Fit for the Future: Turning Purpose into Practice in Olympic Sport

Image credit: Olympics.com

The IOC’s Fit for the Future strategic direction is not a sustainability strategy in the narrow sense. It does not simply set out new climate targets, reporting requirements or ESG standards. Its relevance for sustainability seems broader than that.

The IOC frames the direction around how the Olympic Movement can remain “strong, relevant and impactful” in the years ahead. For those of us working in sustainability, ESG, impact and purpose in sport, that question is important because it moves the conversation beyond isolated programmes and towards the way sport organisations are run, funded, trusted and judged.

Many of the themes are not new. Sustainable Games delivery, athlete support, good governance, inclusion, youth engagement, impact, revenue generation and the role of sport in society have all been part of the Olympic conversation for many years. The direction of travel has been building through Olympic Agenda 2020, Olympic Agenda 2020+5, host reforms, climate commitments, human rights work, safe sport, Olympism365 and wider efforts to show the value of sport beyond competition.

What feels more relevant now is the integration of these areas. The five themes of Fit for the Future – Athletes, Olympic Games, Olympic Movement, Olympic Impact, and Engagement and Revenue – are not presented as ESG themes. But they are all ESG-relevant. Athlete voice, mental health, safeguarding, integrity, good governance, Games delivery, participation, inclusion, investment and commercial alignment all shape the credibility and impact of sport.

In that sense, Fit for the Future reflects something many of us have been noticing more generally in sport: sustainability is moving from headline to hygiene. It may not always be the central story, but it is becoming part of the expected way of working.

For International Federations, this could mean looking again at how sustainability and impact are built into competition management, event bidding, athlete welfare, safeguarding, development programmes and support to national federations. For National Olympic Committees, it could mean translating global priorities into national support programmes, education, funding criteria and practical guidance for member federations. For hosts and event organisers, it could mean showing not only that an event can be delivered well, but that it is a “sustainable proposition”: proportionate, credible, financially realistic and connected to longer-term value.

The effect across the sport pyramid will probably come through requirements, tools, funding conditions and incentives. IOC expectations influence IFs and NOCs, and their expectations then shape what national federations, event organisers and clubs are asked to do. That can help sustainability and impact become more embedded, but only if the expectations are realistic. Smaller organisations do not need more complexity. They need clearer tools, better examples and proportionate support.

From my perspective, one of the more interesting parts of Fit for the Future is the link between impact, decision-making and investment. Under the Olympic Impact theme, the IOC refers to “measuring impact” and directing investment “where it matters most”. That is a useful signal.

Sport has always been good at telling positive stories. Those stories are often true and valuable, but they are no longer enough on their own. The stronger question is: what changed, who benefited, what evidence do we have, and how should that influence future decisions?

This is where the sustainability, ESG, impact and purpose movement in sport is already heading. There is less patience for broad narratives about good intentions and more interest in credible evidence of outcomes. Not necessarily perfect evidence, but useful evidence. Fewer claims about “raising awareness” and more evidence of changed behaviour, reduced emissions, improved access, better safeguarding, stronger governance or more inclusive participation.

Fit for the Future could help reinforce that shift. The IOC’s emphasis on “sport, celebration and impact” for the Olympic Games is a helpful phrase because it avoids treating impact as something added on at the end. It suggests that impact should be part of how sport is designed and delivered.

The same applies to governance. Fit for the Future refers to Olympic Movement organisations being governed in a “responsible and sustainable manner”. That matters because good governance, ethics, accountability and trust are not separate from sustainability. They are part of what makes sustainability credible.

At the same time, much of the current work will continue. Climate action, sustainable event management, inclusion, athlete welfare, governance and community impact will not disappear. They may simply become more embedded in normal planning and delivery. Sustainability teams may still lead parts of the work, but they should not be expected to carry the full responsibility alone.

The main change, then, may be from purpose as a statement to purpose as an operating principle. Purpose needs to be clearly represented in what an organisation funds, what it measures, what it asks of hosts and partners, how it supports athletes, how it communicates progress, and how it deals with trade-offs.

For sport organisations, the practical starting point does not need to be a long new strategy. A simple translation exercise would be more useful. What does Fit for the Future mean for us? Where are we already aligned? Which expectations are likely to affect us directly? Where are we still mostly measuring activity rather than outcomes? What support will our members, hosts or clubs need?

The risk is that Fit for the Future becomes another high-level direction that smaller organisations experience mainly as extra administration. The opportunity is that it becomes a clearer way to connect sport’s social purpose with credible delivery.

For consultants and advisers, the message is similar. Our role is not just to help organisations say the right things. It is to help them connect the dots, simplify the work, and turn broad commitments into practical tools: clear roadmaps, useful indicators, proportionate reporting processes, implementation plans, and evidence that can support better decisions.

Fit for the Future may not introduce a completely new sustainability agenda. Its significance may be that it reinforces where the agenda is already going: away from broad claims and towards clearer proof; away from isolated projects and towards embedded responsibility; away from purpose as narrative and towards purpose as something sport organisations can organise around, measure and improve.