Coe, Coventry, Samaranch - Will the Next IOC President Care About Sports and Crime?
The Sports and Crime Briefing breaks down the history, controversies, policies and promises of the three leading candidates vying to be elected as IOC President this week.
The race to succeed Thomas Bach as International Olympic Committee (IOC) President has spotlighted three leading contenders: Sebastian Coe, Kirsty Coventry, and Juan Antonio Samaranch Jr.
With the next IOC president set to be elected this week, The Sports and Crime Briefing This examines their career profiles, campaign pledges, and critically evaluates each candidate’s record on key sports integrity issues – corruption, match-fixing, doping, and safeguarding/athlete welfare.
Sebastian Coe
COE’S ELECTION MANIFESTO
Lord Sebastian Coe, 68, is a two-time Olympic champion (1500m gold in 1980 and 1984) turned sports administrator. After a stint as a British MP, Coe led the successful London 2012 Olympic bid and served as Chair of the London Organising Committee.
In 2015, amid a major athletics doping scandal, Coe was elected President of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF, now World Athletics).
He became an IOC member in 2020 as World Athletics chief. Coe’s tenure in athletics governance has been defined by efforts to clean up the sport’s image after corruption and doping crises under his predecessor. His extensive experience – from Olympic champion to organizer and federation president – gives him a multifaceted perspective on sport administration.
Election Pledges
Coe’s IOC presidential manifesto centers on protecting sport integrity and athlete-centric leadership. He promises to “extend what he demonstrated at World Athletics: protection of the women’s category, a powerful anti-doping effort, and maintaining focus on sport and athletes”
He has proposed giving athletes a greater share of Olympic revenues and prioritizing their financial well-being. Coe also suggests governance reforms, including a mid-term referendum on his presidency after four years (a novel transparency measure given his age limit). A notable pledge is his stance that protecting the integrity of women’s sport is “non-negotiable,” hinting at clearer rules on transgender athlete eligibility.
Corruption in Sport
Coe’s record on tackling corruption is mixed, reflecting both strong reforms and past controversies. As IAAF President, he inherited the fallout from a corruption scandal in which top officials extorted athletes to cover up doping. Coe created an independent Ethics Board and the Athletics Integrity Unit to investigate and prevent such abuses.
These moves, alongside lifetime bans for major offenders, demonstrated a commitment to governance reform. However, Coe has faced scrutiny over what he knew (or should have known) during the era of his predecessor, Lamine Diack. Coe served as IAAF Vice-President under Diack and was accused by a UK Parliamentary inquiry of “wilful ignorance” for failing to act on a 2014 email detailing Russian doping bribery allegations.
Coe maintains he forwarded the allegations to ethics officials and was unaware of their specifics, but lawmakers found his lack of curiosity “very disturbing”. This episode raised questions about Coe’s transparency and vigilance when confronted with corruption within his sport.
Coe also navigated a conflict-of-interest controversy. For years, he was a paid ambassador to Nike, even as the U.S. sportswear giant backed Eugene’s bid for the 2021 World Athletics Championships. Amid accusations that his Nike ties influenced Eugene being awarded the event without a formal bid process, Coe resigned his Nike role in late 2015.
Coe insisted “my role with Nike is not a conflict of interest” but admitted the “noise around it” was a distraction and stepped aside to preserve IAAF’s credibility. Critics note it should not have taken public pressure for Coe to see the perception problem.
Overall, Coe’s anti-corruption credentials are strengthened by the concrete measures he implemented at World Athletics – including greater transparency and independent integrity enforcement. Yet his earlier proximity to a corrupt regime and a slow response to conflicts of interest represent blemishes. His challenge will be convincing IOC colleagues that he brings both zero tolerance and improved judgment to the Olympic helm.
Match-Fixing
Match-fixing has not prominently figured in Coe’s career, as athletics is less prone to match manipulation than sports like football or tennis. Nonetheless, Coe has supported broad integrity efforts to combat illegal betting and competition manipulation. Under his leadership, World Athletics expanded the Integrity Unit’s remit to include “betting, bribery and corruption” alongside doping. This indicates Coe’s awareness of betting-related risks. While there have been no high-profile match-fixing cases in track & field on Coe’s watch, he has endorsed the IOC’s initiatives to monitor irregular betting at Games time.
