In or Out? The IOC's New Method for Choosing Olympic Sports

Timeline

1. Feb 12, 2013The IOC Executive Board recommends dropping wrestling from the 2020 Games after reviewing all 26 sports from London 2012.
2. Sep 8, 2013After reforms, wrestling wins a vote of IOC members to return for 2020 and 2024.
3. Mar 20, 2025The IOC Session votes to include boxing at LA28 under World Boxing, after the previous federation lost recognition over governance failings.
4. Nov 12, 2025The seven winter federations warn the IOC against adding summer sports' disciplines to the Winter Games.
5. Jun 10, 2026The IOC Executive Board proposes assessing disciplines instead of sports, with screening and scoring criteria.
6. Jun 24, 2026The 146th IOC Session approves the methodology and removes the list of international federations from the Olympic Charter.
7. Jul 7, 2026The IOC Executive Board removes Nordic combined from the 2030 Winter Games and adds freeride and synchro9.
8. Aug 2026The IOC briefs federations on how candidate disciplines will be considered for Brisbane 2032, where organizers cap athletes at 10,500.
9. Oct 6, 2026The Association of Summer Olympic International Federations asks that decisions be taken at the April 2027 IOC Session rather than in an accelerated process ending in December 2026.

The ethical issues

• Fairness of criteria that determine which sports receive Olympic revenue and visibility.
• Transparency and due process for federations whose disciplines may be dropped.
• Balancing the Games' size and cost with the interests of athletes in established sports.
• Whether 'global appeal' favors commercially attractive sports over traditional or less wealthy ones.
• Concentration of decision-making power in the IOC over federations that depend on it.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
IOC	An affordable, attractive programme it controls, and a sustainable Games.
International federations	Keeping Olympic status and the revenue, visibility and funding it brings.
Athletes	Opportunities to compete at the Olympics and the national funding that follows.
Organizing committees and host governments	Controlling costs and showcasing locally popular sports.
Candidate sports	A fair chance to enter the programme.
Broadcasters and sponsors	A programme that attracts audiences.

The case

For an international sports federation, a place on the Olympic programme is more than prestige. It brings global television exposure, national government funding for athletes and a share of IOC revenue that, for many federations, is their largest income source. In June 2026, the IOC adopted a new method for deciding which parts of which sports make the cut, starting with Brisbane 2032. The case asks how such funding-critical decisions should be made, and by whom.

Background

The IOC has long reviewed its programme. In February 2013, after assessing all 26 sports at London 2012 on factors including “TV ratings, ticket sales, anti-doping and global popularity,” its Executive Board recommended dropping wrestling, an Olympic sport since 1896.^[9] An IOC spokesman said: “This is not about what’s wrong with wrestling but what is good for the Games.”^[9] Wrestling’s federation overhauled its rules, administration and gender equality, and in September 2013 IOC members voted to reinstate it for 2020 and 2024.^[10]

Governance can also cost a sport its place. Boxing was not on the initial LA28 programme announced in 2022 after the International Boxing Association was suspended in 2019 over “governance, finance, refereeing and ethical issues” and stripped of recognition in 2023. It returned in March 2025 only after the IOC recognized a new body, World Boxing, whose president said Olympic participation was “a privilege and not a right.”^[11]

Why the stakes are high

World Rowing illustrates the dependence. In the financial report to its 2026 congress, the federation reported total revenue of CHF 7.865 million, of which CHF 4 million came from the IOC’s Paris 2024 payment. Its reserves of about CHF 19.4 million consisted mostly of the remainder of IOC television distributions.^[7] President Jean-Christophe Rolland told his federation’s congress: “Olympic revenues remain our main income stream. This is both a strength and a vulnerability.” He called the programme evaluation “one of the most sensitive and crucial areas of reform,” asking for “clearer principles, criteria and timelines.”^[7]

Revenue splits are also a source of tension. SportBusiness reported that about 70 percent of Olympic broadcast income is attributed to the Summer Games and 30 percent to the Winter Games, so the average per federation is much higher for the seven winter federations than for summer ones. In November 2025, the seven winter federations warned that adding summer sports’ disciplines to the Winter Games “would dilute the brand, heritage, and identity” of the event.^[8]

The rules and governance

Under IOC President Kirsty Coventry’s “Fit for the Future” review, an Olympic Programme Working Group was tasked with balancing the size of the Games, the relevance of sports and disciplines, and a “clear and transparent process” for adding or removing them.^[8] On June 10, 2026, the Executive Board proposed a new approach.^[1]

• Disciplines, not sports. A discipline would be defined as one or more events needing a dedicated field of play or significant venue changes. Assessing disciplines lets the IOC measure each one’s impact on venues, operations and costs, and retain or remove disciplines without affecting a whole sport.^[1]
• Two-stage evaluation. Every discipline must first pass an eligibility screening covering governance, anti-doping compliance, integrity and athlete safeguarding. It is then assessed on global appeal, cost and operational complexity, and athlete representation.^[1]
• Head-to-head comparison. The best-performing candidate disciplines are compared with the lowest-performing incumbents.^[1]
• Timeline. The IOC Session agrees the disciplines seven years before a Games; host additions are considered five years out; events and athlete quotas are approved three years out.^[3]

