The Olympic Movement has decided to stop growing. It hasn’t made an official announcement, but that’s no longer necessary. The language has changed, the priorities have shifted, and, above all, the current context has forced the IOC to look inward. SportsIn previewed it. The Brisbane 2032 Olympics could become the most significant turning point in recent decades, based on what transpired this Wednesday at the IOC Executive Board Meeting.

For years, the prevailing logic was more sports, more disciplines, more athletes. The International Olympic Committee model under Thomas Bach’s leadership focused on expanding the Games to connect with new audiences, gain a digital presence, and adapt to the times. Urban sports, proposals from organizing committees, even the push toward esports. Everything responded to the same idea: grow to remain relevant. However, that cycle seems to have come to an end under Kirsty Coventry’s leadership and in light of the new times we are in—and those to come.

Fewer Games, more control

Leaks regarding Brisbane 2032 point to a reduction in the Olympic program. From the 36 sports planned for Los Angeles 2028 to a figure closer to 32, with internal voices even looking toward more compact models like that of London 2012. This is not a minor adjustment. It is a shift in model that signals a desire for higher quality.

And the arrival of Kirsty Coventry has accelerated a transition from controlled growth to strict selection. From openness to optimization. From expansive ambition to financial restraint. The IOC no longer speaks of adding, but of cutting back.

The end of “there’s room for everyone”

For years, the Olympic Movement has sought to balance tradition and modernity by incorporating new sports without losing its identity and adding disciplines to attract young people without disrupting the historical structure. However, that balance came at a cost and is no longer sustainable.

Hosting the Games is becoming increasingly expensive. Infrastructure costs are mounting. Political pressure is mounting, and fewer and fewer cities are willing to take on that risk. And those that do so are under constant scrutiny. In this regard, the IOC has recognized this sensitivity.

The terms now coming out of Lausanne are no accident: efficiency, cost control, simplification, sustainability… These are not marketing buzzwords. They are signs of adjustment. Of correction. Of a change of course.

Next Olympics: no one is safe

Perhaps the most unsettling aspect of this new scenario is that there are no longer any guarantees. Sports with Olympic history, established disciplines, or federations with political clout are beginning to appear in conversations that were once unthinkable. Weightlifting, modern pentathlon, boxing, wrestling, shooting, or equestrian. There is no official list, but the mere fact that these names are being mentioned is significant in itself. For years, history and tradition protected a discipline. Now, no longer.

The new criteria are different. Colder and more direct, such as its commercial value and the television audience it attracts, along with its impact on social media, the efficiency of facilities, and its operational complexity… Any sport that doesn’t fit into that framework is beginning to be at risk.

The hidden message of esports

If there is one clear symbol of this change, it is the brake on esports. Not so long ago, they were the Olympic movement’s grand project for the future—the gateway to a new generation and the natural expansion into the digital realm. Today, that project is on hold because the IOC no longer wants to be part of every conversation, but it does want to control the ones it’s already in.