Sebastian Newbold Coe (London, 1956) has been chairman of London 2012, headed a National Olympic Committee, president of World Athletics since 2015 and now is one of the candidates in the elections for the presidency of the International Olympic Committee, to be held in March 2025. The genius 800m and 1,500m athlete who dominated the international tartan in the late 1970s and during the 1980s is the only one to have won two Olympic golds in the legendary 1,500m event.
Off the track, his promising career in promoting the sport from the office has naturally led him to run in this election to be Thomas Bach’s successor. SportsIn have had the opportunity to chat with him and he explained his concerns and ideas.
Q – Sebastian Coe is the oldest candidate in the race for the IOC presidency with your term ending in 2030, should you win. Do you think you are too old for this job?
A – I respect the IOC rules but I honestly feel the age restrictions look rather outdated when compared to other organisations and institutions globally. The way I see it, with age comes experience and if you have the energy, enthusiasm and willpower – three things I’ve never been short of – then you’re young enough to do the job whatever your date of birth. The fact is the Olympics has been at the centre of my working life, one way or another, since I first put on a pair of training shoes as a teenager. Along that long journey I have accumulated all manner of experience and demonstrated my ability to lead and deliver. And my passion for the Olympic movement has only ever got stronger. I’m now ready to put all of that to work as President.
Sebastian Coe, as host at the Paris 2024 Olympic stadium (Maria Ozbot for World Athletics)
What’s your vision for the future of the Olympic Games and the IOC? We have been told you talk a lot about ‘empowerment’ in a way no one else is talking about. Why is that so important to you?
I believe the key to building a sustainable, commercially successful future is empowering the IOC members, the athletes, sports federations and NOCs. If we expect them to take responsibility for the Games and contribute fully to its future, we must give them a stake – they deserve and need to be sure their input really matters and drives change. That means trusting the IOC members to make good decisions, supporting the athletes to strive for outstanding performance, realise their potential and not suffer financial hardship because of their sacrifices and commitment. We need to make sure the voices of the sports’ governing bodies and NOCs are heard and their views and concerns respected and acted upon. I want the Games – Olympic and Paralympic – to survive and thrive, to prosper and inspire and to reinforce its position as the number one sporting festival on the planet. You just have to look around an IOC Congress room to see the range of experience, expertise and talent there is, not just in sport but in a range of professions, commercial and non-commercial, across all territories. These brains need to be at the centre of decision and policy making in the Olympic Movement. Striving for the best should be about prioritising excellence over everything else as this sits at the core of the Olympic values.
What do you see as the greatest challenges and threats facing the Olympic movement?
The Olympic Games are the world’s greatest sporting spectacle and Paris 2024 was proof of how thrilling and life-affirming they can be. But my instinct is that the Games is not doing enough to engage the next generation – to capture the imaginations of young people so that they dream of becoming Olympians. We are in danger of focussing too sharply on debates that detract from the core aspirational message – Faster, Higher, Stronger Together. Although we are witnessing greater geopolitical instability, it is essential that the remorseless drive for diversity needs to be understood, leant into and embraced. There also needs to be a sense of balance and proportion so we don’t lose our laser like focus on the quest for sporting excellence. That should be at the heart of everything we do.
There are seven strong candidates for the IOC presidency. What sets you apart from the others and how would you describe your leadership style?
All of my fellow candidates, who also happen to be friends, have excellent credentials and are dedicated to ensuring the movement thrives for the long term. I respect everyone of them. I think I have something different to offer through my track record. Not just as a gold medal winner, but also as a bid leader and then chairman of London 2012, establishing the legacy of those Games, running a National Olympic Committee, in administration at World Athletics and through my time in politics and commercial industries. That combination of experiences means I understand the challenges and opportunities facing the movement from all sides. I suppose the common factor in all of these experiences is that I enjoy and am good at building teams. It’s what I’ve done time and time again, creating the right structures for teams to thrive, innovate and find solutions. Bringing together talent and skills from a diverse range of backgrounds is the key to getting that right. And then when you have them and have created the right structures around them, trust them and leave them to get on with their jobs.
You are known for having taken a controversial position on transgender athletes competing in women’s events. Can you explain your stance?
I’m a passionate believer in equality of sporting opportunity regardless of race, sex or socio-economic background. Talent, underpinned by commitment and driven by hunger, should always succeed. That’s why I believe in protecting the integrity of women’s sport from elite level down to local clubs and schools. These issues are complex – scientifically and socially – and we must be sensitive and respectful, in action and in language, but I will never be comfortable seeing a biologically born female athlete – on the track, in the pool or in the ring – competing against a biologically born male athlete with the body building performance enhancing effects we know they carry. The science is clear on the body building and performance benefits that testosterone brings to an individual. I don’t want female athletes coming into elite sport knowing there will be a point beyond which biology is going to determine the outcome of what they’re doing and limit what they can achieve. The Olympic movement needs clear policies to avoid confusion amongst stakeholders and to satisfy its broader goals. Where there’s a choice to be made between two sets of conflicting demands, as there is here, I will not abandon the Movement’s commitment to the Female category.