Coventry said: “When positioning our Olympic programme, we should really have control over it.” She acknowledged the existing system did not offer a sufficiently clear and transparent process.^[1]

On June 24, 2026, the 146th IOC Session approved the methodology. It also removed the list of international federations from the Olympic Charter, which, the IOC said, “could create a misleading impression of permanence,” adding that the change would “better reflect an approach based on objective and transparent criteria.”^[2] Disciplines not selected may return as candidates for the next edition, and accompanying measures are intended to soften the financial impact on affected federations.^[3][5]

A first casualty: Nordic combined

Two weeks after the Session vote, the IOC showed what discipline-level review could mean in practice. On July 7, 2026, its Executive Board set the programme for the 2030 Winter Games in the French Alps and removed Nordic combined, which had featured at every Winter Games since 1924.^[12][14] SportBusiness reported that the Board had analyzed broadcast coverage, digital media, public interest, ticketing and press across four Winter Games. The IOC said the discipline “ranked lowest among all Olympic Winter Games disciplines” on most indicators and was the lowest-ranked in 11 of 14 indicators at Milano Cortina 2026. It also noted that only five countries had won Nordic combined medals across those four editions. Nordic combined had been the only Winter Games discipline without female athletes; the IOC had declined the sport’s federation, FIS, when it applied to add women’s events for 2026. Freeride skiing and snowboarding and synchro9, a team figure-skating event, were added, making 2030 the first Winter Games with equal numbers of women and men.^[14][13][12]

FIS said it had put CHF 750,000 into a Nordic combined development fund over three years and pointed to growing women’s competition and wider international participation. Its race director said he struggled “to understand the reasoning behind it,” and FIS President Alexander Ospelt said the federation would work to return in 2034, for which the IOC said the discipline remains eligible.^[13][14] Francs Jeux, reporting on the summer federations’ concerns about Brisbane, observed that the IOC had shown it “is not afraid to shake up the established order” (in translation) with the Nordic combined exclusion.^[15]

Brisbane 2032

Brisbane will be the first test. Its organizers have committed to a ceiling of 10,500 athletes, so any new discipline would require cutting quotas elsewhere. Host committees may propose up to four additional disciplines, and commentators have mentioned surf lifesaving, cricket, netball, rugby league and lawn bowls as possibilities.^[4] SportsPro reported that Coventry had previously said Brisbane would have fewer sports than the 36 at Los Angeles 2028.^[5] The IOC said its Brisbane-specific approach reflects the existing timetable and will be reassessed before future Games.^[4]

Aftermath

At the SportAccord Forum in October 2026, Coventry described the methodology as “a much more precise and evidence-based way to look at the programme.”^[5] Federations were keen to understand what it would mean for them.^[5] On October 6, the Association of Summer Olympic International Federations (ASOIF) said affected federations need “sufficient time to understand the methodology, provide relevant information and engage in meaningful dialogue.” It backed taking the decisions at the 147th IOC Session in April 2027 “rather than through an accelerated process concluding in December 2026.”^[6] Francs Jeux reported that the IOC had said only that the Brisbane programme would be set between the last quarter of 2026 and the first quarter of 2027, and that Coventry had acknowledged difficult decisions would leave some people unhappy. The 147th Session that ASOIF favored is scheduled for Punta Cana, Dominican Republic.^[15] As of mid-October 2026, the Brisbane discipline list had not been published.

The core dilemma

The IOC needs to keep the Games affordable, attractive and open to new sports. Federations need predictability because Olympic money sustains them. A clearer method with published criteria is an improvement on opaque decisions, but criteria such as “global appeal” and “cost” can favor commercially strong sports, and the IOC remains the judge of its own process. The dilemma is how to make decisions that can end a discipline’s main income source fair, transparent and accountable.

Competing values

• Flexibility vs. stability: a reviewable programme lets the Games evolve; stability lets federations and athletes plan.
• Efficiency vs. tradition: cost and appeal scoring may disadvantage historic sports.
• Central control vs. shared governance: the IOC wants control of its programme; federations want a meaningful voice.
• Universality vs. local relevance: host-proposed sports reflect local culture but displace places for athletes in global sports.
• Speed vs. due process: Brisbane needs certainty, but federations want time to respond.

