Why this session is different

The IOC has convened extraordinary sessions before, but last week’s gathering in Lausanne was a milestone moment for the adoption of the new IOC President’s manifesto for evolution, called “Fit for the Future”. The “Fit for the Future” roadmap is not an incremental policy refresh; it is a structural recalibration of how the Olympic Movement governs itself, funds its athletes, and selects its hosts. Several initiatives that got started in the Thomas Bach-era have been adjusted to ensure greater participation of the IOC members.

The IOC’s 2025 Annual Report, which was also approved by the IOC Session last week, paints a positive picture of the previous years’ commercial growth. Upon closer examination, one can definitely see slow down, and even reduction in revenues moving forward.

Through these lenses of austerity, it is clearer why things had to be pared down. President Coventry inherited a large and expanding mandate for the IOC beyond its core product remit of the Olympic Games. Now, she is tasked with creating a leaner and faster organization that is capable of responding to, and rolling with the punches, of the rapidly changing landscape (AI, geopolitics, climate change, digital media, etc).

Let’s jump into some of the major decisions made:

DECISION 1: A $10,000 grant for every Olympian

For the first time in Olympic history, athletes will receive a direct payment from the IOC: US$10,000 per Olympian, beginning at the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Games. After a century of positioning on no payments, the IOC has acknowledged the growing voice of athletes worldwide who are demanding greater participation in the growth of the Olympic Games’ financial success. 

This funding will run through NOCs, which already channel a lot of funding from the IOC to athletes through existing Olympic Solidarity programs. The IOC, led by its Athletes’ Commission, made it clear that this is another program to help athletes, one of many that it already delivers. For those who do not choose to receive the grant, the money will remain in the fund for future Olympians.

Like the historic NIL legislation in the US a few years ago, this creates a new commercial opportunity for brands and media to engage directly with athletes. It elevates the IOC’s commercial program, because it allows sponsors to directly say that their sponsorship of the IOC helps athletes.

Brands and sponsors who have built athlete partnerships around the premise that Olympians are “unsponsored” outside their federation deals should revisit their assumptions. Brands and sports organizations can now work to strengthen their direct financial support to athletes on the way to the Olympic Games. The exclusivity of the IOC’s top commercial program, the TOP, will need to anticipate some of the moves of agile brands to ensure that the value of TOP remains, while giving more access to new brands looking to partner with athletes.

DECISION 2: Olympic Charter changes

Charter amendments on neutrality and the sports program redefine the delicate balance

The session approved amendments to the Olympic Charter strengthening neutrality requirements and safeguarding the autonomy of sport from governmental interference. In the current geopolitical climate, with ongoing eligibility disputes, government-led boycott discussions, and questions over the stance of the IOC on a myriad global issues, the IOC has decided to decouple politics from the Olympic Games. 

Specifically, the language change in the Olympic Charter gives the IOC clearer standing to resist political pressure from member governments. It also creates a more defined legal framework under which athletes, federations, and sponsors can challenge decisions that appear to cross the line from sporting governance into political action.

In addition, the change in the Olympic Charter to remove the core Olympic sports federations from the list in the sports program clause opens up pandora’s box. Perhaps the most technically consequential change for international federations is the new methodology for Games program decisions. Rather than evaluating entire sports for inclusion or exclusion, the IOC will now assess individual disciplines. This is a significant structural shift: a federation with a high-performing core discipline and a struggling one can no longer shelter the weaker discipline behind the strength of the whole.

The new framework gives the IOC considerably more power. The initial validation of disciplines covers issues such as governance, compliance and ethics. Subsequently, each discipline will be measured against other disciplines on topics such as global appeal, cost and operational complexity and universality.

Another important point is the fact that disciplines from recognized international sports federations, not only Olympic, will be measured against the lowest performing disciplines from the Olympic Games and could take their place. It is like a promotion/relegation mechanism.

This program flexibility brings with it lots of questions for international federations, but the main thing to keep in mind is that they must continue evolving and developing their sports beyond the reliance on the revenue they receive from the IOC. There’s a real risk for some IFs to be out of the Olympic Games as soon as 2032 with a difficult pathway back.

DECISION 3: Host city selection for 2036

Until a few years ago, the IOC always elected the host of the Olympic Games 7 years ahead of the event. That changed with President Bach’s approach for LA 2028 and Brisbane 2032, when different calendars were used. Now the IOC is coming back to its initial calendar. So in 2029, the IOC will select the host city for the 2036 Olympic Games. With the likes of Qatar and India vying for that opportunity, this provides much needed clarity to the process.

The IOC has replaced the previous process with a “Strategic Dialogue” phase to be initiated in 2027, ahead of a formal host election targeted for mid-2029. The Strategic Dialogue phase is designed to be more consultative and less adversarial than traditional bidding, but make no mistake, this is still a competitive process. The IOC is giving itself more time, more information, and more flexibility before committing – and giving the IOC Members their most precious right back – that of electing the host of the Olympic Games.

OUR VIEW 

The 146th Session did not produce a single dramatic announcement. It produced four interlocking changes that, together, point toward a more commercially sophisticated, legally robust, and athletically centred Olympic Movement.

The organisations that will benefit most from “Fit for the Future” are those that were already moving in the direction the IOC is now formalising: treating athletes as stakeholders, using data to drive program decisions, building robust governance structures, and planning events with host city legacy and impact in mind.

For everyone else, the window to adapt is open. But it is not indefinitely open. The Strategic Dialogue for 2036 starts in 2027. The new program evaluation methodology will shape the next Games cycle. The time to engage with these changes is now, not when the deadlines arrive.