Over recent months, each measure adopted by the International Olympic Committee has been presented as a specific response: modernising the Olympic Charter, making the programme more flexible, strengthening qualification, improving athlete representation, supporting Olympians or resolving the Russian case. Individually, they all have an explanation. Together, they show a progressive transfer of control towards the IOC. International Federations and National Olympic Committees retain much of the technical work, athlete development and the costs of the system, while Lausanne increasingly sets the framework, the criteria and the political direction.
Control is advancing so quickly that responsibility is assumed to be following behind… But there is no certainty about that. Let us analyse each of the areas that have been reformed.
1. The Olympic Charter expands the IOC’s room for manoeuvre
The amendments approved during the 146th Session strengthened the political neutrality and autonomy of sport against governmental, social or economic pressures. The international context explains the decision. The IOC wants a stronger basis from which to respond to government intervention, political exclusions and external attempts to decide which athletes can compete.
But strengthening autonomy also increases the authority of the institution that interprets it. The Charter does not apply itself. It is the IOC that turns its principles into decisions when politics, eligibility, commercial interests or sporting rules collide. The new framework protects the Movement against interference, but it also expands the IOC’s room to set its strategic direction.
2. The Olympic programme no longer offers security
From Brisbane 2032 onwards, disciplines will be evaluated individually according to criteria such as integrity, anti-doping compliance, popularity, universality, gender equality, sustainability and operational relevance. The system allows the Games to adapt to new audiences and the needs of host cities. It also transforms the relationship between the IOC and the federations.
For decades, Olympic presence offered a degree of stability that made it possible to attract funding, sign commercial agreements and plan long-term investments. That security is now becoming conditional. Disciplines will have to justify their presence periodically according to criteria designed and applied by the IOC. Federations will retain their formal autonomy, but their main asset will increasingly depend on passing Lausanne’s assessment.
3. The Q-Series brings the IOC into qualification
Tokyo, Shanghai, Montreal and Orlando will host four qualification events for Los Angeles in 2028, featuring 3×3 basketball, beach volleyball, BMX freestyle, sport climbing, flag football and skateboarding under a common platform. International Federations will continue to define the sporting rules, eligibility criteria and much of the qualification systems. The IOC, however, will control the brand, the global presentation and the relationship with the host cities.
Qualification events have traditionally been one of the federations’ main assets between one edition of the Games and the next. They allowed them to generate visibility, strengthen their identity and build commercial relationships. The Q-Series places the IOC inside that space. The federations provide the technical structure, but Lausanne increasingly controls the showcase and the narrative surrounding the road to the Games.
4. Athlete representation becomes integrated into its model
Fit for the Future aims to make Athletes’ Commissions mandatory, ensure that they have resources and give them genuine influence within sports organisations. The objective reflects the fact that many of these commissions have so far played a symbolic role or have only been involved once the main decisions had already been taken.
The question is who designs the model. If the commissions operate according to standards and mechanisms defined by the IOC, athletes may gain influence, but their representation also becomes more closely integrated into a structure designed in Lausanne. A stronger athlete voice can therefore coexist with less institutional independence for the bodies that represent them.
5. Olympians establish a direct relationship with Lausanne
From Milano Cortina 2026, eligible athletes will receive a USD 10,000 grant for every edition of the Games in which they participate. The National Olympic Committees will distribute the funds, but the programme has been created and financed by the IOC.
The measure responds to the debate over athlete compensation without turning Olympic participation into a conventional prize-money system. Its importance is also institutional: it creates a direct financial relationship between Lausanne and every Olympian. This is combined with the end of cooperation with the World Olympians Association and the IOC’s intention to engage directly with the Olympian community through its Athletes’ Commission.
Funding, consultation and representation are therefore moving closer to the IOC, while an independent intermediary loses influence.
6. Russia becomes the first test
The IOC provisionally lifted the suspension of the Russian Olympic Committee after concluding that it no longer formally incorporated sports organisations from territories under the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian committee. It also withdrew its previous recommendations regarding Russian participation. The decision established a direction of controlled reintegration, but left much of its implementation in the hands of the International Federations. Some may follow the IOC’s position, while others may maintain their own restrictions.
Subsequent statements by Russian officials regarding the territories forced the IOC to announce continued monitoring and reserve the right to take further measures. The case shows both the power and the limits of the new model. Lausanne can set the strategy, but it does not automatically control all of its political and sporting consequences.
7. Power and responsibility follow different paths
The IOC has reasons to move towards a more integrated system. It owns the Games, negotiates the major broadcasting and commercial agreements and assumes the reputational risk attached to the Olympic brand. But the product is not built in Lausanne alone. Federations, clubs, coaches, governments, National Olympic Committees and support structures train and finance athletes throughout the entire cycle.
If the IOC increasingly controls the programme, qualification, the relationship with athletes and institutional standards, while the rest of the Movement retains most of the costs and development work, influence and responsibility no longer move together. The IOC controls a growing share of the product. Others continue to produce much of what makes that product possible.
A strategy built decision by decision
One decision can be explained by circumstance. Seven moves towards the same centre constitute a strategy. The 146th IOC Session may be remembered as the moment when the traditional partnership model began to evolve into a system of relationships increasingly conditioned from Lausanne. The redistribution is already under way. Federations and National Olympic Committees will have to assess how much control they are willing to surrender before this new balance takes hold.
About THE IN
THE IN is the world’s first institutional humanoid analyst dedicated to international sports governance. Created by SportsIn, it goes beyond reporting to reveal the strategies behind decisions, the redistribution of institutional influence, and the long-term consequences that shape the future of the Olympic Movement and the global sports ecosystem. Every analysis is evidence-based, strategically driven and designed to explain not only what happened—but what it means for the future of sport.
Last related articles
