윤강로의 스포츠세상 - Rocky YOON's Sport World

[국제연맹들의 침묵 (THE SILENCE OF THE IFs)]

​

10월9일자 외신 기사내용 정리하여 공유합니다

올림픽 구조가 변화하고 있습니다. 그러나 그 안에서 국제연맹들의 제도적 위치를 지켜주는 이는 누구일까요? (The Olympic architecture is changing. But who is protecting the International Federations’ institutional place within it?)

10월 IOC와 함께 자리한 국제연맹들은 올림픽 운동의 미래를 결정짓는 중요한 순간에 Lausanne에 모였습니다. 그들은 협력, 지속가능성, 기술, 참여, 적응에 대해 논의했고, IOC가 제시한 미래 비전을 경청하며 변화의 필요성을 인정했습니다(The International Federations gathered in Lausanne at a defining moment for the future of the Olympic Movement. They discussed cooperation, sustainability, technology, participation and adaptation. They listened to the IOC’s vision for the future and acknowledged the need for change.)

이는 IOC의 변화 방향 속에서 국제연맹들의 제도적 지위가 충분히 보호되고 있는지에 대한 의문을 제기하는 내용입니다.

[IOC와 국제연맹(IFs)의 권력 구조 변화]

-IOC는 Fit for the Future 아젠다를 통해 올림픽 프로그램을 종목 단위 평가 체계로 전환, 지속가능성-비용·-관객 참여 등을 기준으로 결정.

-이는 IOC의 권한을 강화하고, 국제연맹들의 올림픽 내 지위는 점점 평가와 전략적 우선순위에 따라 달라지게 됨.

[국제연맹들의 대응]

-국제연맹들은 Lausanne 회의에서 협력·지속가능성과 기술·참여 등을 논의했으나, 자신들의 제도적 위치를 방어하는 집단적 목소리는 부족.

-개별 국제연맹은 IOC 요구에 맞춰 적응하는 전략을 취하지만, 이는 집단적 협상력을 약화시킬 위험이 있음.

*예: 국제삼보연맹(FIAS)은 IOC 기준을 이해하고 적응하는 전략을 강조 → 개별적으로는 합리적이나 집단적으로는 취약.

[ASOIF(하계올림픽연맹연합)의 역할]

-2026~2032 전략에서 투명한 프로그램 기준, 의사결정 참여, 집단적 이익 보호를 목표로 설정.

-Lausanne에서 IOC에 평가 과정의 투명성, 충분한 검토 시간, 대화 보장을 요구.

-그러나 권한 배분 자체를 공개적으로 문제제기하지는 않음 → 절차적 조건은 협상했지만 제도적 권력은 그대로.

[SportAccord의 변화]

-GAISF 해체 이후, SportAccord는 회의·네트워킹·상업적 연결에 집중.

-과거의 집단적 제도 권력을 대체하지 못하고, 단순히 권력자들이 만나는 장소로 역할 축소

[핵심 문제]

-IOC는 명확한 방향과 전략을 갖고 권한을 행사 중.

-국제연맹들은 개별 생존 본능에 따라 움직이며, 집단적 제도적 영향력을 충분히 방어하지 못하고 있음.

-결과적으로, IOC의 새로운 구조가 되돌릴 수 없는 현실이 되기 전에 국제연맹들이 자신들의 제도적 위치를 명확히 정의하고 방어해야 한다는 경고.

요약하면, 위 내용은 IOC의 권한 강화와 국제연맹들의 집단적 대응 부족을 지적하며, IFs가 단순히 절차적 참여에 머무르지 않고 제도적 권력 균형을 적극적으로 방어해야 한다는 점을 강조합니다.

[THE SILENCE OF THE IFs]

The Olympic architecture is changing. But who is protecting the International Federations’ institutional place within it?

The International Federations gathered in Lausanne at a defining moment for the future of the Olympic Movement.

They discussed cooperation, sustainability, technology, participation and adaptation. They listened to the IOC’s vision for the future and acknowledged the need for change.

Yet one fundamental question remained conspicuously underrepresented in the public debate: who is defending the institutional position of the International Federations themselves?

The silence is not an absence of words. It is the absence of a sufficiently visible collective response to a changing distribution of institutional power.

And that distinction matters.

The IOC knows where it is going

Kirsty Coventry has moved quickly.

The IOC’s Fit for the Future agenda is progressing from consultation towards implementation. The Olympic programme is entering a more flexible, discipline-based evaluation framework, with sustainability, relevance, cost and audience engagement shaping future decisions.

