The International Olympic Committee has decided to halt its esports initiative by freezing its Esports Commission and putting any roadmap on hold. In IOC language, that effectively means the project, as it was conceived, no longer fits.
This is not an isolated decision. It responds to a logic that has been repeated in Lausanne for months: control, sustainability, cost reduction. The “Fit for the Future” umbrella does not only affect the traditional Olympic Games; it also extends to everything that, until recently, seemed like a natural expansion of the Movement. Esports were one of those areas.
The problem was not the video game, it was the model
For years, the rapprochement between the IOC and the competitive gaming ecosystem was presented as inevitable. Younger audiences, digital consumption, global reach… everything pointed in the same direction. However, there was a fundamental friction that was never resolved: ownership.
Olympic sport is built on federations, common rules, and open structures. Esports, by contrast, are built on private titles, owned by companies that control rules, formats, and commercial exploitation. Integrating both worlds was not only a cultural issue, but also a legal and economic one. That is where the IOC has decided to stop. Not because esports are not of interest today, but because they do not fit the model the IOC now wants to reinforce.
The quiet decline of the Global Esports Federation
In this shift, the Global Esports Federation is one of the most affected actors. Just a year ago, its position seemed consolidated as a bridge between the Olympic Movement and the gaming industry. It had structure, institutional backing, and support from major commercial stakeholders.
Today, that role is on hold. Without IOC backing, its capacity for influence is reduced. It can continue organizing events and developing initiatives, but it has lost the key that gave it global relevance: its connection to the Olympic ecosystem.
IESF and the logic of stability
At the same time, the International Esports Federation –IESF– emerges as the actor that best adapts to this new context. Not through explosive growth, but through structural coherence. Its model —based on national federations, traditional governance, and progressive development— fits better with the type of sport the IOC is willing to embrace. Even without the IOC, or precisely because of it, its position is strengthened.
It does not depend on publishers, it does not respond to direct commercial interests, and it operates in a space more recognizable to traditional sports institutions. Considering the context and model of the IESF, it seems a matter of time before both institutions – IESF and IOC – sit down to rethink the future of esports, and that it will be through this path – or a very similar one – that this ecosystem finds its place within the Olympic framework.
What has happened in Lausanne is not just a decision about esports. It is a reflection of a broader shift resulting from the transition from an expansionist model to a selective one. In that context, some actors lose weight, others gain stability, and the very concept of “Olympic sport” turns inward once again. The future of esports does not disappear. But, for now, it moves away from the IOC’s priorities while its relationship is being redefined.
Last related articles
