagined what a mark it would be.

Mr. Greenberg began to build AIG as a Starr subsidiary, then in 1969, he took it public. The company would, at its peak, achieve a market cap of some $180 billion and cement its place as the largest insurance and financial services company in history.

This month, Mr. Greenberg travels to China to celebrate the 100th anniversary of C.V. Starr & Co. That visit occurs at a prickly time in U.S.-Sino relations, as the Trump administration levies tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in Chinese goods and China retaliates.

In September, Risk & Insurance® sat down with Mr. Greenberg in his Park Avenue office to hear his thoughts on the centennial of C.V. Starr, the dynamics of U.S. trade relationships with China and the future of the U.S. insurance industry as it faces the challenges of technology development and talent recruitment and retention, among many others. What follows is an edited transcript of that discussion.

R&I: One hundred years is quite an impressive milestone for any company. Celebrating the anniversary in China signifies the importance and longevity of that relationship. Can you tell us more about C.V. Starr’s history with China?

Hank Greenberg: We have a long history in China. I first went there in 1975. There was little there, but I had business throughout Asia, and I stopped there all the time. I’d stop there a couple of times a year and build relationships.

When I first started visiting China, there was only one state-owned insurance company there, PICC (the People’s Insurance Company of China); it was tiny at the time. We helped them to grow.

I also received the first foreign life insurance license in China, for AIA (The American International Assurance Co.). To date, there has been no other foreign life insurance company in China. It took me 20 years of hard work to get that license.

We also introduced an agency system in China. They had none. Their life company employees would get a salary whether they sold something or not. With the agency system of course you get paid a commission if you sell something. Once that agency system was installed, it went on to create more than a million jobs.

R&I: So Starr’s success has meant success for the Chinese insurance industry as well.

Hank Greenberg: That’s partly why we’re going to be celebrating that anniversary there next month. That celebration will occur alongside that of IBLAC (International Business Leaders’ Advisory Council), an international business advisory group that was put together when Zhu Rongji was the mayor of Shanghai [Zhu is since retired from public life]. He asked me to start that to attract foreign companies to invest in Shanghai.

“It turns out that it is harder [for China] to change, because they have one leader. My guess is that we’ll work it out sooner or later. Trump and Xi have to meet. That will result in some agreement that will get to them and they will have to finish the rest of the negotiations. I believe that will happen.” — Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, chairman and CEO, C.V. Starr & Co. Inc.

Shanghai and China in general were just coming out of the doldrums then; there was a lack of foreign investment. Zhu asked me to chair IBLAC and to help get it started, which I did. I served as chairman of that group for a couple of terms. I am still a part of that board, and it will be celebrating its 30th anniversary along with our 100th anniversary.


We have a good relationship with China, and we’re candid as you can tell from the op-ed I published in the Wall Street Journal. I’m told that my op-ed was received quite well in China, by both Chinese companies and foreign companies doing business there.

On August 29, Mr. Greenberg published an opinion piece in the WSJ reminding Chinese leaders of the productive history of U.S.-Sino relations and suggesting that Chinese leaders take pragmatic steps to ease trade tensions with the U.S.

R&I: What’s your outlook on current trade relations between the U.S. and China?

Hank Greenberg: As to the current environment, when you are in negotiations, every leader negotiates differently.

President Trump is negotiating based on his well-known approach. What’s different now is that President Xi (Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China) made himself the emperor. All the past presidents in China before the revolution had two terms. He’s there for life, which makes things much more difficult.

R&I: Sure does. You’ve got a one- or two-term president talking to somebody who can wait it out. It’s definitely unique.

Hank Greenberg: So, clearly a lot of change is going on in China. Some of it is good. But as I said in the op-ed, China needs to be treated like the second largest economy in the world, which it is. And it will be the number one economy in the world in not too many years. That means that you can’t use the same terms of trade that you did 25 or 30 years ago.

They want to have access to our market and other markets. Fine, but you have to have reciprocity, and they have not been very good at that.

R&I: What stands in the way of that happening?

Hank Greenberg: I think there are several substantial challenges. One, their structure makes it very difficult. They have a senior official, a regulator, who runs a division within the government for insurance. He keeps that job as long as he does what leadership wants him to do. He may not be sure what they want him to do.

For example, the president made a speech many months ago saying they are going to open up banking, insurance and a couple of additional sectors to foreign investment; nothing happened.

The reason was that the head of that division got changed. A new administrator came in who was not sure what the president wanted so he did nothing. Time went on and the international community said, “Wait a minute, you promised that you were going to do that and you didn’t do that.”

So the structure is such that it is very difficult. China can’t react as fast as it should. That will change, but it is going to take time.

R&I: That’s interesting, because during the financial crisis in 2008 there was talk that China, given their more centralized authority, could react more quickly, not less quickly.

Hank Greenberg: It turns out that it is harder to change, because they have one leader. My guess is that we’ll work it out sooner or later. Trump and Xi have to meet. That will result in some agreement that will get to them and they will have to finish the rest of the negotiations. I believe that will happen.

R&I: Obviously, you have a very unique perspective and experience in China. For American companies coming to China, what are some of the current challenges?


Hank Greenberg: Well, they very much want to do business in China. That’s due to the sheer size of the country, at 1.4 billion people. It’s a very big market and not just for insurance companies. It’s a whole range of companies that would like to have access to China as easily as Chinese companies have access to the United States. As I said previously, that has to be resolved.

