The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is 132 years old and has never elected a president from the Global South—male or female. That’s a choice the IOC members made—the reality of IOC politics and governance.
Nine presidents—all male, all white—with one non-European, Avery Brundage (USA). Not one from Global South. Is that a history IOC members are proud of?
Within the global Olympic movement—IOC matters are for IOC members, especially the election of the IOC president.
In October 2018, at an IOC “Olympism in Action” Forum in Buenos Aires, Argentina, while speaking on a panel, I made a bold declaration that the next IOC president should be a woman.
The aftermath and consequences of that utterance were instantaneous. Having made that mistake then I ought not to be venturing there again. As we say here in Trinidad and Tobago: “Stick break in your ears or what?”
That being said, I jump head first into “what is not my business”. The upcoming IOC presidential election.
The election will held at the 144th IOC Session from March 18-21 in Greece. On Thursday (January 30), the seven candidates will present their programmes on camera to the full IOC membership.
The IOC president is elected by the IOC members only. Not National Olympic Committees (NOCs). There are strict rules and guidelines that the candidates must follow. Their manifestos have been released by the IOC. The two front runners based on the international Olympic media are Lord Sebastian Coe and Juan Antonio Samaranch Junior. They are indeed two global Olympic movement heavyweights. This is not to say the other five candidates do not have strong resumes. But Coe and Samaranch are winning the PR battle. You mean to say none of the candidates from the Global South have a snowball chance in hell? Really? That’s the IOC in 2025!?!?
A significant issue that IOC members ought to address is the historic European hegemony and dominance of the office of IOC president.
The IOC talks a good talk re - universality, inclusion and diversity. Yet, the perception persists that the IOC is an exclusive club that only Europe can lead. A hegemony that is the legacy of European Colonialism of Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Latin America.
This is 2025 after all. A contemporary world. Not the 19th and 20th Centuries. Lead by example, act not just preach and pontificate. If sport and Olympism are powerful vehicles for change, lead from in front and tear down the wall of outdated attitudes, systemic and historic inequalities and European hegemony.
I have been told many times over that the Olympic movement is a delicate and complex network. And it takes time and patience to foster meaningful change. I get and fully understand that. However, in the real world outside the IOC/Olympic Movement bubble. The perception is that the IOC’s European condescension, elitism and exceptionalism.
European hegemony. The power network is a hindrance to transformative inclusion and diversity.
In 132 years, little has been done to change the predominance of Europe at the top of the IOC leadership table.
Despite the talking points emanating from Lausanne, the optic is that of a broken window that is archaic.
Europe is entitled to hold the office of IOC president.
The IOC’s legitimacy is at stake. The legitimacy of the Olympic Movement depends on the IOC conducting its affairs with the highest standard of good governance.
When will the bias in favour of Europe end? Can the IOC members rise to the challenge and elect a non-European president, and in so doing usher in the beginning of a new IOC era and culture?
The incumbent is Thomas Bach, a German lawyer, former foil fencer, and Olympic gold medallist. He has served as the ninth president of the International Olympic Committee since 2013, the first ever Olympic champion to be elected to that position.
Editor’s note: The views expressed in the preceding article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of any organisation in which he is a stakeholder.
