IOC members will choose their new president on Thursday in Costa Navarino, Greece. Seven candidates are vying for Thomas Bach's seat: Kirsty Coventry, David Lappartient, Johan Eliasch, Juan Antonio Samaranch Jr., Sebastian Coe, Prince Feisal, and Morinari Watanabe. Who will be the chosen one? Jean-Loup Chappelet, honorary professor at the University of Lausanne and a renowned expert on the Olympic movement, offers some insight.
Why do you think this election is “more open than ever”?
It's been a very long time since there were seven candidates. To my knowledge, it's even unique. Last time, there were five, but with a very strong favorite, Thomas Bach, who was elected. Previous times, there were only three or four candidates at most. Seven is absolutely unique. The first rounds will be used to eliminate. Then, perhaps one candidate will stand out. It's possible, as in the conclave of the Catholic Church, that the members will defer en masse to this one. The votes will not be communicated from one round to the next; we will simply know who is eliminated, so perhaps this mechanism will be harder to trigger, but the members will probably talk among themselves. They will see if one of the candidates stands out. This may take time.
This is a good thing ?
Yes, it's very good for democracy! It's better than having only one or two candidates, which would limit the choices. Maybe the campaign isn't as open as we would have liked, but ultimately, it's the IOC members who vote. That only represents a hundred people, so there's no point spreading it everywhere, which would have costs for the candidates.
What do you think will make the difference?
On knowing the members. I'm convinced, as in other elections, that we vote for people we know, those with whom we have a connection. I think longevity within the IOC is more important than anything. The members who have been there the longest have had the opportunity to meet more other members, and therefore potentially make more contacts and become better known. Those who have been there for a shorter time haven't had the opportunity to interact with those who will be voting and are therefore less well-known, even if they have a certain media aura.
So it will be more about networks than ideas?
Let's just say that ideas can be repulsive! Some have been put forward, for example the rather revolutionary idea of organizing the Games on five continents simultaneously. This idea may appeal to some, but also repel many others, as too revolutionary. The IOC is a fairly conservative organization. It has evolved the Olympic Games over the years, but not with major upheavals.
David Lappartient spoke of leading an evolution rather than a revolution. Is this the guiding principle?
I think it's a very good formula. The media tried to question the candidates on potential sticking points, such as the participation of Russians, doping, etc. But the position of the IOC, which is not a state, can only be one of evolution and adaptation to society, to the way the world works. This is what happened with amateurism: it was initially a fundamental credo, and little by little, it disappeared. It was set aside simply because it no longer had any reason to exist in the world of the late 20th century, whereas it was the very basis at the beginning of the century.
Which candidates emerge as favorites?
It's very difficult to answer. There are several names that could be cited, in contrast to those who are unlikely to be elected. I think three or four candidates stand out. In no particular order, I would mention David Lappartient, Juan Antonio Samaranch, Kirsty Coventry, and Sebastian Coe.
However, David Lappartient has only been a member of the IOC since 2022.
Yes, but he is the president of an international federation and an NOC. Apparently, he appealed in Africa, and there are many African IOC members today. That remains my opinion, I've often been wrong! I'll mention a few names that seem to stand out, also in light of their manifestos, which are still the basis. I hope that many IOC members have consulted them. These documents have been available since November, a number of things are written and could potentially influence a vote or not.
What strengths do you see in the four candidates you mentioned?
I think that beyond being at the IOC for some time and knowing the members, there is the question of the image the IOC may want to project to the outside world. It's difficult for an IF president to become IOC president; that's never been the case except with Sigfrid Edström, who was president of the International Athletics Federation. Generally, it's someone from the NOCs who is elected. From that point of view, it's a plus for Samaranch, Lappartient, and Coventry. For Lappartient, there's the youth dimension—for Coventry too, but it's almost too young. It's a movement that lives on its image, despite everything. The image it projects is very important; I think the IOC members are perfectly aware of that. Regarding Coe, it's clear to me that the Russians and their allies don't want him. But he could also rally the votes of those who oppose the Russians. His popularity has risen in recent days; I think he'll be in the final four.
Even though you describe the IOC as a "conservative" organization, do you think members could vote for an African woman?
It seems a little too early to me. She will probably have other opportunities because she is only 41, which leaves her with another 30 years. Members may feel it is coming too early this year, but it is important that a woman is a candidate. There could have been more, but having one is already a good sign.
Will the IOC emerge stronger from this campaign, fueled by a lot of thought, given the diversity of the candidates?
Yes, there are ideas. For example, organizing the Games in Africa. That's certainly a possibility in the future. Consider sustainability, especially for the Winter Games. There's talk of rotating between different cities, and some also suggest changing the timing of the Games. Having the Winter Games in the Southern Hemisphere would mean in the summer for Europe, and that's probably a little early. But having the Summer Games in October, November, or December is entirely feasible. It was done for the FIFA World Cup, and it would make it easier for countries in the Middle East, or elsewhere, to organize the Games. I also think the new president will be much more legitimate and will be able to speak on behalf of all his colleagues, but also of sport in general, because the election will have been very democratic, with seven candidates. That also shows the importance of the position. In 1952, there was much hesitation over whether to elect a Briton or an American. It took many rounds. But once elected, Avery Brundage was widely supported and re-elected.
