It might seem improbable, given the scale of Kirsty Coventry’s decisive victory in the International Olympic Committee presidential election, but some believe the result could have played out differently. As delegates departed from the Costa Navarino resort, speculation persisted about the forces that helped secure Coventry’s win.
The 41-year-old former Zimbabwean swimmer won in the first round with 49 votes, becoming the first woman to lead the IOC. Juan Antonio Samaranch and Sebastian Coe trailed significantly, garnering 28 and eight votes respectively. Despite the convincing result, discussions continue about the mechanisms that propelled her to victory.
Reports suggest that intense lobbying played a significant role, with members being urged to back Coventry. Some sources noted instances of direct appeals, while others described a climate of pressure that shaped the final outcome. The IOC’s internal vote-tracking had indicated a much closer contest, but in the crucial first round, Coventry surged ahead.
Samaranch’s camp believed his long tenure and carefully crafted platform would carry him forward. Coe, meanwhile, saw himself as the candidate for change, counting on support shifting to him in later rounds. Yet their calculations underestimated the immediate impact of Coventry’s momentum.
Signs of this shift became evident 24 hours before the election. During a ceremony where outgoing president Thomas Bach was named honorary IOC president, members delivered an hour-long tribute that drew comparisons to historical leaders. The scene left observers questioning whether this was a farewell gesture or a final assertion of influence.
By the morning of the vote, Coventry’s support had visibly strengthened. As Bach appeared more relaxed and confident, speculation mounted that the election had already been decided. A scheduled coffee break before the vote extended well beyond its allotted time, possibly to allow last-minute efforts in Coventry’s favor.
When the vote finally took place, it was over within minutes. The result left many questioning whether the IOC’s election guidelines, which demand neutrality from the administration, had been upheld. Some saw Coe’s sudden drop in support as evidence of a late-stage shift, while others acknowledged that such maneuvers are part of the nature of elections.
Despite any lingering discontent, the IOC is likely to rally around its new leader. Historically, the organization has tended to close ranks after leadership contests. The voting process has often been compared to highly secretive political conclaves, reinforcing the perception of a tightly controlled system.
For Coe, the loss raises questions about whether his stance on key issues, including the decision to ban Russian track and field athletes from the 2016 Olympics, influenced voter sentiment. Nonetheless, his candidacy pushed Coventry to address concerns about athlete welfare, cost-cutting, and women’s sports topics that were absent from her initial platform. While this defeat may be painful, it has left a mark on the future of the IOC’s direction.