Strongest arguments

For the new methodology: The previous system lacked a clear, transparent process, as Coventry acknowledged.^[1] Assessing disciplines allows more precise judgments about cost and complexity.^[1] Screening for governance, anti-doping, integrity and safeguarding rewards good conduct, as boxing’s case shows.^[1][11] Removing the federation list ends a false sense of entitlement, and dropped disciplines can return.^[2][3] Holding the Games’ size steady keeps hosting affordable.^[4]

Against or for caution: Federations such as World Rowing depend heavily on Olympic revenue, so losing a discipline can threaten their finances.^[7] “Global appeal” may favor media-friendly or wealthy sports.^[3] The IOC both designs and applies the criteria.^[1] Federations want more time and dialogue than an accelerated process allows.^[6] The wrestling episode shows how a top-down recommendation can blindside even a founding sport.^[9]

Applying the frameworks

Justice & fairness (Rawls)

Behind a veil of ignorance, not knowing whether you would lead a large, well-funded federation, a small traditional sport or a new candidate, you would want criteria published in advance, applied consistently and open to challenge. You would also want protections for the least advantaged, such as transition funding and a path back, since the downside of exclusion is severe. Rawls’s focus on fair procedures supports ASOIF’s call for time and dialogue.

Utilitarian

A utilitarian asks which programme produces the most overall benefit. Keeping the Games’ size and costs in check benefits hosts and taxpayers, and adding popular disciplines may bring larger audiences and more revenue to share. But the harm of exclusion is concentrated: athletes lose their dream event, and federations lose income. A full accounting must weigh those concentrated losses, not just aggregate audience figures.

Virtue ethics

Virtue ethics asks what a trustworthy steward of the Olympic movement would do. That means honesty about how criteria are weighed, humility about the limits of metrics, and fairness toward partners who depend on the IOC. Coventry’s emphasis on control could be read as responsible stewardship or as concentrating power; virtue is shown in how that control is used.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue: The IOC must decide which disciplines are on the Brisbane 2032 programme, with major financial consequences for federations.
2. Gather facts: The scoring data for each discipline, the weighting of criteria, revenue dependence, athlete numbers and the host’s plans.
3. Test options: Decide in December 2026 for certainty; delay to April 2027 for consultation; include transition funding for excluded disciplines; cap host additions.
4. Check codes and law: The Olympic Charter as amended in June 2026, the Host Contract and federations’ recognition terms.
5. Decide and document: Publish scores and reasons for each decision, and the conditions for returning.
6. Communicate and follow up: Brief federations and athletes early, provide support and review the method after Brisbane.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: The 146th IOC Session approved a discipline-based methodology, applied first to Brisbane 2032, and removed the list of federations from the Charter; screening and scoring criteria have been published in outline; Brisbane will cap athletes at 10,500.^[1][2][4]
• Contested: how the criteria will be weighted; whether “global appeal” is fair to smaller sports; whether decisions should come in December 2026 or April 2027; which disciplines will be cut.^[3][5][6]

Why this case matters

Many organizations decide who gets access to valuable platforms, from leagues admitting teams to tournaments allocating places. The IOC’s programme decisions show the importance of transparent criteria, due process and support for those who lose out, especially when the decision-maker also controls the money.

See also: Kirsty Coventry and the 2025 IOC Presidential Election.

Key terms

Stakeholders

Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.

Distributive justice

Fairness in how scarce opportunities, resources, benefits and burdens are shared.

Institutional accountability

Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.

Commercialization

The process of turning sport into a product and a business enterprise, with profit pressures that can compete with principle.

Veil of ignorance

Rawls’s test for fair rules: design the policy as if you did not know which position you would end up in.

Due process

Fair procedures before a sanction: notice, a chance to respond, an impartial decision-maker and a right of appeal.

Trust

The public’s belief that what they are watching is real. Integrity failures are ultimately failures of trust.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Should Olympic inclusion depend on global appeal and cost, or on tradition and history? How would you weigh them?
2. Is it fair that a federation's main source of income depends on a decision the IOC controls?
3. The IOC removed the list of federations from the Charter to avoid 'a misleading impression of permanence.' Does this make the system fairer or more precarious?
4. Should host organizers be able to add locally popular sports if it means fewer places for athletes in established ones?
5. Was ASOIF right to ask for more time, or does the IOC need to move quickly to give Brisbane certainty?

Sources

1. IOC reshapes Olympic programme and host selection — Inside the Games
2. IOC Session approves changes of Olympic Charter — Xinhua
3. The end of permanent Olympic status — SportsIN
4. Candidate disciplines await Brisbane'32 decision — Inside the Games
5. Postcard from Lausanne: What the SportAccord Forum revealed about the future of international sport — SportsPro
6. ASOIF Council drives strategy implementation and Olympic priorities forward — ASOIF
7. World Rowing chief Rolland frets over-reliance on Olympic revenues — The Sports Examiner
8. Winter sports warn IOC over programme tweaks — SportBusiness
9. Wrestling to be dropped from 2020 Olympic Games — BBC Sport
10. Olympics 2020: Wrestling reinstated to Games — BBC Sport
11. Boxing wins vote to be in 2028 Los Angeles Olympics — BBC Sport
12. Nordic Combined dropped from 2030 Winter Olympics — BBC Sport
13. Nordic Combined cut from Olympic Winter Games — FIS
14. Media, fan disinterest sees off Nordic combined — SportBusiness
15. ASOIF does not want a rushed decision on the Olympic program — Francs Jeux