Coe’s focus has primarily been on safeguarding results from doping rather than from match-fixing. However, his general philosophy of “zero tolerance” for unethical behavior would logically extend to any form of competition manipulation. He has not been implicated in any match-fixing scandals, nor had to personally adjudicate such a crisis. In the IOC context, Coe would likely continue supporting robust intelligence-sharing and betting monitoring programs. Given his clean record in this area, Coe is seen as likely to uphold a stringent stance against match-fixing, even if it has not been the core issue of his tenure.
Doping
Coe is perhaps best known for his hard-line stance on doping. Cleaning up athletics after the Russian state-sponsored doping scandal has been a centerpiece of his leadership. Upon taking charge of IAAF in 2015, Coe imposed a zero-tolerance policy on doping and oversaw the suspension of the Russian Athletics Federation.
He consistently advocated that cheats be punished with lifetime Olympic bans. Under Coe, World Athletics created the independent Athletics Integrity Unit in 2017 – the first of its kind – to remove doping control from internal politics. “I created the first independent ‘integrity unit’, it was part of my manifesto… and it has been delivered,” Coe noted, emphasizing that sport “must be a byword for trust and transparency.”
Coe also did not shy away from tough decisions: he maintained the ban on Russia’s track team through multiple World Championships and Olympics until strict reinstatement criteria were metThis put him at odds with more lenient IOC policies. In fact, Coe “fell out” with IOC President Bach over World Athletics’ refusal to readmit Russia quickly. Coe has openly said, “I am not a neutral” when it comes to Russia’s doping offenses, underscoring his belief that blatant cheats should face exclusion.
Despite this strong record, Coe’s legacy has one shadow: the handling of doping allegations prior to 2015. As mentioned, the 2014 Russian doping whistleblower dossier reached Coe’s inbox, and his decision not to personally review it invited criticism. An independent World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) report in 2018 reportedly questioned “the extent of Coe’s knowledge” of Russian doping prior to the scandal’s exposure. Coe has vehemently refuted any suggestion he was soft on doping at any point, stressing he acted on information as soon as he had authority to do so.
In summary, Coe has shown willingness to hold even powerful nations to account for doping, which bodes well for his resolve as IOC President. The main question is whether the IOC membership, some of whom favored more political diplomacy in cases like Russia, fully embrace Coe’s uncompromising approach. Nonetheless, his advocacy for stronger testing and lifetime bans positions him as a champion of clean sport.
Integrity and Safeguarding
Coe has spoken about the broader duty to protect athletes’ well-being and competition fairness. One of his signature issues has been fairness in women’s sport categories. At World Athletics, Coe took a controversial stand by implementing regulations to restrict participation of transgender women and athletes with high natural testosterone in female events, arguing it was necessary to “protect the integrity of women’s sport from elite level down to local clubs”
He calls this principle non-negotiable and has pushed for the IOC to adopt similarly clear guidelines. Supporters say this reflects Coe’s commitment to ensuring a level playing field, while critics have debated the inclusion aspects. Regardless, it shows Coe is willing to make tough decisions in the name of sporting integrity as he defines it.
On athlete safeguarding and welfare, Coe has been less visibly active compared to his stances on doping and competition rules. However, he endorsed the IOC’s recent initiatives to combat harassment and abuse in sport. As World Athletics President, Coe supported research into athletes’ experiences with online abuse and even pressed social media companies to better protect athletes from harassment. He publicly decried the “disturbing” level of abuse directed at some competitors and sought to address it as an integrity issue that could affect mental health and performance.
Within World Athletics, Coe has backed athletes’ commissions and safeguarding policies. There have been instances of sexual abuse cases in athletics (for example, a coach banned for misconduct), and Coe’s administration approved rules to penalize such offenses. The Athletics Integrity Unit’s mandate includes investigating bribery and other ethical breaches, though not explicitly athlete abuse. Coe might not have spearheaded a high-profile safe sport program, but he has consistently emphasized athletes’ health and wellbeing as integral to sport’s future.
