The 146th IOC Session may have approved one of the most important governance reforms in the recent history of the Olympic Movement. Much of the attention has focused on the decision to evaluate individual disciplines, and not only entire sports, when determining future Olympic programmes from Brisbane 2032 onwards, but the deeper change goes further.
The reform removes from the Olympic Charter the list of International Federations -IFs- recognised within the Olympic programme and grants the IOC greater flexibility in managing it. That move is central: the system is no longer organised around a stable relationship between sport, federation and Olympic programme, but around a more reviewable logic, built discipline by discipline and edition by edition. At first glance, it may look like an administrative amendment. It is not. It is a change in philosophy.
From Olympic sport to discipline included in the Games
For decades, international federations operated within a framework built on relative stability. Olympic inclusion was never an eternal guarantee, but the system itself suggested continuity. Federations were embedded in the architecture of the Olympic Charter and participation in the Games was often perceived as a long-term status rather than a position subject to constant review. The new framework introduces a different mindset: flexibility replaces permanence, evaluation replaces assumption and relevance is no longer an inherited condition, but something that must be continuously demonstrated.
The traditional language of the Olympic Movement was simple: “We are an Olympic sport”. The emerging reality may be different: “We are a sport with disciplines included in the programme of the next Olympic Games”. The question will no longer be only whether a sport belongs to the Olympic programme, but which disciplines within that sport continue to justify their place, a distinction that may reshape planning, investment and strategy for many federations over the coming cycles.
The new Olympic programme timeline
The new methodology structures the process through a more flexible sequence: seven years before the Games, the IOC Session will agree the list of disciplines; five years out, any sports or disciplines added by the organising committee will be considered, taking into account the local context and the host’s sporting ambitions; and three years out, events and athlete quotas will be approved, allowing the programme to be finalised through a more precise assessment of capacity, cost and complexity. The process was presented by Kirsty Coventry alongside Karl Stoss, chair of the Olympic Programme Commission, as a way to provide greater clarity on how disciplines can enter, remain in or return to the programme.
The system also introduces a key distinction between incumbent disciplines and candidate disciplines. Disciplines included in the Host City Contract will start as incumbents, while the rest will be treated as candidates. All disciplines will be reviewed, graded and considered independently. Those selected will have to fit the IOC’s strategic criteria and the operational capacity of the organising committee; those not selected may return as candidates for the following edition. Coventry has also warned that Los Angeles 2028 will have 36 sports and that Brisbane 2032 will not necessarily repeat that number.
Winners and losers of the new flexibility
The reform may benefit disciplines that are more adaptable, sustainable, cost-efficient, urban, media-friendly or more connected with younger audiences. It may also give organising committees more room to propose a programme aligned with the local context and their own sporting priorities. In that scenario, Olympic access could open up to disciplines that for years had seen the programme as too closed a structure, while federations will have to work with more visible criteria around relevance, audience, youth appeal, sustainability, cost and complexity.
The other side is clear for disciplines with higher costs, lower audiences, greater logistical complexity or strong dependence on the Olympic platform. For them, this new flexibility may become a permanent pressure. The independent evaluation of disciplines may also alter internal balances within the same federation, because not all areas will have the same strategic value for the IOC or the same ability to defend their place in the programme.
A new relationship between the IOC and federations
For the IOC, the reform strengthens central management of the Olympic programme and allows it to respond more quickly to pressures around cost, sustainability, size, global relevance and long-term attractiveness. For international federations, however, it may also create new incentives. If Olympic status becomes more reviewable, many federations may be pushed to strengthen their own championships, commercial assets, media platforms, audience data and independence outside the Olympic cycle.
That shift does not necessarily imply conflict between the IOC and federations, but it does point to a different balance within the Olympic ecosystem. The future debate may no longer revolve only around which sports belong in the Games, but increasingly around which disciplines continue to deserve a place within them. In practice, the classic concept of Olympic sport may lose part of its historical meaning: there would no longer be Olympic sports as a permanent category, but sports with disciplines present in the programme of the next Olympic Games. If Olympic status is no longer permanent, the next question is how International Federations will respond.
Last related articles
