The International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced a radical overhaul of its governance framework in mid-October, dissolving twelve long-standing advisory commissions. Among the casualties are the Gender Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Commission and the Advisory Committee on Human Rights. The move, presented as a cost-saving and efficiency measure, will replace the permanent bodies with ad-hoc working groups assembled only when a specific issue demands attention.
Under President Kirsty Coventry the IOC will retain nineteen core committees, such as the Athletes’ Commission, the Ethics Commission and the Audit Committee. Formerly, each of the eliminated panels gathered ten to thirty experts for an annual meeting in Lausanne, Switzerland. The new model promises “more targeted engagement on key strategic priorities and policy development,” according to the organization’s official statement.
Restructuring the IOC’s advisory landscape
The restructuring plan was unveiled on October 16, after more than a year of internal consultation. By shrinking the number of permanent groups from thirty-one to nineteen, the IOC aims to cut overhead while preserving the ability to convene specialists on a case-by-case basis. Commissions dealing with sustainability, technology, education, digital engagement and commercial partnerships will likewise be phased out.
Critics argue that eliminating dedicated forums for gender equality and human rights may dilute the attention these topics receive. Supporters counter that flexible working groups can draw in the most relevant expertise at the precise moment a policy question arises, avoiding the bureaucratic inertia of standing committees.
New gene-screening rule for women’s Olympic events
In parallel with the structural changes, the IOC introduced a controversial eligibility policy for the women’s categories beginning with the Los Angeles 2028 Games. Effective March 26, the rule requires a one-time test for the SRY gene—the genetic marker typically linked to male sex development. Athletes who test positive for SRY will be barred from competing in female events, except for narrowly defined cases involving certain intersex conditions.
The policy explicitly excludes transgender women and some athletes with differences of sex development (DSD), emphasizing that the measure is intended to protect the fairness and safety of female competition. It does not apply retroactively and is limited to elite Olympic competition, not recreational sport.
President Coventry defended the rule as a necessary safeguard, stating, “It would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category.” She also highlighted provisions for athlete dignity, offering counseling and medical guidance to those affected.
The decision aligns with a February 2025 executive order from the United States administration that urged the IOC to adopt eligibility standards based on sex rather than gender identity or testosterone levels. International reactions are split: UN special rapporteur Reem Alsalem praised the move as a protection for female athletes, while Human Rights Watch warned that mandatory genetic testing threatens privacy and could exacerbate discrimination against women with natural variations in sex characteristics.
Notably, the gene-screening rule was crafted by a confidential expert panel rather than the now-defunct Gender Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Commission. This bypass underscores Coventry’s preference for small, focused groups when tackling high-stakes policy questions.
As the Olympic movement approaches its next milestone in Los Angeles, the dual track of institutional simplification and stringent eligibility criteria will shape how athletes, federations and fans perceive the Games. Whether the ad-hoc working groups can deliver the depth of oversight previously provided by standing commissions remains an open question, as does the broader impact of genetic testing on the future of women’s sport.