He argues that to inspire youth, the Olympic Movement must protect those at its heart – the athletes – so they can compete free of harm and exploitation.
Coe’s strengths on safeguarding are his athlete-centric philosophy and his proven willingness to implement independent structures that hold organizations accountable. His weakness may be that he hasn’t personally been the face of anti-abuse movements in the way some others have. If elected, Coe would likely continue current IOC safeguarding programs (such as mandatory athlete safeguarding officers at Games and educational toolkits) and possibly bolster them, given his emphasis that sport must be “a byword for trust and transparency whilst protecting athletes’ health and wellbeing.”
His track record suggests he would view any failure to protect athletes as a grave integrity lapse.
Kirsty Coventry
Kirsty Coventry, 41, is Africa’s most decorated Olympian, with seven swimming medals including two Olympic golds for Zimbabwe. After a stellar athletic career (spanning the Olympics from 2000 to 2016 Olympics), Coventry transitioned into sports governance. She joined the IOC Athletes’ Commission in 2013 and served as its Chair from 2018 to 2021.
In this role, she sat on the IOC Executive Board and became a leading voice for athletes within the Olympic Movement. In 2018, Coventry also entered government in Zimbabwe as Minister of Youth, Sport, Arts and Recreation, a position she still holds. She has chaired IOC Coordination Commissions (for the Youth Olympic Games and the 2032 Brisbane Olympics), giving her experience in overseeing Olympic projects.
Coventry’s relatively young age and athlete-centered background set her apart from the other candidates. She would be the first female and first African IOC President. Advocates say she represents a new generation of leadership with a deeper understanding of athletes’ needs.
However, she has not led a large international federation like Coe or Samaranch. Her governance experience comes largely from the IOC itself and her national role in Zimbabwe. Nonetheless, Coventry’s rise from Olympic champion to IOC contender has been swift. She is often viewed as the protégé of outgoing IOC President Thomas Bach – someone who has been groomed within IOC circles and entrusted with high-profile duties.
Election Pledges
Coventry’s campaign emphasizes “empowerment” and “engagement” rooted in the African philosophy of Ubuntu (“I am because we are”). She frames her mission as uniting the Olympic community and uplifting athletes. A key pillar of her manifesto is harnessing the power of sport for social good and athlete well-being. Coventry stresses that athletes are “more than competitors” and pledges to “prioritise their mental health, physical recovery, and… holistic well-being” during and after their sporting careers.
This focus on athlete welfare – mental health support, career transition, injury recovery – indicates she would champion safeguarding and athlete services as IOC President.
On integrity issues, Coventry is explicit: her manifesto commits to “Zero tolerance for corruption, doping and unethical behaviour.” She argues the Olympic Movement must demonstrate the true power of sport in a divided world by upholding values of resilience, respect, and fair play.
This zero-tolerance mantra aligns with Bach’s approach and signals that Coventry would continue a firm stance against misconduct. She also highlights sustainability and solidarity in her platform, such as environmentally responsible Games and deeper collaboration with International Federations and National Olympic Committees.
Notably, Coventry places safeguarding and athlete protection high on her agenda by emphasizing equal treatment and safe sport. In an interview, she affirmed that “everyone is entitled to equal treatment – that’s why WADA exists”, underlining her belief in consistent anti-doping enforcement.
Additionally, Coventry talks of leveraging digital engagement to empower youth and athletes. Overall, her pledges paint her as a candidate focused on athletes’ rights, integrity, and progressive growth of the Olympic Movement through trust and inclusivity.
Corruption in Sport
Coventry portrays herself as having a clean and principled record, and there have been no allegations of personal corruption against her. She promises “zero tolerance for corruption”, which aligns with her mentor Bach’s stance.
That said, her practical experience dealing with corruption has come primarily through her role as Zimbabwe’s Sports Minister. There, Coventry confronted governance failures in national sport. Notably, she took action in the Zimbabwe Football Association (ZIFA) scandal: after reports that ZIFA officials engaged in mismanagement and sexual harassment of female referees, Coventry supported FIFA’s suspension of the ZIFA board in 2021.
