The Olympic Games—the biggest event on the planet—are in reality hanging by a single thread: the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) ability to convince cities and the states to which they belong to organise them. Although history shows that this thread is tenuous, it has never broken, even when competing organisations (YMCA, Catholic, feminist, socialist, communist, third world) have sprung up. Established in 1894 on the basis of a gentlemen's agreement, without statutes until 1981, and still based on the principle of co-option, the IOC has survived two world wars, the Cold War, and economic globalisation.
In actuality, the Olympic world is not exactly the political world. The IOC is at the head of a parallel world that has its own logic and its own rules. Its overall architecture is based primarily on the International Sports Federations and the National Olympic Committees. However, it has also come to forge reciprocal links with major media organisations, multinational companies, numerous non-governmental organisations, and even the United Nations.
How can such hegemony be explained? And, is it here to stay? How should we interpret the IOC's demands for autonomy and neutrality? Will it survive the current war on sport waged by Russia against the democracies?
Read presenter's biography