David Kenah 5/28/19 David Kenah 5/28/19

What If We Built the Olympic Movement From Scratch Today?

The Olympic Movement stands as one of the most enduring global institutions of the modern era. Yet the world in which it was designed bears little resemblance to the world in which it now operates. The structures, incentives, and governance philosophies that shaped the Olympic model a century ago were built for an environment defined by limited commercialization, slower geopolitical change, and a narrower global media ecosystem. Today the landscape is fundamentally different.

This raises an important question:
If the world were to create a global sporting movement today - from the ground up - what would it look like?

It is a question worth considering not as a critique of the current system, but as a way to understand the scale of transformation facing global sport and the type of governance architecture the next generation may require.

A modern Olympic Movement would begin with a different set of foundational assumptions. Global participation is no longer constrained by geography or limited communications networks. Talent pathways are international, media distribution is instantaneous, and athlete influence extends far beyond competition results. The contemporary world is characterized by complex interdependence, heightened geopolitical sensitivities, rapidly evolving technologies, and rising expectations for transparency and accountability in global institutions. Any new system would need to be built with these dynamics at its core rather than as afterthoughts.

A new Olympic framework would also likely place stronger emphasis on access and equity. When the modern Games were revived in 1896, sport was not widely viewed as a public good or a development tool. Today, however, sport is recognized for its role in education, health, youth outcomes, and community cohesion. A new movement might focus more explicitly on equal opportunity, sustainable development, and the reduction of global disparities in participation. This could lead to more coordinated funding mechanisms, stronger continental development pathways, and institutional commitments to supporting regions with limited sporting infrastructure.

Governance, too, would require reimagining. A modern architecture would almost certainly prioritize clearer decision-making processes, greater independence in ethics and compliance systems, more robust athlete representation, and stronger public accountability mechanisms. The expectations placed on international organizations today - from environmental responsibility to financial transparency - are significantly higher than in the past. A new model would need governance that reflects the standards applied to global institutions across other sectors, from health to finance.

The relationship between the Olympic Movement and host cities would also look different. The model of single-city bidding, large-scale capital investment, and short-term venue construction would likely be reconsidered. A contemporary Olympic system might emphasize regional co-hosting, long-term infrastructure planning, and sustainability requirements aligned with climate and development goals. The experience of recent decades - marked by escalating costs and uneven post-Games legacies - suggests that a new approach would prioritize flexibility, resource efficiency, and long-term community benefit.

Technological change offers another dimension. If the Olympic system were designed today, it would incorporate digital platforms, athlete data protections, new forms of global broadcasting, and opportunities for broader participation and engagement. Virtual and hybrid competition formats, better safeguarding mechanisms, and increased transparency in judging and officiating would likely form part of a modern foundation.

Finally, the geopolitical role of sport would require explicit consideration. The Games today operate at the intersection of diplomacy, national identity, and soft power. A newly designed Olympic Movement might include clearer protocols for political disputes, stronger protections for athlete expression, and frameworks that help maintain neutrality while acknowledging the realities of a complex international environment.

Imagining the Olympic Movement built from scratch is not an exercise in idealism. It is a way of understanding how global sport must evolve if it is to remain relevant, trusted, and capable of fulfilling its unique role in international society. The objective would not be to recreate the past, but to build a system capable of navigating the next century of global change.

The Olympics endure because they represent more than competition. They symbolize cooperation, aspiration, and shared human possibility. Ensuring that the system supporting them is equipped for the future is essential. Reimagining the movement from first principles may offer the perspective needed to guide that evolution.