The institutional week that the International Olympic Committee -IOC- is holding in Lausanne between 22 and 25 June does not seem destined, at first glance, to produce major headlines. The Executive Board is meeting at Olympic House this Monday and Tuesday, before the 146th Extraordinary Session begins on Wednesday afternoon at the SwissTech Convention Centre and closes at midday on Thursday. But the calendar, precisely because of its technical appearance, may say more about Kirsty Coventry’s new era than any other speech.
The IOC arrives at this meeting with an agenda packed with reports, updates on the Olympic Movement, progress on ‘Fit for the Future’, the work of its commissions and reports from the organising committees of the upcoming Games. It is an institutional architecture that may not be very populist for the general public, but it is highly revealing for international federations, national Olympic committees, candidate cities and governments: the Coventry era is beginning to be defined by management, not by promises or castles in the air.
Lausanne measures the new era
The first known decisions in this series of meetings point in that direction. The approval of changes to the Alpes 2030 venue masterplan, with the relocation of ice sports -except speed skating- to Lyon and the confirmation of Courchevel and Val d’Isère for alpine skiing, is not just a logistical matter. It is a sign of continuity with Olympic Agenda 2020 and Olympic Agenda 2020+5: fewer unnecessary constructions, more existing infrastructure, greater cost control and less political exposure for organisers.
At a time when hosting the Olympic Games is becoming increasingly expensive, more complex and more sensitive in the eyes of public opinion, reducing financial risk has become a form of institutional survival. The message is not new, but it does seem more urgent. And it reaches far beyond the Games themselves.
‘Fit for the Future’ changes the board
The element that may define the week is ‘Fit for the Future’. The Executive Board has placed this process at the centre of its work, and the Extraordinary Session should begin to show how far the IOC wants to go. This is not just a cosmetic reform, but a new methodology to review the Olympic programme with a more precise look at specific disciplines, governance requirements, anti-doping compliance, integrity, athlete safeguarding, global appeal, operational complexity, costs and athlete representation.
If that approach moves forward, international federations will have to get used to a colder and more measurable evaluation. It will no longer be enough to defend tradition, history or political influence. The IOC seems to be moving towards a scenario in which each discipline will have to justify what it contributes, how much it costs, how it is governed, what impact it generates and how it fits into Games that cannot grow indefinitely.
Politics moves out of the foreground
What the IOC is not placing at the centre also matters. The debates around athlete eligibility, gender policies and the future of Russian and Belarusian participation remain open and will not disappear. But this week they do not appear to be acting as the main axis of the organisation’s public agenda. The priority, at least at the start, is another one: institutional stability, reform of the model and operational effectiveness.
That restraint may be a political decision in itself. Instead of opening this new phase with the most divisive issues in international sport, Coventry seems to be seeking a stronger management base before facing the debates that most polarise the Olympic Movement. This is not sweeping something under the carpet. It is setting an order of priorities.
The reform of the host selection process also points in the same direction. The possible introduction of a “strategic dialogue” phase between continuous dialogue and targeted dialogue would strengthen the IOC’s ability to organise candidacies, reduce costs, give governments more certainty and increase transparency in one of the areas that has caused the most wear and tear in recent cycles.
The winners of the next Olympic cycle will not necessarily be those with the loudest speakers or the best contacts, but those capable of demonstrating good management, financial discipline, transparency, sustainability and a clear contribution to the future of sport. The first decisions of a leadership often reveal more than speeches. And Lausanne may be showing, without major headlines, where the IOC wants to go.
Last related articles