FIFA banned Zimbabwe for “government interference,” but Coventry defended it as a “necessary pain” to clean out corrupt and abusive officials. She publicly stood by the victims and insisted on accountability, stating the suspension would help remove “corrupt administrators and sexual predators” from football.
This earned her credibility as a reformer, even if it means tension with powerful stakeholders.
Within the IOC, Coventry has been part of ethics and compliance discussions but has largely been supportive of Bach-era reforms rather than initiating new ones. But a major problem is her membership in Zimbabwe’s government (which has severe corruption and human rights issues) and question if she has been vocal enough about those. Coventry’s association with a repressive regime could tarnish her image, even if she has generally avoided political confrontation in Zimbabwe outside the sports domain.
In summary, Coventry’s anti-corruption credentials rest on her outspoken commitment and her actions in Zimbabwe’s sports cleanup. She lacks the extensive track record of running an international federation where corruption was a major issue (unlike Coe with IAAF). Yet her fresh perspective and lack of baggage could seen as positives. Her challenge will be proving that her limited executive authority to date can translate into effectively leading a global fight against corruption at the IOC level.
Match-Fixing
There is little direct record of Coventry dealing with match-fixing cases, given her background in swimming and the IOC Athletes’ Commission. Swimming has not faced many prominent match-fixing scandals, and her athlete advocacy work mostly revolved around doping and athlete rights.
In her manifesto she groups “corruption, doping and unethical behaviour” together as zero-tolerance areas.
As Sports Minister, Coventry did face issues adjacent to match-fixing: Zimbabwean football had a notorious match-fixing ring in earlier years (the “Asiagate” scandal in 2012), though that was before her tenure. Since then, the country has struggled with allegations of rampant match-fixing in cricket. Coventry has since supported efforts to professionalize and stabilize football governance, which indirectly helps prevent match-fixing by improving oversight. On the IOC front, Coventry would likely continue existing measures like the Olympic Movement Unit on the Prevention of Manipulation of Competitions. She has a reputation of listening to athlete concerns, and athletes universally want fair competition free from fixing.
In an IOC presidential capacity, Coventry might not bring any radical new anti-match-fixing policies, but she could prove a supportive figure for integrity programs. Her athlete-focused approach could mean greater efforts to educate young athletes on the dangers of illegal betting and to support whistleblowers. Given her lack of a negative track record here, one can expect Coventry to strongly condemn any match manipulation and work collaboratively with international agencies to clamp down on it. Essentially, she would likely uphold the status quo of strict prohibition, and her credibility with athletes might help reinforce the message.
Doping
Kirsty Coventry is a staunch advocate for clean sport, shaped by her own experience competing at the elite level during eras of notorious doping (including the late-2000s when swimming saw supersuits and occasional doping busts). She has consistently supported firm anti-doping measures. As an IOC Athletes’ Commission leader, Coventry liaised closely with WADA and national anti-doping agencies, often echoing the sentiment that all athletes deserve an even playing field. “Everyone is entitled to equal treatment – that’s exactly why WADA exists,” she said, emphasizing consistent application of anti-doping rules for all.
During the Russian doping crisis leading up to Rio 2016 and PyeongChang 2018, Coventry was not yet Athletes’ Commission chair (she assumed that role after those Games). However, she was an IOC member and publicly supported the eventual compromise of allowing clean Russian athletes to compete as neutrals. By 2018-19, as Chair, Coventry had to balance athlete opinions – many Western athletes wanted a blanket ban on Russia, while others prioritized individual justice. In 2019, the IOC Athletes’ Commission under Coventry cautiously welcomed the reinstatement of Russia’s anti-doping agency under strict conditions, a stance aligned with IOC leadership. Some athlete groups criticized the AC (and thus Coventry) for not pushing harder for Russia’s complete exclusion after repeated violations. This reveals a potential weakness: Coventry’s conflict-averse style may lead her to moderate positions in politically charged doping decisions. She tends to seek consensus and follow due process, which can appear as leniency to hardliners.
