THE SILENCE OF THE IFs

The Olympic architecture is changing. But who is protecting the International Federations’ institutional place within it?

The International Federations gathered in Lausanne at a defining moment for the future of the Olympic Movement.

They discussed cooperation, sustainability, technology, participation and adaptation. They listened to the IOC’s vision for the future and acknowledged the need for change.

Yet one fundamental question remained conspicuously underrepresented in the public debate: who is defending the institutional position of the International Federations themselves?

The silence is not an absence of words. It is the absence of a sufficiently visible collective response to a changing distribution of institutional power.

And that distinction matters.

The IOC knows where it is going

Kirsty Coventry has moved quickly.

The IOC’s Fit for the Future agenda is progressing from consultation towards implementation. The Olympic programme is entering a more flexible, discipline-based evaluation framework, with sustainability, relevance, cost and audience engagement shaping future decisions.

These are legitimate strategic objectives. The Olympic Games cannot expand indefinitely, and the IOC has a responsibility to protect their relevance, sustainability and long-term viability.

Coventry appears to know what she wants from the new Olympic architecture. She has moved quickly to pursue it. That is leadership. The question raised by Lausanne is different: do the International Federations know with equal clarity what they need to protect within it?

The IOC has established its direction and is exercising the authority available to it.

The IOC is doing its job. The question is whether the International Federations are doing theirs.

The institutional change came before Lausanne

The decisive transformation did not begin at the SportAccord Forum.

It had already begun through changes to the Olympic Charter and the framework governing the Olympic program.

The removal of the previous Charter-level listing of Olympic sports, alongside the introduction of discipline-based evaluation, represents a consequential step in a longer evolution towards greater flexibility in the Olympic program.

The IOC already possessed substantial authority over the program. The significance of the latest changes is not that this authority suddenly appeared, but that the institutional framework governing the future of individual sports and disciplines has become more flexible.

The consequences extend beyond Brisbane 2032.

When the program becomes more flexible, the future position of individual sports and disciplines becomes increasingly dependent on evaluation, strategic priorities and subsequent decisions.

That changes institutional incentives.

Every federation has an understandable interest in demonstrating its relevance, meeting emerging criteria and maintaining a constructive relationship with the IOC.

Individually, that approach may be rational.

Collectively, however, it raises a far more consequential question:

If every federation is fighting to protect its own place in the Olympic program, who is fighting to protect the place of the federations in the Olympic system?

ASOIF: negotiating the process, not the power

The International Federations have not remained entirely silent.

ASOIF’s 2026–2032 strategy identifies important institutional objectives, including transparent program criteria, meaningful participation in decision-making and protection of collective federation interests.

At Lausanne, ASOIF requested a transparent, evidence-based evaluation process, sufficient time for affected federations to understand the methodology, and meaningful dialogue with the IOC.

It also sought to move the relevant Brisbane 2032 decisions from December 2026 to the IOC Session in April 2027.

These were legitimate and substantive requests. They demonstrated that the collective representation of the Summer Olympic Federations was prepared to intervene publicly in the process.

But they also exposed the central institutional distinction.

ASOIF challenged the timetable and the conditions of the process. It did not publicly challenge the underlying distribution of decision-making authority.

The federations sought more time and greater involvement before decisions were made.

What did not emerge publicly was an equally explicit collective demand to reconsider the balance of institutional authority within the new framework.

That is not the same as doing nothing. But neither is it the same as negotiating power.

The individual survival instinct

A post-Forum statement by the International Sambo Federation provided a revealing illustration.

FIAS explained that understanding the IOC’s new priorities and requirements would help it adapt its long-term strategy while pursuing Olympic inclusion.

For a federation seeking entry into the Olympic program, this is entirely understandable.

But the underlying mechanism deserves attention.

The IOC defines the direction. The federation studies the requirements. The federation adapts.

FIAS cannot represent the behavior of every Olympic federation. Their interests and institutional positions differ substantially.

Nevertheless, the example illustrates how uncertainty over Olympic inclusion can encourage individual adaptation rather than collective institutional negotiation.

What may be rational for each federation individually can become dangerous for the federations collectively.

The more each federation concentrates on securing its own Olympic future, the more difficult it may become to establish a common position on the institutional future of the federations themselves.

SportAccord: a different measure of relevance

There is also an institutional irony surrounding SportAccord.

The dissolution of GAISF marked the end of a longstanding structure of collective representation for International Federations. SportAccord subsequently assumed certain activities and retained institutional links with the IF umbrella organizations.

Today, however, its public identity increasingly emphasizes conferences, networking, commercial connections and access to decision-makers.

Such activities may be useful, but they are not equivalent to collective institutional authority.

For an organization that once represented institutional power, aspiring to become the place where those who still hold power meet is not a new role. It is a measure of decline.

That is an institutional assessment, not a denial of the value of its events. The broader question is whether the international federation community has replaced the collective institutional influence once associated with its former structures — or merely found new places to meet.

The silence that matters

None of this establishes that the International Federations agree with every aspect of the IOC’s direction.

Nor does it establish that they are afraid, indifferent or incapable of responding.

This is not a judgment on what the federations may be saying privately. It is an observation of what they are not saying publicly.

The central issue is not whether federations participate in discussions, attend meetings or seek consultation.

They clearly do.

The issue is whether their collective institutional position is being defended with the same clarity and determination with which the IOC is advancing its own strategy.

The IOC has every right to pursue a more flexible and sustainable Olympic program.

The International Federations have an equally important responsibility to define what meaningful partnership, institutional participation and collective safeguards should mean within that program.

Cooperation is essential. Consultation is valuable. Adaptation may be necessary.

But none of them automatically guarantees institutional influence.

Lausanne offered a revealing snapshot of a changing Olympic system: an IOC moving decisively towards implementation, federations seeking procedural assurances, and a fundamental question of collective authority still insufficiently addressed in public.

The battle may have been lost before the federations even realized there was something left to negotiate.

But perhaps the greater danger is not that the battle has already been lost.

It is that the federations may discover what they needed to defend only after the new architecture has become irreversible.