The new Olympic programme policy published by the IOC introduces a discipline-by-discipline assessment, placing global appeal, governance, costs and sustainability at the centre of decisions that could redefine the future of the Games.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has taken another decisive step towards redefining the relationship between the Olympic Games and the international federations that govern their sports.
With the publication of its Olympic Games Programme Policy: from Brisbane 2032 onwards, the IOC has established a new framework to determine which disciplines will remain in the Olympic programme, which could face challenges from emerging alternatives, and how future decisions will be made.
Approved by the IOC Executive Board on 30 October and published on 7 November, the policy translates the reforms endorsed by the 146th IOC Session into a structured assessment process.
Its implications go far beyond the selection of sports for Brisbane 2032.
For the first time, Olympic disciplines will face a systematic assessment combining institutional standards, international popularity, athlete participation, operational costs and comparative performance.
The fundamental change is straightforward: Olympic inclusion will increasingly depend on the merits of each individual discipline, rather than a sport’s historical position as a whole.
For international federations, this introduces a different competitive environment, in which maintaining Olympic status will require demonstrating relevance, sustainability and institutional credibility.
From historical inclusion to continuous assessment
For decades, the Olympic programme has evolved through a combination of tradition, recognition of international federations, host city considerations and decisions made within the Olympic Movement.
The new policy introduces a more explicitly structured approach.
The IOC will distinguish between disciplines already included in the programme and candidate disciplines seeking admission.
Both categories will be assessed under a common methodology, while recognising that established Olympic disciplines generally have more extensive historical data than new applicants.
This distinction matters.
An established discipline will no longer be able to rely exclusively on its previous Olympic participation. Conversely, an emerging discipline could have the opportunity to demonstrate that it offers greater value in areas such as international appeal, accessibility or operational efficiency.
The process does not guarantee the admission of new disciplines or the removal of existing ones. It creates a formal mechanism through which these possibilities can be assessed.
Three stages that could determine the Olympic future
The IOC’s new assessment methodology is organised around three main stages.
The first, Flag Review, examines whether disciplines and their governing structures meet fundamental institutional expectations.
These include governance, integrity, compliance with anti-doping rules, athlete protection and safeguarding.
The importance of this stage should not be underestimated.
It places institutional conduct alongside sporting performance as a factor to be considered in decisions about the Olympic programme. For federations, governance is no longer solely a matter of reputation or compliance with general Olympic principles; it becomes part of the structured assessment of their disciplines.
The second stage, Core Evaluation, considers the broader value a discipline brings to the Games.
The main criteria include global appeal, athlete representation, costs and operational complexity.
This creates a more direct relationship between the worldwide development of a discipline and its Olympic prospects.
International reach, participation, audience interest and the practical demands of organising competitions will all contribute to the assessment.
The third stage, Combined Comparison, is potentially the most far-reaching.
Under this mechanism, the best-performing candidate disciplines may be compared with lower-performing disciplines already included in the Olympic programme.
The IOC intends to take differences in available data into account and work with international federations throughout the process.
Nevertheless, the principle is significant: existing Olympic disciplines could face direct comparison with alternatives seeking to enter the programme.
Olympic continuity will therefore be subject to more explicit scrutiny of comparative value.
A new balance of power between the IOC and international federations
The reform also has important institutional implications.
International federations retain responsibility for governing their sports, developing their disciplines and maintaining the international structures through which athletes compete.
But the IOC determines the composition of the Olympic programme.
By moving towards discipline-level assessment, the IOC gains a more flexible mechanism for shaping that programme, without necessarily treating every discipline governed by the same federation as a single, indivisible unit.
This distinction could become particularly important for federations that administer several Olympic disciplines.
A federation could maintain its Olympic representation through one discipline, while another faces greater scrutiny or possible replacement.
The reform should not be interpreted as a reduction in the authority of international federations to govern their sports. Rather, it clarifies the IOC’s discretionary authority over which elements form part of the Olympic Games.
It also changes the strategic responsibilities of federation leaders.
Presidents and executive boards will increasingly need to demonstrate not only the sporting achievements of their disciplines, but also their international development, governance standards, relevance to audiences and contribution to the overall sustainability of the Games.
The ability to present credible evidence could become as important as institutional influence.
Global audiences enter the Olympic equation
One of the most important dimensions of the new methodology concerns international appeal.
The IOC framework recognises that the relevance of Olympic disciplines must be assessed against a constantly changing global sporting environment.
Television audiences, digital engagement, spectator interest and international participation offer different perspectives on the value of each discipline.
However, these measurements are not interchangeable.
A discipline may attract significant television audiences in a small number of major markets while also having broad participation across numerous countries. Another may perform strongly on digital platforms but have relatively limited exposure through traditional broadcasting.
Comparing these types of disciplines requires consistent definitions, reliable sources and transparent analytical methods.
This is precisely where the next phase of Olympic programme assessment will become particularly interesting.
