On October 16, as part of the 'Fit for the Future' process, International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Kirsty Coventry announced the dissolution of twelve standing commissions. These permanent bodies will be replaced by flexible, temporary ad hoc working groups with no mandate for long-term continuity. While the administration frames this shift as a measure to reduce bureaucracy and increase agility, the decision has raised significant concerns regarding governance and accountability within the Olympic Movement.
The move is legally grounded in Article 21 of the Olympic Charter, which grants the President the prerogative to organize the committee's structure. However, critics argue that bypassing the IOC Assembly, the body representing democratic plurality, undermines the legitimacy of such a profound structural reform. The eliminated commissions include those dedicated to Gender Equality and Inclusion, Athlete Environment, Sustainability and Heritage, Olympic Education, Human Rights, and Technology and Innovation. These bodies were previously responsible for institutionalizing core Olympic values.
The timing of this restructuring has drawn scrutiny, coinciding with a period of intense debate over IOC policies. Notably, the commissions on Gender Equality and Human Rights had previously expressed reservations regarding the reintroduction of genetic screening as a requirement for female competition categories, a measure approved by the IOC in March. Observers suggest that dismantling these specific forums shortly after they voiced objections creates an appearance of silencing dissent rather than fostering open deliberation.
Concerns also extend to the Commission on Sustainability and Heritage, which had worked to ensure the long-term viability of Olympic infrastructure and prevent the abandonment of venues. Critics warn that transferring this oversight to temporary groups lacking institutional memory could jeopardize future sustainability efforts. Furthermore, the shift to ad hoc groups raises transparency issues regarding their composition, selection criteria, and accountability, as these details remain undefined.
The new administration appears to be distancing itself from the consensus-driven style of the previous presidency under Thomas Bach. Instead, the current leadership is adopting a more unilateral approach. This trend is exemplified by the recent 'framework for trustworthy artificial intelligence in the Olympic Movement,' developed with the consultancy firm Deloitte. Critics note that this document offers generic recommendations lacking specificity to sports and falls short of standards set by the EU's AI Act. The former Technology and Innovation Commission, which could have provided specialized oversight on such matters, has been dissolved.
Alberto Carrio Sampedro, a professor at Pompeu Fabra University specializing in sports ethics and law, highlights that while the Olympic Movement requires constant renewal, it must not abandon fundamental values such as peace, equality, human rights, and sustainability. The current trajectory points toward a reduced decision-making core operating with limited transparency, potentially allowing undefined groups of specialists to set rules affecting athletes and host cities without adequate democratic scrutiny.
Sources: El País Deportes.