We live in a world where war has taken centre stage in international affairs and in our daily lives, where globalisation brings us -more than ever- images of bombings from another continent. We are witnessing a world filled with open conflicts, irreconcilable positions and leaders who do not negotiate, who do not yield and who do not consider the middle ground as an option. In that context, there was a moment when someone proposed exactly the opposite: Pierre de Coubertin.

Exactly 130 years ago, on April 6, 1896, in Athens, the first Olympic Games of the modern era began. It was almost rudimentary: athletics, gymnastics, fencing, wrestling, weightlifting, cycling, shooting and swimming. No spectacle, no industry, no noise. 241 athletes -only men- from 14 countries. Little more. But enough to launch an idea, a philosophy that today brings together more than 10,000 athletes in the Summer Games, nearly 3,000 in the Winter Games, more than 200 countries, dozens of disciplines and new formats that reflect a different society. A global structure that moves millions and plays a role in the world’s geopolitical balance. And yet, the original principle remains the same.

Competing without annihilating

Behind it all was the Frenchman Pierre de Coubertin. And Coubertin was not thinking about audiences or sponsors. He was thinking about how to prevent nations from relating to each other solely through armed conflict. His proposal was as simple as it was profound: to replace destructive confrontation with regulated and fair competition. That countries should face each other, yes, but within limits. That they should compete without needing to eliminate the other. That they should measure strength without turning that measurement into war.

More than a hundred years later, the world has returned to a logic that Coubertin sought to challenge through sport. It feels as though conflict is no longer managed, but prolonged. And victory is once again understood as the disappearance of the other.

In that context, the Olympic Movement and its Games act as an inspiring (and uncomfortable for today’s leaders) reminder that another way of confronting each other is possible – achieving “victories” without eliminating an opponent or dominating them by force. Conflict does not have to lead to destruction. There are other forms of engagement and negotiation through which countries can compete and achieve gains without pulling a trigger. At the same time, sport teaches that defeat can be accepted without it leading to existential collapse.

What Coubertin would say

If Coubertin could address today’s leaders who sustain these conflicts and had figures like Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin or Benjamin Netanyahu in front of him, he would not appeal to emotion or grand speeches. He would go to something more fundamental. He would tell them that confrontation is not the problem – the problem is how it is managed. That competition is inherent to any society, but turning that competition into destruction is a choice. And one that goes against the spirit of humanity.

He would offer a simple and obvious example: thousands of athletes from opposing countries compete against one another, accept common rules and assume the outcome without it meaning their disappearance. Why can that same principle not be applied to the political sphere? It would not be a utopian proposal. It would be a reflection of human progress and of an entire global civilisation. Sport has been demonstrating for more than a century that this logic works.

The Olympic Games and war

The Olympic Games have never been detached from the reality of the world. They have coexisted with wars, tensions and constant contradictions. In fact, the Olympic Truce itself -so valuable in principle- was not respected this winter by those engaged in armed conflict. That is both their value and their limitation, because Olympism cannot stop a war.

Coubertin did not change the world. But he put forward an idea that, 130 years later, is once again uncomfortably necessary.