The IOC is not cutting sports for Brisbane 2032 for now, but it is opening the door to cuts by discipline
The Executive Board of the International Olympic Committee has not made a decision on removing sports from the programme of the Brisbane 2032 Olympic Games, but it has confirmed a direction that could significantly change the way in which the Olympic programme for the Games in Australia will be shaped. According to available information after the meeting held on 08 May 2026, there is currently no final list of sports that would be removed, nor has any international federation been officially informed that its sport is dropping out of the Olympic programme. The key decision has been postponed until June, when a vote is expected on the procedure that enables a detailed review of the programme by disciplines, and not only by entire sports. Such an approach means that, for example, there could be discussion about individual disciplines within a larger sport, the number of medal events, athlete quotas, the necessary infrastructure and the total cost of organisation.
This is an important signal at a time when the IOC is trying simultaneously to maintain the global appeal of the Olympic Games, limit cost growth and adapt the programme to new audience habits. Brisbane 2032 should be the next major test of those ambitions after Los Angeles 2028, whose programme has been expanded with additional sports proposed for the American market and a younger global audience. In the Olympic system, however, every expansion raises the same question: if new events are added, what must be reduced so that the Games remain organisationally feasible. That is why the announcement of a procedure for possible cuts by discipline is much more than a technical procedure. It announces a politically sensitive discussion between the IOC, the Games organisers, international federations, athletes and national Olympic committees.
Why the June vote is crucial for Brisbane 2032
The Olympic programme for Brisbane 2032 has not yet been finalised. The IOC previously decided that the initial sports programme for the Games in Australia would be determined during 2026, which is a departure from the older practice in which the programme was locked in earlier so that the host would have more time to plan venues, logistics and the budget. The new approach stems from the effort to plan the Games more flexibly, with greater use of existing infrastructure and with less obligation to build expensive new venues. In that context, the June vote will not necessarily immediately mean a list of removed disciplines, but it will determine the rules of the game: the criteria, deadlines and the way in which each discipline will be assessed.
A review by discipline can be especially sensitive because it cuts into the very structure of individual sports. Some sports include several disciplines that differ in terms of the required venues, the number of participants and costs. If the IOC wants to reduce the number of athletes or avoid building expensive specialised infrastructure, it is logical that it will look not only at the name of the sport but also at the specific events within it. This opens the possibility that a sport remains in the programme, but with a smaller number of disciplines, events or quota places. For international federations this may be more acceptable than complete removal, but it still carries serious consequences because Olympic presence affects funding, development programmes, sponsorships and global visibility.
At the same time, the IOC emphasises sustainability, rational planning and alignment with the local context of the host. Brisbane and the wider Queensland region are already facing major infrastructure decisions, including the distribution of venues, transport solutions and the long-term purpose of facilities after the Games. Official information on the dates of the Games confirms that the Olympic Games will be held from 23 July to 8 August 2032, and the Paralympic Games from 24 August to 5 September 2032. Such a calendar still leaves enough time for planning, but not for unlimited postponement of decisions. Every programme change affects venue design, contracts, sports qualifications and athlete preparations.
Limiting the growth of the Games is becoming the central theme of Olympic policy
The discussion about the Brisbane 2032 programme is part of a wider process in which the IOC is trying to curb the growth of the Olympic Games. For decades, the Games have grown through a larger number of sports, a larger number of disciplines, a larger number of television-attractive events and increasingly complex demands on hosts. Such development has brought greater global diversity and more opportunities for athletes, but also greater pressure on organisers’ budgets. In official documents and announcements, the IOC increasingly uses the language of sustainability, flexibility and the use of existing venues. This means that the programme is no longer viewed only through sporting tradition, but also through the question of whether an event can be held without disproportionate cost and without venues that have no clear purpose after the Games.
Los Angeles 2028 has already shown how the IOC is trying to combine the traditional Olympic programme with sports that are attractive in market and generational terms. The LA28 programme has confirmed 351 medal events, more than in Paris 2024, while maintaining the basic quota of 10,500 athletes and adding quota places for sports proposed by the organiser, including baseball/softball, cricket, flag football, lacrosse and squash. Such a model allows the host to reflect the local sporting context, but it increases pressure on future hosts. It is not certain that all sports and disciplines from Los Angeles will automatically be transferred to Brisbane, because each host region has different infrastructure, audiences, climate conditions and financial frameworks.
That is precisely why it is important that the IOC Executive Board has not so far spoken about concrete cuts as a final decision. In Olympic diplomacy, the difference between “cutting sports” and “adopting a discipline review procedure” is not a formality. The first would mean a final political decision, while the second creates a mechanism that still has to produce recommendations. But for federations that depend on Olympic status and for athletes who plan their preparation cycles years in advance, the announcement of such a process itself is serious enough. It sends the message that no discipline can count on an automatic place simply because it was previously in the programme.
What can be assessed in the discipline review
The criteria that will be formalised in June will be decisive for understanding the future programme. According to previous Olympic practice and publicly available information about programme reforms, the factors usually taken into account include the number of athletes, gender balance, global spread, audience interest, availability of infrastructure, organisation costs, safety requirements, the complexity of the qualification system and the possibility of fitting the event into existing venue plans. Particularly sensitive are disciplines that require expensive or specific facilities, extensive logistics, a large competition area or a significant number of participants and officials. In such cases, the question is not only sporting value, but also whether the host can organise the event without a long-term financial burden.
Such an approach could also affect traditional sports if individual disciplines do not meet the new requirements. At the same time, it could open space for sports that require less infrastructure, have strong television or digital potential and attract a younger audience. But the IOC must be careful about balance. Changing the programme too aggressively could undermine the trust of federations and athletes, while adapting too slowly could increase costs and distance the Games from an audience that consumes sport in a different way than twenty or thirty years ago.