On the positive side, Coventry has been involved in strengthening anti-doping education. She helped launch initiatives for young athletes about the risks of doping and has been vocal that doping not only cheats others but harms the athlete’s own health and legacy. In Zimbabwe, she supported the establishment of a national anti-doping organization and stricter drug testing at national games. No major doping scandals have involved Zimbabwean athletes under her watch, but she has dealt with minor cases (e.g. a Zimbabwean athlete sanctioned for a steroid in 2019, which Coventry condemned and used to reinforce education).
Coventry’s zero-tolerance pledge in her manifesto is unambiguous.
If IOC President, she would likely continue Thomas Bach’s approach: firm on principles but measured in execution. For example, she might strongly back WADA investigations and sanctions, yet also ensure that individual athletes have pathways to prove their innocence if from a tainted system. Her athlete background gives her moral authority when speaking against doping – she can authentically say doping robbed clean athletes of their moments. She could be expected to prioritize investment in anti-doping science and perhaps push for more support to athletes who speak up against doping (whistleblower protections).
In summary, Coventry aligns with the IOC’s established anti-doping framework and is seen as a safe pair of hands to continue it. While not as aggressive as Coe in rhetoric (she has not called for lifetime Olympic bans across the board, for example), she is unequivocal that doping has no place in sport. Her tenure on the WADA Foundation Board (as an IOC representative) showed her to be constructive and cooperative, advocating for improvements in testing and compliance standards.
Integrity and Safeguarding
Kirsty Coventry has made athlete welfare a centerpiece of her campaign – arguably her signature issue is safeguarding athletes and ensuring a safe, inclusive sporting environment. As a recently retired athlete, she often speaks from personal insight about pressures athletes face, ranging from mental health struggles to abuse of power by coaches or officials. She has championed the IOC’s Safe Sport initiatives. Under her leadership, the Athletes’ Commission helped develop the 2017 IOC Athlete Safeguarding Toolkit which was distributed to sports organizations worldwide to prevent harassment and abuse.
She also supported the creation of an International Safeguarding Officer in Sport certificate to professionalize how sports bodies handle abuse cases.
One of Coventry’s notable interventions was in the Zimbabwe football abuse case mentioned earlier. By insisting on justice for female referees who were sexually harassed, she demonstrated her willingness to put athlete safety above political or organizational convenience.
She stated unambiguously that the government and sporting authorities “won’t abandon” athletes who are victims, and followed through by removing perpetrators.
As IOC President, Coventry would likely amplify efforts to protect athletes from abuse and exploitation. She could potentially push sports federations to adopt athlete safeguarding policies and perhaps conditioning Olympic participation on having those measures (much like has been done for anti-doping compliance). Coventry’s manifesto of putting athletes first means their safety, mental health, and dignity would be prioritized in decision-making.
She talks about “amplifying holistic well-being” – which encompasses not just physical health but also safe environments free from harassment.
Furthermore, Coventry has been supportive of athlete activism on social issues. While she helped uphold Rule 50 (which restricts protests at Olympic venues) during a review in 2020-21, she also oversaw the IOC Athletes’ Commission’s recommendations that allowed more avenues for athletes to express themselves (e.g. at press conferences) without disrupting competition. This balanced approach suggests she respects athletes’ voices.
In terms of integrity, Coventry’s emphasis on “Advance Credibility & Trust” as one of her five priorities shows she views safeguarding and integrity as intertwined. A sport that isn’t safe for its participants cannot be credible or inspiring. Expect Coventry to invest in education programs (on topics like abuse prevention, mental wellness, ethics) if she leads the IOC. She may also strengthen mechanisms for athletes to report wrongdoing anonymously and get support – areas where her Athletes’ Commission experience gives her insight.
A potential critique is that Coventry, being a consensus-builder, might move gradually on some reforms. For instance, some athlete activists wanted bolder moves on addressing human rights issues (like speaking out on behalf of athletes in countries with systemic abuse). Coventry tends to work within established channels, which could be seen as caution. Nonetheless, her personal integrity has not been questioned, and she is widely viewed as genuinely caring for athlete welfare.
Juan Antonio Samaranch Jr.