These are legitimate strategic objectives. The Olympic Games cannot expand indefinitely, and the IOC has a responsibility to protect their relevance, sustainability and long-term viability.

Coventry appears to know what she wants from the new Olympic architecture. She has moved quickly to pursue it. That is leadership. The question raised by Lausanne is different: do the International Federations know with equal clarity what they need to protect within it?

The IOC has established its direction and is exercising the authority available to it.

The IOC is doing its job. The question is whether the International Federations are doing theirs.

The institutional change came before Lausanne

The decisive transformation did not begin at the SportAccord Forum.

It had already begun through changes to the Olympic Charter and the framework governing the Olympic program.

The removal of the previous Charter-level listing of Olympic sports, alongside the introduction of discipline-based evaluation, represents a consequential step in a longer evolution towards greater flexibility in the Olympic program.

The IOC already possessed substantial authority over the program. The significance of the latest changes is not that this authority suddenly appeared, but that the institutional framework governing the future of individual sports and disciplines has become more flexible.

The consequences extend beyond Brisbane 2032.

When the program becomes more flexible, the future position of individual sports and disciplines becomes increasingly dependent on evaluation, strategic priorities and subsequent decisions.

That changes institutional incentives.

Every federation has an understandable interest in demonstrating its relevance, meeting emerging criteria and maintaining a constructive relationship with the IOC.

Individually, that approach may be rational.

Collectively, however, it raises a far more consequential question:

If every federation is fighting to protect its own place in the Olympic program, who is fighting to protect the place of the federations in the Olympic system?

ASOIF: negotiating the process, not the power

The International Federations have not remained entirely silent.

ASOIF’s 2026–2032 strategy identifies important institutional objectives, including transparent program criteria, meaningful participation in decision-making and protection of collective federation interests.

At Lausanne, ASOIF requested a transparent, evidence-based evaluation process, sufficient time for affected federations to understand the methodology, and meaningful dialogue with the IOC.

It also sought to move the relevant Brisbane 2032 decisions from December 2026 to the IOC Session in April 2027.

These were legitimate and substantive requests. They demonstrated that the collective representation of the Summer Olympic Federations was prepared to intervene publicly in the process.

But they also exposed the central institutional distinction.

ASOIF challenged the timetable and the conditions of the process. It did not publicly challenge the underlying distribution of decision-making authority.

The federations sought more time and greater involvement before decisions were made.

What did not emerge publicly was an equally explicit collective demand to reconsider the balance of institutional authority within the new framework.

That is not the same as doing nothing. But neither is it the same as negotiating power.

The individual survival instinct

A post-Forum statement by the International Sambo Federation provided a revealing illustration.

FIAS explained that understanding the IOC’s new priorities and requirements would help it adapt its long-term strategy while pursuing Olympic inclusion.

For a federation seeking entry into the Olympic program, this is entirely understandable.

But the underlying mechanism deserves attention.

The IOC defines the direction. The federation studies the requirements. The federation adapts.

FIAS cannot represent the behavior of every Olympic federation. Their interests and institutional positions differ substantially.

Nevertheless, the example illustrates how uncertainty over Olympic inclusion can encourage individual adaptation rather than collective institutional negotiation.

What may be rational for each federation individually can become dangerous for the federations collectively.

The more each federation concentrates on securing its own Olympic future, the more difficult it may become to establish a common position on the institutional future of the federations themselves.

SportAccord: a different measure of relevance

There is also an institutional irony surrounding SportAccord.

The dissolution of GAISF marked the end of a longstanding structure of collective representation for International Federations. SportAccord subsequently assumed certain activities and retained institutional links with the IF umbrella organizations.

Today, however, its public identity increasingly emphasizes conferences, networking, commercial connections and access to decision-makers.

Such activities may be useful, but they are not equivalent to collective institutional authority.

For an organization that once represented institutional power, aspiring to become the place where those who still hold power meet is not a new role. It is a measure of decline.

That is an institutional assessment, not a denial of the value of its events. The broader question is whether the international federation community has replaced the collective institutional influence once associated with its former structures — or merely found new places to meet.

The silence that matters

None of this establishes that the International Federations agree with every aspect of the IOC’s direction.

Nor does it establish that they are afraid, indifferent or incapable of responding.

This is not a judgment on what the federations may be saying privately. It is an observation of what they are not saying publicly.

