Why India might be the last hope for the new IOC chief

I don’t know when I stopped watching the Olympics. 2012 was the last Games I really bothered with—mainly because of Irish success. Working in sports and sports media, I found it increasingly hard to accept what I was seeing on screen as real. Having, for years, fought against doping, cheating, and the abuse of athletes, I realised that it doesn’t really matter what I think—because the consumer is king or queen. I didn’t watch a single minute of last year’s Paris Olympics, and it turns out I wasn’t alone.

Issues ranging from pollution in the Seine to female boxing controversies and advertisers walking away are all symptoms of decades of corruption, greed, and political interference.

Before last year’s elections for the top job at the International Olympic Committee (IOC), I feared a return to the old ways. Sebastian Coe was the bookies’ favourite, despite his scandal-ridden tenure as head of World Athletics. But there was a sliver of silver, gold, and bronze.

On June 24, Zimbabwe’s “Golden Girl” Kirsty Coventry assumed the presidency of the IOC after her electoral triumph in 2024, and she, as the first female and African president of Committee, already knows just a few of the problems she’ll face. From transgender athletes to a potential reintegration of Russians, from the scourge of doping to corporate sponsors wary of association with the IOC—there has never been a worse time to take over one of the most iconic and powerful jobs in sport.

The IOC’s current 2021 framework states that “no athlete should be excluded from competition based on an assumed unfair advantage due to their gender identity”—which will be Kirsty’s first battleground. Almost 20 US states have barred transgender athletes from competing in female categories, and a number of international sports bodies are following suit. The hastily set up ‘World Boxing’ federation announced gender tests that, had they been in place in Paris, would have disqualified two medal winners in women’s boxing. This flashpoint could have been avoided had the IOC, under political pressure from Western nations, not ‘othered’ Russia and sports led by Russians.

 Russia and the Global South

The International Boxing Association (IBA), formerly the Association of International Amateur Boxing (AIBA), was gradually bullied out of their Olympic role—largely due to their president being Russian (Umar Kremlev). The AIBA had deliberately focused on developing boxing outside North America and Europe, and ruffled feathers in Olympic circles by electing presidents from outside the ‘accepted’ inner circle.

Since 1986, the AIBA presidency has gone to officials from Pakistan, Turkey, Chinese Taipei, Uzbekistan, Morocco, and Russia. Compare this with Olympic leadership, which since 1894 has included only Western Europeans and one American among nine total presidents. When the IBA introduced sex testing, they found that Algeria’s Imane Khelif and others in the female division were ineligible. When Imane entered the ring in Paris last summer, the IOC called her exclusion “Russian misinformation” and accused the IBA of “muddying the waters.” Less than a year later, they adopted similar tests and apologised to the Algerian boxer—saying “greater effort should have been made to avoid linking the policy to any individual”—but banned her all the same.

I asked a former Olympic boxing medallist from Ireland, “What next?”

 “Look, all we heard was, ‘She’s a woman, shut up.’ They [IOC] effed up royally and we all knew it. The AIBA weren’t perfect, but come on—seventy-odd years and suddenly they get booted out? Boxing is dead.”

Russia Bad, But Belarus Too?

Russia’s fall from grace is famously linked to doping. As I repeatedly said on Russian TV and on my old radio show: “Russia had a problem with doping. Russia has a problem with doping. And Russia will have a problem with doping, so long as we accept that winning at all costs is the most important thing we teach our kids.”

Still, a glance at Olympic medal tables reveals that Russia was rarely top dog. ‘Clean’ nations excelled repeatedly—even when some of their athletes were later revealed to have feet of clay. Following the Maidan coup and the awarding of the 2018 FIFA World Cup, Russia became the target of endless Western censure. Stripping them of medals—those “lumps of metal”—became a national humiliation. The doping sanctions blurred into geopolitical punishment after the 2022 Special Military Operation, dragging Belarus into the frenzy.

The US and its allies, of course, escaped any sporting sanctions for military escapades in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. These same allies boycotted the 1980 Moscow Games over the Soviet-Afghan War; the Soviets and their allies returned the favour in 1984 in Los Angeles. Last year, Israel won seven medals amid global outrage—much of it ignored by mainstream sports media.