SAMARANCH’S ELECTORAL MANIFESTO
Juan Antonio Samaranch Jr., 65, is the son of former IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch (who led the IOC from 1980 to 2001). Samaranch Jr. has been an IOC member since 2001.
and has amassed considerable influence within the Olympic Movement. He currently serves as an IOC Vice-President (a role he’s held twice: 2016–2020 and since 2022) and sat on the IOC Executive Board for many years.
Samaranch Jr.’s sports administration experience includes being First Vice-President of the International Modern Pentathlon Union (UIPM) since 1996. He also heads the Samaranch Foundation, which promotes Olympic values in China - reflecting his strong ties to Beijing (he was a key figure in Beijing’s 2022 Winter Olympics coordination).
Unlike Coe and Coventry, Samaranch did not have an Olympic athletic career; his background is in business and politics. He was a banker and founded a finance company in Spain This business history has shown in his IOC work, where he often focuses on Olympic revenue, broadcasting, and investment strategies. Indeed, he has floated ideas like creating a $1 billion IOC investment fund leveraging private capital.
Samaranch is sometimes seen as representing the IOC “old guard” – he carries his father’s legacy, both good and bad, into this race. Under his father, the IOC saw exponential commercial growth but also corruption scandals (like Salt Lake City 2002 bid bribes).
Election Pledges
Samaranch Jr.’s manifesto is the most detailed of the top three candidates, reflecting his policy-heavy approach. He emphasizes continuity and experience: positioning himself as a safe pair of hands to steward the Olympic Movement through uncertain times. Some key pledges include giving IOC members a stronger voice (he notes members are “guardians and trustees” who need more say) and proposing to extend the IOC members’ age limit from 70 to 75 so as not to “lose the benefits of experience.”
This latter idea directly addresses his and others’ potential term limitations and has raised some eyebrows as it could be seen as self-serving. Samaranch would otherwise have an age-constrained presidency).
On governance, Samaranch promises an external review of all IOC programs to improve efficiency and performance. He shares Coe’s view that members should restore the right to vote on Olympic host city selections (rather than the current process controlled by the IOC leadership). He also advocates reviewing Olympic event schedules and multi-city hosting plans with an eye on legacy and avoiding politicization.
A notable pledge is his stance on protecting women’s sport: Samaranch says the IOC must “safeguard women’s sport by maintaining unambiguous distinctions between men’s and women’s categories” with clear guidelines.
This aligns him with Coe and others who want a firm policy on transgender participation – indicating consensus among leading candidates on this sensitive matter.
Samaranch talks less about doping explicitly in his public pledges, presumably because there is agreement on continuing the current path. Instead, he accentuates political neutrality and diplomacy. He vows to “continue engaging with global leaders to uphold the IOC’s political independence” – a nod to balancing relations with powers like China, the US, and Russia without politicizing the Games. He also focuses on modernizing Olympic marketing and media, promising a review of media rights deals and suggesting athletes be allowed to use Olympic footage of themselves on social media to boost their profiles.
This latter proposal shows a willingness to relax strict IOC rules to benefit athletes, which is an athlete-friendly stance.
In summary, Samaranch’s pledges project him as the policy wonk of the field: he addresses climate change scheduling, investment funds, media rights, and governance tweaks. On integrity, he implies support for the established zero-tolerance policies but couches them in broader terms like “ethical and efficient governance.” He relies on his depth of IOC knowledge, arguing essentially that his leadership would combine modernization with stability.
Corruption in Sport
Samaranch Jr. carries the weight of a famous name – one associated with both Olympic glory and past corruption. To his credit, he himself has never been found guilty or directly implicated in any corruption scandal. But as the son of a long-reigning IOC President, he has faced insinuations of nepotism and questions about whether he represents an IOC era that turned a “blind eye” to certain misconduct.
For instance, the Salt Lake City bid scandal in 1998, which occurred under Samaranch Sr., led to several IOC members being expelled for taking bribes. Samaranch Jr., who became an IOC member shortly after, was spared involvement and helped implement reforms like the IOC Ethics Commission his father championed.
For Samaranch Jr., the challenge is distancing himself from his father’s controversies while leveraging the positive aspects of that legacy (such as astute diplomacy and IOC expansion).
