As the 144th IOC Session unfolds in Costa Navarino, Greece, the Olympic Charter remains a crucial reference point, a blueprint for maintaining the global nature of sport and fostering unity among nations.
Meanwhile, today ,March 20, the IOC will elect its new president from a pool of seven candidates some of whom have long operated within the corridors of power. Their deep-rooted presence in the system means they cannot distance themselves from the challenges and criticisms surrounding the governance of sport and the Olympic movement.
While the Olympic Charter acknowledges athletes’ rights and plays a crucial role in shaping the Games, one fundamental issue remains unaddressed: the minimal role of athletes in drafting and implementing the very principles that govern them. In reality, athletes have little to no say in key decisions, and there is a striking lack of transparency from the IOC’s executive members on this matter.
The IOC Athletes’ Commission, which should serve as their voice, has instead become a passive and ineffective body, detached from the real concerns of those it claims to represent.
The International Olympic Committee remains an insular organization with a top-down approach to governance. Athlete welfare is often sidelined, especially when it clashes with commercial interests.
A clear example of this was seen at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics when the competition schedule for swimming finals was adjusted to accommodate U.S. television broadcasts, forcing athletes to compete early in the morning.
This change, made with little consultation, led to widespread complaints about performance declines and increased fatigue. Yet, the IOC Athletes’ Commission remained silent, failing to advocate for those directly affected.
Without direct consultation with athletes, the International Olympic Committee unilaterally removed the 50-kilometer race walk from the Paris 2024 Olympics.
As one of the oldest athletics events in Olympic history, its elimination sparked widespread criticism. Instead, the IOC introduced a new mixed-gender race, a decision that many athletes viewed as unfair. For endurance race walkers, the 50-kilometer event was a cornerstone of their discipline—one that was taken away without their input.
The same disregard for athlete input was evident in the adoption of Article 50 of the Olympic Charter, which restricts political expressions by competitors.
Athletes had no real influence over its inclusion, and while the IOC insists on keeping politics out of sport, it has made political decisions on numerous occasions, often with glaring double standards.
The reality is that the IOC operates within a bureaucratic framework intertwined with commercial interests, largely free from meaningful international oversight.
Despite its commitment to ethics and the Olympic Charter — flawed as it may be — the committee’s actions often fall short of these principles.
Discrimination persists, systematic doping scandals involving state actors continue to surface, and the IOC has failed to earn the trust of the global sporting community in addressing these issues.
More critically, there is little to no effective oversight of the IOC’s own network, particularly its National Olympic Committees and International Sports Federations. Ultimately, the IOC has failed to uphold the very charter it created.