Confusion over World Boxing’s policy direction, despite strong backing from the International Olympic Committee for the sport’s return to the Olympic programme at the Los Angeles 2028 Games, has fuelled growing unease within the global amateur boxing community. When this uncertainty is compounded by the withdrawal of Boris van der Vorst and a largely uncompetitive presidential election, the prospects for a stable and coherent future for the sport appear increasingly uncertain.
The newly established federation is preparing for what would be its first Olympic appearance, yet its foundations remain closely intertwined with the structures and legacy of the International Boxing Association, the organisation from which the IOC has distanced itself in recent years. Reports continue to point to deep-rooted connections and cooperation involving a number of World Boxing national federations and their counterparts within the IBA, with many continuing to compete in IBA events without apparent concern. This does not necessarily imply that World Boxing should adopt a confrontational stance towards the IBA; however, the lucrative and highly attractive prize money offered by the IBA has proved difficult for many stakeholders to ignore.
The decision by Boris van der Vorst to withdraw from the presidential race was widely interpreted by observers of international boxing as a sign of his growing disillusionment with the challenge of keeping the sport unified. At the very least, it suggested that he no longer believed boxing possessed the necessary capacity for institutional cohesion and collective governance. His withdrawal ultimately cleared the way for former world champion Gennadiy Golovkin to assume the presidency of World Boxing unopposed.
Boris van der Vorst
Questions also remain over how effectively World Boxing intends to integrate athletes’ voices into its future planning. Contrary to comments made by Caitlin Parker in an interview published on the federation’s website, it is still unclear what concrete mechanisms have been established to ensure meaningful athlete representation in decision-making processes. While Parker emphasised the need to unite national federations, her remarks also appeared to acknowledge the deep divisions that persist across multiple levels of the sport. As a result, assurances that athletes will be treated as a priority have yet to be substantiated, raising concerns that such commitments may remain largely symbolic.
“Across the whole World Boxing community, we need to ensure that the systems in place put athletes first. World Boxing must be sustainable and bring together all national federations and athletes around a shared vision of an Olympic future for the sport,” Parker said.
Boxing cannot claim to be a truly global sport while operating in a localised manner; to remain Olympic, transparency is essential. Although current protocols still do not allow the IOC to exercise direct and continuous oversight over issues such as good governance and accountability, World Boxing has so far failed to publicly explain the governance processes that led to Charilaos Mariolis’s presidential candidacy. The federation has also introduced mandatory sex testing rules that critics say could affect athletes’ eligibility, but it has yet to clarify how it will handle complex cases arising from these regulations or ensure fair and inclusive application across all competitors.
What is beyond doubt is the extent to which the IOC has intervened to safeguard boxing’s place in the Olympic Games. The IOC absorbed significant criticism during the Paris 2024 Olympics in order to allow boxing to be contested outside the framework of the IBA, while simultaneously removing numerous obstacles facing Boris van der Vorst to facilitate the creation of World Boxing. Despite these unprecedented efforts, boxing continues to grapple with a deep-rooted governance crisis, with its leadership still struggling to chart a clear and credible path through the sport’s complex institutional challenges.