In practice, Samaranch Jr. has supported anti-corruption measures within the IOC. He backed rules that ban IOC members from visiting bid cities and stricter gift policies after 2002. During his tenure on the Executive Board, the IOC navigated the aftermath of scandals like the 2016 Olympic boxing federation corruption and the Rio 2016 bid vote-buying case.
However, Samaranch has not been publicly outspoken on those issues, tending to work quietly. He is seen as someone who prefers internal solutions over airing dirty laundry. For example, when an IOC member was implicated in Rio vote-buying, the IOC EB (including Samaranch) handled it discreetly by suspending the member and cooperating with investigators, but without much fanfare. This discrete approach leaves some uncertainty about how forcefully Samaranch would confront corruption that emerges under his watch.
One interesting aspect is Samaranch Jr.’s close relationship with certain governments. His cultivation of China (he speaks Mandarin and was instrumental in Beijing’s Olympic bids) has earned him the nickname “friend of China”.
While this has advantages, it also raises concerns: would he be too lenient on issues involving those allies? For instance, if a host nation had a corruption or human rights issue, would Samaranch prioritize IOC stability and relationships over a hard ethical stance?
In terms of corruption perception, Samaranch’s weakness is indeed that perception – that he embodies an establishment continuity. However, he can argue that under Bach and with his participation, the IOC has had a relatively clean decade. He pledges “reform at every level” to maintain integrity and he has insight into how to enforce compliance through IOC commissions.
Unlike Coe or Coventry, Samaranch Jr. does not have a track record of being out front on integrity crusades. He operates within the system. As President, he might emphasize prevention and quiet resolution. Whether that is sufficient in an age of demanding public scrutiny is a question IOC members will weigh.
Match-Fixing
Juan Antonio Samaranch Jr. has seldom spoken publicly about match-fixing, but he has been part of IOC efforts to tackle it. As a long-time IOC member, he supported the creation of the Olympic Movement Unit on the Prevention of Manipulation of Competitions and the IOC Integrity Betting Intelligence System. These are technical programs that someone with Samaranch’s administrative experience would appreciate. He likely views match-fixing primarily as a matter for close cooperation with law enforcement and betting regulators, rather than high-level IOC politics.
During Samaranch’s tenure in modern pentathlon’s leadership, the sport has not had match-fixing incidents (pentathlon is subjectively judged in parts but has seen more issues with format changes and animal welfare than betting). If anything, his pentathlon background shows he is familiar with upholding the spirit of sport in lesser-known disciplines. He was vice-president of UIPM when it dealt with a major integrity issue of a different sort: at Tokyo 2020, a coach struck a horse in the pentathlon riding event, causing an uproar.
While not match-fixing, this was an integrity and animal welfare scandal. Samaranch supported UIPM’s decision to remove horse riding from pentathlon to safeguard the sport’s reputation.
Samaranch’s manifesto touches indirectly on match-fixing by emphasizing strengthening ethical standards and modernizing technology in sport management.
For example, he suggests embracing AI and digital tools – these can be applied to detect unusual betting patterns or results anomalies. He doesn’t explicitly say this, but one could envision him bolstering the IOC’s tech capabilities against corruption in competitions.
In conclusion, while not a figurehead of anti-match-fixing activism, Samaranch Jr. would presumably maintain a firm stance that any manipulation is unacceptable. His inclination would be to rely on the IOC’s existing frameworks, which he had a hand in shaping, and fine-tune them for efficiency. No red flags in his history suggest he’d be weak on this issue; rather, he’d be methodical and possibly quite effective behind closed doors in addressing it.
Doping
Samaranch Jr. has consistently supported the Olympic Movement’s anti-doping regime, though he has sometimes been perceived as taking a moderate line in the contentious Russia saga. On principle, he publicly agrees with “zero tolerance” for doping. But where Coe drove Russia’s ban, Samaranch in the IOC tended to align with Bach’s more diplomatic approach. For instance, after WADA’s revelations of state-sponsored Russian doping, Samaranch was appointed to the IOC’s 3-member panel in 2016 that reviewed which Russian athletes could compete in Rio.