Why did you push for athletes to receive prize money for winning gold medals at the Paris 2024 Olympic Games and would you extend this practice to other sports?
Money is not a new concept, it has been discussed before but is now getting more important. The world is changing. The athletes sit centre stage in that changing world. They dedicate often decades of their lives in pursuit of Olympic status which for all competitors is the Holy Grail. I do not believe prize money changes the motivation of elite performers for whom an Olympic medal is the summit of their life’s endeavours – but it will to some extent recognise the sacrifices they and their families made to get there. And I absolutely believe that funds should also be invested in developing all sports at national and regional level which is what the International Federations spend a large amount of their time and resources doing. By far the greatest proportion of World Athletics’ revenue is spent on our development programmes. This will not change.
I have reflected upon the recent decision to announce prize money at the Olympic Games for our athletes. I believe, as I think many others do, that the athletes – whose performances at the Olympic Games generate revenue for the Olympic movement through broadcast, commercial and ticketing – should be recognised. In hindsight the way it was announced was discourteous. For that I have apologised to the ASOIF Executive Council of which I am a member and other International Federation Presidents at the recent IF Forum and at ANOC in Portugal.
Should the ban on teams competing under the flags of Russia and Belarus continue?
With athletics I’ve always argued that my responsibility is to make sure our sport remains global, and that where we possibly can, we remain politically neutral. But there are times when that means you must take a stand. That’s what happened over Russia and Belarus, but it was not a decision I made unilaterally. I am not that kind of leader. It was a decision discussed and taken by the World Athletics’ Council, many of whom are Olympic and World Champions and World Record holders. I did not come into sport to prevent athletes from competing, nor did any of my Council members. And I would like to add here that I am proud of the Council we have in place. A gender balanced Council with 50% women and 50% men. It is a strong, very hard-working group, that is empowered to speak their mind, robustly discuss things and respectfully agree a consensus position. But back to Russia … during the doping scandal uncovered by WADA, World Athletics found a way to separate the clean athletes from what was clearly a tainted system. We created the neutral athlete status (ANA) and processes that others have now adopted. We have to find a way back for the athletes when it’s right and we have a working group reporting into Council looking at this. The Athletics Integrity Unit also keeps over 40 Russian and Belarussian athletes in its International Testing Pool so when the time is right, we have a proper trail and process in place to assess each athlete.
Talking about doping, you and World Athletics have always taken a hard uncompromising line. Could the Olympics do more?
At World Athletics I’ve made it a central part of my mission to impose a zero-tolerance policy on doping, restore trust to testing and clean up the sport. That’s why I have consistently called for lifetime bans for performance enhancing drug use. I created the first independent ‘integrity unit’, it was part of my manifesto to become President of World Athletics and it has been delivered. For the Olympics to thrive and engage future generations it must be a byword for trust and transparency whilst protecting athletes health and wellbeing. We can’t allow any belief to develop that performances are routinely tainted by substance abuse. Zero tolerance must extend to all Olympic sports which means there must be more intelligence led testing in every sport. This isn’t about the number of tests being done but the intelligence that sits behind the tests. I was recently sent an article of my speech made at the first IOC Congress that allowed athletes to speak in Baden-Baden in 1981. I was there with Thomas and we were given two minutes to speak which we successfully managed to double. During this speech we spent over 50% of our four minutes talking about doping and the integrity of sport. That was 40 years ago!
Does the Olympic movement extract full value from the commercial potential of the Games brand?
The Games are a commercial success story but it’s no secret that some sponsors have walked away recently and I do wonder if there may be opportunities to do more to deliver value for partners on whom we depend. I have been in the sports marketing and commercial industry for over two decades, chairing a global sports marketing agency, raising money for the London 2012 bid and the Games itself, bringing sponsors to the table for the British Olympic Association and World Athletics (both in pretty tough times) so I know the landscape well and how it is changing. There are great opportunities to partner with smart businesses if the proposition is right and valued which is clearly not a one-size fits all structure. And the great thing about world class businesses is that they tend to hire world class people. So, we have an added incentive and opportunity to mix their world class people with our world class membership. It’s the definition of a gold medal opportunity.
Do you feel the central administration of the IOC is fit for purpose?
Under Thomas’ leadership the IOC has done an outstanding job of navigating a range of challenges not least the unique difficulties of Covid and the long tail it has left the world. My view is that there must be stability but not at the expense of thoughtfully crafted change. We do need to look at the structures, processes and culture in place to make sure IOC Members, NOCs and IFs are at the decision-making tables. In the same way as I have done in other organisations, I would want to look at the HQ structure to make sure it is as effective and efficient as it can be. It will come as no surprise, that I think it is time we took a look at ways of redistributing money the Games generates to those that drive the revenue – the athletes, the national Olympic Committees and the International Federations. These conversations are happening, and have been happening, behind closed doors across all three groups so let’s be more open and transparent and look properly at the risks and opportunities.