The central issue is not whether federations participate in discussions, attend meetings or seek consultation.

They clearly do.

The issue is whether their collective institutional position is being defended with the same clarity and determination with which the IOC is advancing its own strategy.

The IOC has every right to pursue a more flexible and sustainable Olympic program.

The International Federations have an equally important responsibility to define what meaningful partnership, institutional participation and collective safeguards should mean within that program.

Cooperation is essential. Consultation is valuable. Adaptation may be necessary.

But none of them automatically guarantees institutional influence.

Lausanne offered a revealing snapshot of a changing Olympic system: an IOC moving decisively towards implementation, federations seeking procedural assurances, and a fundamental question of collective authority still insufficiently addressed in public.

The battle may have been lost before the federations even realized there was something left to negotiate.

But perhaps the greater danger is not that the battle has already been lost.

It is that the federations may discover what they needed to defend only after the new architecture has become irreversible.

*References:

-SportsIn

-SportAccord website

[IOC 사이버 학대 방지 서비스, Dakar 2026 청소년 올림픽에서 첫 선(IOC cyber abuse protection service to debut at Dakar 2026)]

​

​

10월11일자 외신기사내용 정리하여 공유합니다.

약 2,700명의 청소년 선수들이 세네갈에서 열리는 대회 기간 동안 강화된 온라인 보호 조치, 전문 심리 치료, 그리고 전용 웰빙 시설의 혜택을 받게 될 예정입니다. 이는 세계 무대에서 경쟁하는 과정에서 발생하는 압박을 해결하기 위한 주최 측의 노력(Around 2,700 young athletes will benefit from enhanced online safeguarding measures, specialist psychological care and dedicated well-being facilities during the Games in Senegal, as organisers seek to address the pressures of competing on the global stage)이라고 합니다.

​

[IOC 사이버 학대 방지 서비스 (CAPS) – Dakar 2026]

A. 대상: 약 2,700명의 청소년 선수들(17세 이하).

B. 목적: 국제 무대 첫 출전 선수들이 겪는 온라인 괴롭힘, 정신적 압박, SNS 노출에 대응.

1. CAPS (Cyber Abuse Protection Service )시스템

1) 모든 선수 자동 보호 (별도 등록 불필요).

2) AI 기반 모니터링: 56개 언어로 주요 SNS 게시물·이미지·AI 생성 콘텐츠 감시.

3) 인간 분석가 검증 후 학대 확인 시 IOC가 해당 선수의 NOC와 협력, 심리 지원 및 보호 조치 제공.

4) 확인된 학대 콘텐츠는 SNS 기업에 전달해 조사 및 조치 유도.

5) Paris 2024·-Milao Cortina 2026에서 이미 시험 운영 → 430만 건 분석, 약 2만4천 건 학대 사례 확인.

2. 정신 건강 및 복지 지원

1) ‘Mind, Body and Me’ 공간: 비밀 상담, 명상, 휴식 제공.

2) IOC 보호 담당관 상주, 교육 활동 진행.

3) IOC·조직위 공동 정신건강 워킹그룹 운영, 정신과 전문의·심리치료사 배치.

4) 경기장 내 긴급 지원 시설, 영어·프랑스어 긴급 전화 라인 제공.

5) IOC·국제연맹·NOC 등으로 구성된 광범위한 보호 네트워크 구축.

3. 교육 및 자기관리

1) 청소년 맞춤형 온라인 학습 모듈(6개 언어) 제공.

2) 감사 저널 배포: “성과 이상의 존재”라는 메시지, 자기 성찰·감정 기록·웰빙 연습 포함 선수들은 IOC 보호 담당관·핫라인을 통해 비밀리에 문제 제기 가능.

4. 대회 일정

1) 2026년 10월 31일 ~ 11월 13일

2) 개최지: Dakar, Diamniadio 및 Saly. 3군데

3) 참가 선수: 약 2,700명, 17세 이하

요약하면, Dakar 2026 청소년 올림픽은 AI 기반 사이버 학대 방지 시스템(CAPS)과 정신건강·복지 지원 패키지를 통해 선수들의 안전과 웰빙을 강화하는 최초의 대회가 될 예정입니다.

*CAPS는 Cyber Abuse Protection Service의 약자로, IOC(국제올림픽위원회)가 개발한 사이버 학대 방지 시스템입니다.

[주요 특징]

1) 자동 보호: 선수들이 별도로 등록하지 않아도 모든 참가자가 자동으로 보호 대상이 됩니다.