“When our Nhat Nguyen beat one of their players (Misha Silberman), the fans were ecstatic. I’d never seen anything like it in badminton. A Spanish colleague leaned over and said—‘Good enough for him, he shouldn’t even be allowed here,’” notes a British journalist covering the men’s event

Kirsty told Sky News she plans to form a working group to forge new approaches. “The IOC’s primary task,” she said, “is protecting athletes and ensuring the Games remain beyond politics.” She also criticised the inconsistent approach to Russia and Belarus: “If conflicts in Africa don’t trigger sanctions against national teams, then Russia shouldn’t be isolated.” Risky, yes—but fair.

 Only Russians Dope!?

I once wrote an article titled “Dopers and the Dopes Who Don’t Care.” The target was every fanboy and fangirl with a laptop masquerading as a sports journalist. And they are the vast majority. These attention-seekers facilitated rampant doping in Russia by clinging to the excuse—“We’re only here to report on the sport.” The USA, UK, and my beloved Ireland are full of sports journalists infected with the flag-waving virus: pointing fingers at them over there while ignoring their own heroes.

India is a total outlier. From experience, I can name a dozen major Indian sports writers who tackle doping head-on. Indian society, while proud of medal winners, also holds them to account. The National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) is remarkably tough, cracking down without fear or favour. While Indians may recoil when an athlete is caught using performance-enhancing drugs, they should also be proud.

 “You look at how India catches so many—not just small fish like they do in America or England, but leading runners, for example. They’re doing their job—a thankless, hopeless job. I’d love to see that attitude here [UK], instead of an agency covering for themselves and their pet athletes.”, a former British Olympian tells me.

Kirsty will need to engage with the World Anti-Doping Agency and put an end to USADA’s attempts to dominate the anti-doping landscape. She must ensure that what fans watch in Los Angeles 2028 is truly fair, drug-free competition.

 Money Talks Louder Than Words

Toyota, Bridgestone, and Panasonic have all ended their IOC partnerships—Toyota’s departure alone leaves an $835 million hole. Yet, until the 1984 Los Angeles Games, the Olympics were a financial sinkhole for host cities. American commercial acumen turned the Olympics—and by extension, the FIFA World Cup—into gold mines. While Western and Japanese sponsors may snub the IOC now, many rising companies will be eager to back a rejuvenated brand.

The incoming president will inherit a strong commercial department, and given her background, we can expect deals with previously overlooked partners. Already, there are confirmed reports of top-tier sponsorships from Saudi Arabia, India, China, and dozens of African, Asian, and South American firms. Money won’t be a problem for Mrs Coventry.

India in 2036?

Ahmedabad—or a consortium of Indian cities—will be reviewed by an expert committee before the election of the 2036 Olympic and Paralympic host. Among confirmed bids, Indonesia’s Nusantara and Chile’s Santiago seem likely to fall short. Türkiye’s Istanbul is India’s main rival, but it too has hurdles.

Saudi Arabia wants Riyadh, which would pair neatly with their 2034 FIFA World Cup. South Africa is interested but hasn’t named a host city. Egypt is constructing a huge sports complex east of Cairo with 2036 in mind. These three have more weight than mooted bids from Denmark, South Korea, Hungary, Italy, Canada, and Qatar.

Germany wants to host the Summer Games in Berlin—to mark 100 years since the last Olympics there. That would be 1936. Let that sink in. A certain Austrian painter featured heavily at those Games—not his art, but in other ways. Two words came to mind as I interviewed a member of the German Olympic Committee in 2024: “Tone deaf.” I didn’t say it aloud—but I could see they knew I was thinking it.

India is in pole position. Even among the IOC’s future host selection commission, there are allies. Former Croatian President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović is “favourably disposed” towards Ahmedabad, according to Croatian daily Večernji list. Brazil’s Andrew Parsons and China’s Li Lingwei also support the Indian bid. Of the 10 commission members, only four are from outside the Global South—and one of those is on India’s side.

When adding “community” to the Olympic motto “Faster. Higher. Stronger.” outgoing IOC boss Thomas Bach said: “Solidarity fuels our mission to make the world a better place through sport. We can only go faster, we can only aim higher, we can only become stronger by standing together—in solidarity.”

Zimbabwe’s “Golden Girl” will need full solidarity from the Global South to address not just issues inherited from Bach’s tenure, but also the entrenched belief in many Western capitals that the right to rule is still theirs alone.

Golden GirlIOC chiefKirsty CoventryOlympicsSebastian CoeWeb ExclusiveZimbabwe