That panel ultimately cleared 271 Russian athletes for Rio, allowing the majority to compete under strict criteria. Some anti-doping advocates felt the IOC panel was too lenient, essentially finding ways to include athletes rather than exclude. As a member of that panel, Samaranch can be seen as having taken a cautious, legalistic approach: each athlete was individually vetted, rather than imposing a blanket ban, which he likely viewed as due process.
Later, when the IOC sanctioned Russia in 2017 and 2018 (letting Russians compete as “Olympic Athletes from Russia” in PyeongChang after certain conditions), Samaranch supported those decisions. IOC insiders say he was a voice for maintaining dialogue with Russia and not alienating a major Olympic nation permanently. This pragmatic stance has a rationale – preserving the universality of the Games – but some questioned if it compromised on accountability. WADA’s then-Vice President, and IOC member Dick Pound, at times criticized IOC leaders (implicitly including Samaranch) for being too soft on Russia.
In his manifesto, interestingly, Samaranch doesn’t highlight doping extensively. However, he does propose reforms like an independent body to review all IOC programs – one could interpret that as potentially reviewing anti-doping operations for improvements.
During Bach’s presidency, Samaranch chaired the IOC’s Finance Commission, where one task was to ensure funding for anti-doping (the IOC contributes to WADA and the ITA). He has continued to endorse funding the fight. Additionally, in 2018-2019, as IOC Vice-President, he was involved in establishing the International Testing Agency (ITA) – a new independent body to handle Olympic testing. Reports say Samaranch initially had concerns about ceding too much control to an external body, but ultimately the IOC moved forward. His stance reflects a careful consideration of organizational structures in anti-doping.
So, while Samaranch Jr. is fully committed to a doping-free Games, he might approach enforcement with more diplomatic finesse and caution than Coe. He likely values rehabilitation and compliance – e.g., reintegrating Russia once conditions are met – as much as punishment. His ability to navigate political waters could help in bringing difficult parties (like Russia or other nations with issues) back into compliance gradually. To the public and clean athletes, he will need to demonstrate that he won’t tolerate cheating or cover-ups despite his measured approach.
Integrity and Safeguarding
Samaranch Jr. has not been a prominent public advocate on athlete safeguarding or welfare issues, at least not in the way Coventry has. His approach to integrity is often framed at the organizational or policy level (rules, commissions, finances), rather than personal athlete experiences. However, that does not mean he is indifferent. For instance, Samaranch was on the IOC Executive Board when the U.S. gymnastics sexual abuse scandal (Larry Nassar case) came to light and rocked the Olympic community. The IOC under Bach responded by convening athlete safeguarding forums and urging all federations to adopt abuse prevention measures. Samaranch, as an EB member, surely supported those moves, though he did so without public fanfare.
One area where Samaranch has shown commitment to athlete welfare is through the Olympic Solidarity Commission, which he had oversight of. This program provides scholarships and funding to athletes, especially from developing countries. Ensuring athletes have resources and support could be seen as part of safeguarding their welfare in a broad sense. Samaranch’s manifesto alludes to continuing strong support for athletes and even suggests letting athletes monetize some of their Games content, which respects athletes’ rights to benefit from their labor.
He also stresses experience and team wisdom – likely meaning he would rely on athlete representatives (like the IOC Athletes’ Commission) to guide policies on safeguarding.
Samaranch has praised the Athletes’ Commission in the past as essential voices. One interesting pledge of his is expanding the age limit for IOC members. While mainly about retaining experienced administrators, one could argue it also retains those who champion issues like safeguarding (several respected IOC members on that front are nearing 70).
Where Samaranch might face scrutiny is whether he would be as athlete-focused as someone like Coventry. Some athletes might worry he represents an era where athlete voice was secondary to IOC institutional interests. To address that, Samaranch highlights that “athletes are the heartbeat of the Olympic Movement”
In terms of integrity culture, Samaranch Jr. tends to emphasize stability and tradition. He might be less likely to publicly call out a federation or NOC for internal abuse issues, preferring private diplomacy. That carries the risk of not fully holding people to account. However, he also has the IOC’s mechanisms at his disposal – he would not likely dismantle anything like the IOC Safeguarding Unit, rather maintain it.