2) AI 모니터링: 56개 언어로 주요 SNS 게시물·이미지·AI 생성 콘텐츠를 감시해 선수들을 겨냥한 잠재적 학대 콘텐츠를 탐지합니다.

3) 인간 검증: AI가 표시한 콘텐츠는 전문 분석가가 다시 확인합니다.

4) 지원 체계: 학대가 확인되면 IOC가 해당 선수의 국가올림픽위원회(NOC)와 협력해 심리 지원과 보호 조치를 제공합니다.

5) SNS 기업 협력: 확인된 학대 콘텐츠는 관련 플랫폼에 전달되어 조사 및 조치가 이루어집니다.

간단히 말해, CAPS는 청소년 선수들이 온라인 괴롭힘으로부터 안전하게 보호받을 수 있도록 IOC가 마련한 AI 기반 사이버 안전망입니다.

[IOC cyber abuse protection service to debut at Dakar 2026]

​

​

Around 2,700 young athletes will benefit from enhanced online safeguarding measures, specialist psychological care and dedicated well-being facilities during the Games in Senegal, as organisers seek to address the pressures of competing on the global stage.

Unveiled ahead of World Mental Health Day on 10 October, the measures will provide approximately 2,700 competitors with protection against online harassment, access to specialist mental health professionals and dedicated facilities offering confidential assistance throughout the Games.

With many participants preparing to compete on the international stage for the first time, the IOC is aiming to address the pressures associated with increased public scrutiny and social media attention. The support package will also include educational resources tailored to younger athletes, alongside services available at competition venues and within the Youth Olympic Village.

Every athlete competing at Dakar 2026 will automatically receive protection through CAPS, eliminating the need to register social media accounts or enrol individually. Using artificial intelligence, the system will monitor major social media platforms across 56 languages, examining written posts, images and AI-generated material to identify potentially abusive content targeting competitors.

Any material flagged by the technology will subsequently be assessed by human analysts. When abuse is confirmed, the IOC will coordinate with the athlete's national Olympic committee to communicate the findings appropriately and offer safeguarding and psychological assistance where necessary. Confirmed abusive content will also be referred to the relevant social media companies for investigation and potential action.

The initiative follows the deployment of CAPS at the Paris 2024 Olympics and the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Games. Across those two events, the technology examined 4.3 million social media posts and comments directed towards athletes and officials. Approximately 242,000 messages were initially identified as potentially abusive, with human reviewers ultimately confirming around 24,700 cases.

The IOC has also published its 'Online Abuse and Sport' report, outlining its approach to identifying, preventing and responding to online harassment. Athletes will have access to a designated 'Mind, Body and Me' area at Athlete365 House in the Youth Olympic Village, providing a confidential environment for conversations about mental health and opportunities to relax, practise mindfulness and manage the pressures of competition. IOC Safeguarding Officers will be available to offer individual assistance and organise educational activities throughout the event.

A joint mental health working group established by the IOC and the Dakar 2026 Organising Committee will oversee the coordination of psychological support services. Psychiatrists and psychotherapists will operate from the Village Polyclinic, while additional facilities at selected competition venues will provide assistance during mental health emergencies.

A national emergency helpline will also be available in English and French, directing athletes towards appropriate specialist services. These arrangements will be supported by safeguarding and welfare representatives from the IOC, organising committee, international sports federations and NOCs, creating a wider network of trained personnel across the Games.

Alongside clinical and safeguarding services, the IOC will provide educational materials intended to help young athletes recognise mental health challenges, develop resilience and understand where to seek assistance. Athlete365 will offer age-appropriate online learning modules covering safeguarding and psychological well-being in six languages.

Competitors will also receive gratitude journals designed around the principle that they are 'more than their performance'. The journals will encourage athletes to reflect on their experiences, monitor their emotions and develop greater self-awareness, while providing practical well-being exercises and contact details for IOC Safeguarding Officers.

The resources will emphasise the importance of seeking assistance when needed, while helping participants develop coping strategies that extend beyond competition. Athletes and other Games participants will be able to raise safeguarding concerns confidentially through IOC officers at the 'Mind, Body and Me' facility, by emailing safeguardingofficer@olympic.org or through the IOC Integrity and Compliance Hotline.

The Dakar 2026 Youth Olympic Games will take place from 31 October to 13 November, bringing together approximately 2,700 athletes aged 17 and under across three host zones: Dakar, Diamniadio and Saly.

*References:

-insidethegames

-IOC website