From Gold Medals to Grassroots: Yes—Sport Policy Is Pivoting

Is there a shift from elite to participation in sport policy? Yes—and if you listen closely, you can hear the hinges creaking.

For decades, governments treated sport as a medal factory. Funding flowed to high-performance programs geared to Olympic, Commonwealth, and Asian Games podiums, while grassroots sport and daily physical activity were left to make do with enthusiasm and volunteers. It looked good on televised nights of glory; it did far less for everyday participation.

That doctrine is finally changing. Not everywhere, not perfectly, but in many countries the political question has flipped from How do we win more medals? to How do we get more people moving, more often, for life? And tellingly, even the Olympic Movement has retooled its own playbook to prioritise inclusion, sustainability, and mass engagement—evidence that the paradigm really is shifting. The medal table no longer gets to define success on its own.

When the temple of elite sport pivots, take note

The IOC’s reform drive has been explicit. Under the banner “Change or be changed,” Olympic Agenda 2020 and 2020+5 were designed to modernise the Games and strengthen sport’s role in society (unanimously adopted in 2014 after the IOC’s widest-ever consultation). That is the opposite of doubling down on an elite-only model. Agenda is the institutional signal that the future must widen the tent.

Crucially, the reforms reversed the hosting logic: rather than making cities bend to the Games, the Games now adapt to the host’s long‑term social, environmental, and economic plans. Bid costs were slashed (the average cost of applying cut by 80%), and hosts now rely on existing or temporary venues—changes that reduce white elephants and redirect energy toward community benefit rather than spectacle.

Paris 2024 showed what “participation-first” can look like

Paris was billed as the first Games “as imagined by the Olympic Agenda,” and it delivered on inclusion and engagement rather than pure spectacle. The first-ever 50/50 gender parity on the field of play set a new baseline for who gets to participate at the top. That matters for the pipeline: girls and women must see themselves on the stage to join the stage.

More telling for grassroots momentum: Paris created real participation moments for the public. The “Marathon Pour Tous” put 35,000+ non‑elite runners onto the same course, on the same day, as Olympic marathoners—an unmistakable message that the Games are for citizens, not just stars.

The Cultural Olympiad spread activity into communities—2,596 certified projects across 111,066 activities, 70% of them free—while France’s school initiative was highlighted with 30 minutes of daily exercise in 36,800 primary schools. This is institutionally backed mass activation, not merely a fortnight of televised finals.

The IOC also moved to where people actually are: online. Paris became the most digitally engaged Games ever—16.7 billion engagements on official channels and 325 million monthly web/app users at Games time—evidence of year‑round community building, not just two weeks of TV.

Governments are following suit

Plenty of governments—especially across the Commonwealth, but also beyond—are now hard‑wiring participation-first into policy:

• Australia: National and state strategies target participation across the life course and invest in clubs, schools, and accessible facilities.

• Canada: Its latest sport policy elevates broad participation and accessibility to the top tier of priorities.

• China: The State Council’s National Fitness Program (2021–2025) prioritises mass participation—tightening school rules.

• United Kingdom: Reframed national sport success around getting more citizens active, not just funding podium potential.

The point is not that elite sport disappears; it’s that mass participation becomes the primary policy metric, and elite success stands alongside it rather than above it.

What this shift means for the International Federations (IFs)

For IFs, the pivot from medals to movement is a mandate to widen the product. It means redesigning calendars and event formats to invite citizen participation alongside elite finals; building school- and club-level pathways so “watching” reliably converts into “doing”; investing in year-round digital communities rather than a few week peaks.

Success metrics must stretch beyond podiums to include participation growth, gender balance, universality, and community legacy. IFs that lean in will enjoy stronger host-city demand, programme security, and more resilient funding as partners seek social value, not just spectacle. Those that cling to an elite-only model will find the calendar, the money, and the public’s attention moving around them—crowded out by sports that prove they help millions move, not just a few win.

The answer—and the opportunity to the new Sport Policy

So, is there a shift from elite to participation in sport policy? Yes. 

The proof now runs from IOC reform to city-level delivery: gender parity on the field of play, citizen activations alongside the Games, daily movement in schools, inclusive pathways for refugees, and a financing model that circulates resources back through the system. The next step is alignment: governments and International Federations must treat participation as a core product—redesigning calendars to invite citizens in, hard-wiring school and club pathways, and making safeguarding, sustainability, and human rights non-negotiable metrics of success.

Not every nation—or every federation—has crossed the bridge. Some still worship the medal table as a proxy for national health. But the tide is turning—globally, measurably, and, if we’re smart, irreversibly. The winning strategy now is millions moving, not just a few winning—and the organisations that act on that truth will earn the hosts, partners, and public trust that define the future of sport.