The International Olympic Committee has been at the forefront of the recent events. The governing body has unveiled a new policy relating to the female categoryThis raises several questions. It also faces an extremely tense geopolitical context, which undermines the principles it tries to uphold. This context prompted reflection from an analyst of Olympism, Ryoichi Kasuga. The former director of international relations for the Japanese Olympic Committee (JOC) shared his thoughts in an opinion piece, which Francs Jeux published below.
“For many years, I have sought to understand and convey the direction taken by the International Olympic Committee in a positive light, with the conviction that its actions were guided by the fundamental principles of Olympism. Above all, I have maintained the firm conviction that sport, at its highest level, serves as a bridge — a bridge that aspires to unite humanity beyond divisions and political conflicts.”
The concept of the Olympic Truce, rooted in ancient tradition and transposed to the modern era, has long symbolized this aspiration. It is not simply an ideal, but a minimal ethical commitment: that, even in times of conflict, humanity can pause, however briefly, to recognize something greater.
However, in recent years I have begun to feel increasing concern about how this principle is being upheld. Conflicts persist around the world, and in some cases involving nations such as Israel and the United States, it is difficult to discern a clear and consistent articulation of the Olympic Truce from the IOC's perspective. While the principle of political neutrality undoubtedly requires caution, silence—when it appears selective—risks undermining the universality of the very ideals that the Movement seeks to represent.
At the same time, the IOC has taken a more active role in another area: the pursuit of fairness in competition. Recent discussions concerning women's sport demonstrate a desire to draw lines, often based on scientific reasoning. Yet, here too, complexity arises. The principles of inclusion and fairness—both essential to Olympism—do not always align perfectly in practice.
These principles are not inherently conflicting. Inclusion seeks to ensure that no one is excluded, while fairness seeks to preserve the integrity of competition. Both stem from the same philosophical foundation. However, when translated into policy, they require drawing boundaries, and it is precisely in this act that tensions arise. What we face today is not simply a question of where to draw these lines, but whether they are drawn consistently.
In some areas, clear criteria are established. In others, restraint or silence prevails. This asymmetry, regardless of the merits of individual decisions, inevitably affects the perception of the coherence of Olympism as a universal system of values.
Of course, reality resists simplification. Perfect fairness is unattainable; absolute inclusion is equally elusive. This is well understood by those involved in sport. Yet, it is precisely for this reason that the effort to explain becomes essential. While decisions must remain imperfect, their underlying rationale must nevertheless be articulated clearly and sincerely.
Historically, the IOC has often maintained balance not by directly resolving conflicts, but by absorbing tensions and allowing space for coexistence. This approach has, in many respects, preserved the Olympic arena as a unique domain. However, in an increasingly fragmented world, one might question whether this method alone remains sufficient.
And yet, I continue to believe in the enduring potential of Olympism. Not as a finished doctrine, but as a living philosophy—a philosophy that must be nurtured by continuous reflection and self-examination. The question before us, therefore, is not whether the IOC is right or wrong. Rather, it is whether the direction it is pursuing remains true to the coherence that gives Olympism its moral authority.
If the Olympic Movement is to remain a shared heritage of humanity, perhaps what is required now is not a stronger affirmation, but a calmer and more deliberate questioning.