It’s not going to be easy, because China has a history of not being treated well by other countries. The U.S. has been pretty good in that way. We haven’t taken advantage of China.

R&I: Your op-ed was very enlightening on that topic.

Hank Greenberg: President Xi wants to rebuild the “middle kingdom,” to what China was, a great country. Part of that was his takeover of the South China Sea rock islands during the Obama Administration; we did nothing. It’s a little late now to try and do something. They promised they would never militarize those islands. Then they did. That’s a real problem in Southern Asia. The other countries in that region are not happy about that.

R&I: One thing that has differentiated your company is that it is not a public company, and it is not a mutual company. We think you’re the only large insurance company with that structure at that scale. What advantages does that give you?

Hank Greenberg: Two things. First of all, we’re more than an insurance company. We have the traditional investment unit with the insurance company. Then we have a separate investment unit that we started, which is very successful. So we have a source of income that is diverse. We don’t have to underwrite business that is going to lose a lot of money. Not knowingly anyway.

R&I: And that’s because you are a private company?

Hank Greenberg: Yes. We attract a different type of person in a private company.

R&I: Do you think that enables you to react more quickly?

Hank Greenberg: Absolutely. When we left AIG there were three of us. Myself, Howie Smith and Ed Matthews. Howie used to run the internal financials and Ed Matthews was the investment guy coming out of Morgan Stanley when I was putting AIG together. We started with three people and now we have 3,500 and growing.

“I think technology can play a role in reducing operating expenses. In the last 70 years, you have seen the expense ratio of the industry rise, and I’m not sure the industry can afford a 35 percent expense ratio. But while technology can help, some additional fundamental changes will also be required.” — Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, chairman and CEO, C.V. Starr & Co. Inc.

R&I:  You being forced to leave AIG in 2005 really was an injustice, by the way. AIG wouldn’t have been in the position it was in 2008 if you had still been there.


Hank Greenberg: Absolutely not. We had all the right things in place. We met with the financial services division once a day every day to make sure they stuck to what they were supposed to do. Even Hank Paulson, the Secretary of Treasury, sat on the stand during my trial and said that if I’d been at the company, it would not have imploded the way it did.

R&I: And that fateful decision the AIG board made really affected the course of the country.

Hank Greenberg: So many people lost all of their net worth. The new management was taking on billions of dollars’ worth of risk with no collateral. They had decimated the internal risk management controls. And the government takeover of the company when the financial crisis blew up was grossly unfair.

From the time it went public, AIG’s value had increased from $300 million to $180 billion. Thanks to Eliot Spitzer, it’s now worth a fraction of that. His was a gross misuse of the Martin Act. It gives the Attorney General the power to investigate without probable cause and bring fraud charges without having to prove intent. Only in New York does the law grant the AG that much power.

R&I: It’s especially frustrating when you consider the quality of his own character, and the scandal he was involved in.

In early 2008, Spitzer was caught on a federal wiretap arranging a meeting with a prostitute at a Washington Hotel and resigned shortly thereafter.

Hank Greenberg: Yes. And it’s been successive. Look at Eric Schneiderman. He resigned earlier this year when it came out that he had abused several women. And this was after he came out so strongly against other men accused of the same thing. To me it demonstrates hypocrisy and abuse of power.

Schneiderman followed in Spitzer’s footsteps in leveraging the Martin Act against numerous corporations to generate multi-billion dollar settlements.

R&I: Starr, however, continues to thrive. You said you’re at 3,500 people and still growing. As you continue to expand, how do you deal with the challenge of attracting talent?

Hank Greenberg: We did something last week.

On September 16th, St. John’s University announced the largest gift in its 148-year history. The Starr Foundation donated $15 million to the school, establishing the Maurice R. Greenberg Leadership Initiative at St. John’s School of Risk Management, Insurance and Actuarial Science.

Hank Greenberg: We have recruited from St. John’s for many, many years. These are young people who want to be in the insurance industry. They don’t get into it by accident. They study to become proficient in this and we have recruited some very qualified individuals from that school. But we also recruit from many other universities. On the investment side, outside of the insurance industry, we also recruit from Wall Street.

R&I: We’re very interested in how you and other leaders in this industry view technology and how they’re going to use it.

Hank Greenberg: I think technology can play a role in reducing operating expenses. In the last 70 years, you have seen the expense ratio of the industry rise, and I’m not sure the industry can afford a 35 percent expense ratio. But while technology can help, some additional fundamental changes will also be required.

R&I: So as the pre-eminent leader of the insurance industry, what do you see in terms of where insurance is now an where it’s going?

Hank Greenberg: The country and the world will always need insurance. That doesn’t mean that what we have today is what we’re going to have 25 years from now.

How quickly the change comes and how far it will go will depend on individual companies and individual countries. Some will be more brave than others. But change will take place, there is no doubt about it.


More will go on in space, there is no question about that. We’re involved in it right now as an insurance company, and it will get broader.

One of the things you have to worry about is it’s now a nuclear world. It’s a more dangerous world. And again, we have to find some way to deal with that.

So, change is inevitable. You need people who can deal with change.

R&I:  Is there anything else, Mr. Greenberg, you want to comment on?

Hank Greenberg: I think I’ve covered it. &

The R&I Editorial Team can be reached at [email protected]