Brisbane 2032 is therefore becoming a model example of the new Olympic policy. The host wants Games that will be feasible, regionally distributed and useful in the long term, while the IOC wants to prove that it is possible to organise the largest sporting event in the world without uncontrolled expansion. In such a framework, the question of the sports programme is no longer only a sporting question. It is connected with urban planning, public finances, political responsibility, sponsorship revenues, television rights and the relationship with an audience that expects both tradition and innovation from the Olympic Games.
The 2030 Youth Olympic Games have been put on hold
The second important message from the IOC level concerns the 2030 Youth Olympic Games. According to available information, that project has been put on hold while the IOC considers a broader “youth strategy”. This means that the selection of the host for 2030 is currently not only a question between interested candidates, but also a question of what format of the event the IOC wants to retain at all. Asunción in Paraguay, Bangkok in Thailand and Santiago in Chile were previously invited into targeted dialogue for hosting the 2030 Youth Olympic Games, and the IOC at that time announced the selection of the host during 2026. The latest postponement shows that a deeper change of the model is being considered.
The Youth Olympic Games were launched in order to combine elite competition for young athletes with educational, cultural and development programmes. The idea was to provide young athletes with an Olympic experience before the senior Games, but also to bring the Olympic movement closer to new generations. In practice, the project has often faced questions of costs, visibility, the burden on the sports calendar and the real difference compared with junior world championships in individual sports. If the IOC is now reviewing its “youth strategy”, that does not have to mean the automatic abolition of the event, but it does mean that its current form is no longer untouchable.
Dakar 2026 remains the next edition of the Summer Youth Olympic Games and an important test of the new, simplified approach. The IOC has already approved a programme for Dakar that emphasises sustainability, alignment with the local context and reduced complexity, among other things by limiting sports to one discipline and removing some earlier formats. Such changes show that the same logic is being applied to the Youth Games as to the major Olympic Games: less burden on the host, a clearer sporting identity and greater connection with local conditions. If it turns out that even such a model does not produce the desired results, the IOC could consider even deeper interventions.
Can the Youth Olympic Games disappear from the calendar
The claim that the Youth Olympic Games could “die” would for now be too harsh as a final assessment, but it is not unfounded to say that the future of that event is open. When an institution such as the IOC postpones the selection of a host and at the same time talks about reviewing its youth strategy, this points to the possibility of changing the format, the rhythm of staging, the scope of the competition or even the role of the event within the Olympic system. The mildest scenario would be a redesign of the programme and a postponement of the host selection until new rules are defined. A middle scenario could mean a smaller, more modular event connected with existing junior championships or regional sports festivals. The most radical scenario would be the gradual abandonment of the independent Youth Games model if the IOC concludes that it can achieve its goals toward young people more effectively through other channels.
For cities and states that have entered the candidature process, this creates uncertainty. A bid for an Olympic event requires political support, administrative work, cost estimates, discussions with federations and venue planning. If the rules change in the middle of the process, candidates may remain in a position in which they have invested time and resources without a clear guarantee that the event will be held in the planned form. On the other hand, the IOC could conclude that it is better to slow down now than to award an event that would then have to be changed under pressure from costs or weak interest.
In a broader sense, the discussion about the Youth Games shows that the Olympic movement can no longer assume that younger audiences will automatically accept traditional sports formats. Young athletes and viewers live in a space in which competitions are followed through short video formats, social networks, interactive content and global communities that are not necessarily tied to national television schedules. The IOC therefore has to decide whether the best response is a new major multi-sport event or a combination of digital platforms, school and development programmes, urban sports, esports experiments and smaller competitions that are easier to adapt to local conditions.
Brisbane 2032 and the Youth Games are part of the same dilemma
At first glance, the discussion about the programme of the 2032 Olympic Games and the uncertainty surrounding the 2030 Youth Games belong to different levels of the Olympic system. The first concerns the largest sporting event in the world, with enormous television, sponsorship and political significance. The second concerns younger athletes and a development format that has never had the same global weight. Still, both topics arise from the same dilemma: how to maintain Olympic relevance without constantly increasing costs and complexity. The IOC must find a balance between tradition, financial responsibility and the need for sport to remain close to new generations.
For Brisbane 2032, this means that every federation will have to show convincingly why its disciplines have a place in the programme. For the Youth Olympic Games, it means that the event itself must prove why it is the best instrument of Olympic policy toward young people. In both cases, it is no longer enough to refer to history or symbolism. Measurable value, feasibility, fit with the local context and the ability to attract audiences will be required.
The most important immediate point now is June 2026, when the IOC is expected to vote on the discipline review process for Brisbane 2032. Only after that can a clearer picture be expected of which disciplines will be under the greatest pressure and when final decisions might be made. Until then, it is more precise to speak about a process that may lead to cuts than about already implemented cuts to sports. At the same time, the status of the 2030 Youth Olympic Games remains unresolved, and the postponement of the decision shows that the IOC is reviewing not only individual events but also the broader architecture of the Olympic calendar.
Sources:
- International Olympic Committee – decisions on the LA28 programme and the discipline review process for Brisbane 2032 (link)
- International Olympic Committee – decision that the initial Brisbane 2032 programme will be determined in 2026 (link)
- International Olympic Committee – official Brisbane 2032 page and hosting documents (link)
- Government of Queensland – official dates of the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games (link)
- International Olympic Committee – invitation to Asunción, Bangkok and Santiago into targeted dialogue for the 2030 Youth Olympic Games (link)
- International Olympic Committee – programme and quotas for the Dakar 2026 Youth Olympic Games (link)
- ABC News Australia – context of the discussion about possible difficult decisions before Brisbane 2032 (link)
RECOMMENDED ACCOMMODATION