The president of the International Olympic Committee –IOC–, Kirsty Coventry, once again placed the role of sport as a tool for global cohesion at the centre of the debate on Wednesday, in a press conference marked by political caution and several open questions. Speaking from Lausanne, the leader avoided entering into the geopolitical context of some current conflicts, but made it clear that the objective of the Olympic movement must continue to be the protection of participation and coexistence among countries and athletes, even in scenarios of high international tension.
Coventry recalled that the IOC is not meant to take positions on matters of sovereignty or on government decisions, but it is responsible for ensuring that the Games preserve their universal character. Within that framework, she argued that sport has the ability to “bring together people from very different cultures and visions”, an idea that directly connects with the ongoing debate about the real scope of Olympic neutrality and the room for manoeuvre the institution has when facing external pressure.
In that context, Coventry also spoke about building a “fit for the future” Olympic movement, a concept that goes hand in hand with the need to correct and repair a significant part of the decisions taken in previous years, which still condition the organisation’s present and future.
The uncertainty over the lack of dialogue with Donald Trump
One of the points that drew the most attention was the confirmation that, so far, there has been no formal communication between the IOC and Donald Trump in relation to the Los Angeles 2028 Olympic Games. Coventry acknowledged that the organisation has been aware of some institutional moves in the United States, but admitted that no direct contact has taken place at the highest level.
That silence raises an inevitable question: is it reasonable that, at this stage, there is still no clear channel of dialogue with the president of the host country of Games involving more than 200 delegations? The lack of direct communication adds an element of uncertainty in an international context that is increasingly sensitive to political decisions that may ultimately affect organisation, the mobility of delegations and the public perception of the event.
The mistake of excluding countries and athletes
At the same time, the reaction of the always proactive president of the European Weightlifting Federation –EWF– and founder of Sport Above Politics, Astrit Hasani, reinforces a critical reading of some decisions taken in the past by the Olympic movement. In an open letter published on Sport Above Politics, Hasani directly appealed to the responsibility of the IOC to prevent athletes from paying the consequences of political conflicts they do not control and that lie outside their sphere of decision.
“Sport must be a neutral, inclusive and fair space for all athletes, regardless of their origin”, Hasani stressed, insisting that collective exclusions generate more division than solutions and undermine the credibility of sporting institutions.
An IOC constrained by previous decisions
The debate is not new. The exclusion of countries or the imposition of intermediate formulas allowing athletes to compete under neutral flags has left internal scars and opened a complex precedent to manage. Many leaders believe that those decisions, taken in contexts of political urgency, continue to condition today the IOC’s ability to act with coherence and firmness in defence of its own principles.
In this scenario, Coventry’s message about the unifying power of sport and Hasani’s call not to repeat past mistakes converge on the same idea: Olympism needs to recover room for manoeuvre and credibility if it is to remain a real meeting point among nations. There was previously a different geopolitical context from the current one, and it is the IOC that must demonstrate its evolution and its chameleon-like capacity to win this race with its philosophy and Olympic spirit… not only for the IOC itself, but also to lead, through sport, a global platform for peace under the flag of the Olympic rings.
The question that remains in the air is whether the IOC will be able to unlock that legacy of restrictive decisions with today’s world leaders and, at the same time, establish the necessary channels of dialogue with key political actors before tensions once again spill over into the sporting arena.