The credibility of a discipline-based system will depend not only on the criteria selected, but also on the consistency with which they are measured and applied.
For the IOC, balancing global appeal with universality, athlete opportunities and operational sustainability will be essential.
For international federations, developing a reliable evidence base for their disciplines will become an increasingly important strategic priority.
The publication of the policy does not, in itself, establish a publicly verified numerical ranking of Olympic disciplines or reveal a complete set of specific weightings for the Brisbane assessment.
Therefore, any attempt to identify potential winners and losers at this stage should be considered analysis rather than an official IOC assessment.
Costs and sustainability: the practical pressures behind the reform
The new approach also reflects a fundamental challenge facing Olympic organisers.
Each discipline requires competition venues, training spaces, equipment, technical officials, transport, accommodation and operational support.
Some disciplines can share infrastructure. Others require specialised facilities or significant modifications to existing venues.
The IOC methodology explicitly recognises these differences.
The sporting value of a discipline will therefore be considered alongside the practical consequences of including it in the Games.
This does not mean that lower-cost disciplines will automatically prevail over more expensive ones.
The objective is to balance multiple factors within a programme that remains attractive to athletes and audiences while also being viable for host cities.
For Brisbane 2032, these considerations are particularly relevant because preparations are already underway and venue planning is closely linked to the final competition programme.
The new methodology provides a framework for assessing these decisions, but it does not announce specific venue changes or reductions in athlete quotas.
Those decisions must be distinguished from the policy itself.
New opportunities for candidate disciplines
The IOC has also established clearer opportunities for disciplines seeking to enter the Olympic programme.
Organising committees will be able to propose up to four additional disciplines for the Summer Games and two for the Winter Games, subject to the relevant rules and approval processes.
This mechanism provides host organisers with limited flexibility to reflect local sporting interests and emerging international trends.
This does not mean that a host city can unilaterally determine the Olympic programme.
Nor does it guarantee that a candidate discipline will be selected simply because it is popular in the host country.
The IOC retains the authority to make decisions, and proposed additions must align with the overall objectives of the Olympic programme.
The new system also allows disciplines that are not retained in the programme to seek future inclusion through the candidacy process.
In this sense, Olympic exclusion does not necessarily have to represent a permanent separation from the Games.
Brisbane 2032: the first major test
Brisbane will provide the first practical test of the new methodology.
The IOC has already indicated that the sports and disciplines programme for the 2032 Games is scheduled to be finalised during the 147th IOC Session in April 2027.
This creates a relatively short period in which the new framework must be translated into concrete programme recommendations.
As preparations for Brisbane are already advanced, the IOC has acknowledged that some flexibility may be required to implement the methodology.
That clarification is important.
The Brisbane process should not automatically be considered a complete demonstration of how every future Olympic programme review will work.
The policy aims to establish a long-term framework, while its first application must also take existing planning commitments into account.
Furthermore, the selection of sports and disciplines must be distinguished from decisions relating to individual events and athlete quotas.
Those subsequent decisions involve a separate level of programme planning and responsibility on the part of the IOC Executive Board.
For now, the publication of the policy does not establish that any specific sport or discipline has been removed from Brisbane 2032.
The next challenge: making the methodology credible
The new policy represents an important institutional development, but its ultimate significance will depend on its implementation.
The IOC has established the principles of a more systematic and comparable assessment.
The next challenge will be to demonstrate how those principles translate into concrete decisions.
International federations will want to understand how audience data is assessed, how participation is measured, how operational costs are compared and how governance issues influence the evaluation.
Candidate disciplines will need confidence that their limited Olympic history does not automatically place them at a disadvantage.
Established disciplines will expect consistent treatment and an opportunity to present evidence supporting their continued inclusion.
For athletes, the consequences are particularly important.
A decision to remove or reduce a discipline affects not only an international federation, but also national development systems, investment priorities and the Olympic ambitions of competitors around the world.
This makes transparency much more than an administrative preference.
It is fundamental to the legitimacy of the process.
THE IN perspective: a different Olympic future
The IOC’s new policy marks a transition from a programme largely defined by historical continuity towards one in which disciplines must demonstrate their Olympic value in the present day.
It is not a declaration of winners and losers.
Nor is it proof that the IOC intends to dismantle the existing Olympic sporting structure.
However, it is a clear signal that future inclusion will be subject to more demanding and structured scrutiny.
For international federations, the message is unequivocal: sporting tradition remains important, but it will increasingly need to be supported by measurable relevance, institutional integrity and operational sustainability.
For the IOC, the responsibility is equally considerable.
A more flexible programme can strengthen the Games only if the decisions behind it are credible, consistent and sufficiently transparent.
Brisbane 2032 will be the first opportunity to assess whether the new methodology lives up to those ambitions.
The question is no longer simply which sports are part of Olympic tradition. It is how each discipline demonstrates that it contributes to the Olympic future.
Last related articles
