Brisbane 2032 Is Rewriting the Olympic Sports Programme. What Could It Mean for the Future of Sport?

In October 2026, the International Olympic Committee approved a new framework for evaluating Olympic sports and disciplines. For the first time, the process will assess disciplines through a more structured comparison of global relevance, athlete participation, governance, cost, operational complexity and sustainability. Brisbane will be the first Summer Games to apply this approach.

The final sports programme is expected to be confirmed in April 2027. Before then, the IOC plans to make an important assessment announcement in December 2026.

For Australia, this is about more than choosing which sports will compete in Queensland. The programme will influence venue planning, investment, athlete pathways, broadcast opportunities and the future of sporting organisations. For India, which has ambitions to host a future Olympic and Paralympic Games, the process offers a timely insight into how the Olympic movement is adapting.

The decisions made for Brisbane could shape the Olympic programme well beyond 2032. They also raise a broader question for Australia and India: how can both countries build sporting systems that are internationally competitive, financially sustainable and accessible to more people?

The Olympic programme is entering a new era

For much of the modern Olympic era, the sports programme has been shaped by a combination of established Olympic traditions, international federation structures and decisions made by the IOC. Host cities have also had opportunities to propose additional sports, giving individual editions of the Games a distinct character.

That flexibility has helped the Olympics respond to changing sporting interests. It has also created a more complicated planning environment.

Every sport and discipline brings its own requirements. Some need specialised venues, equipment and technical infrastructure. Others can operate in existing facilities with relatively modest changes. Some have extensive international competition structures, while others are still developing their global reach.

The IOC must consider these differences while managing the overall size, cost and complexity of the Games.

On 30 October 2026, the IOC Executive Board approved the detailed Programme of the Olympic Games Policy, following the approval of the new evaluation methodology by the 146th IOC Session.

The policy applies from Brisbane 2032 onwards and forms part of the IOC's wider Fit for the Future reforms.

One of its most important changes is the move towards evaluating individual disciplines rather than treating each sport as a single unit. The IOC says this reflects the fact that disciplines can have different implications for venue requirements, operational delivery and overall Games costs.

The framework includes three broad stages:

• An initial review of governance, integrity, anti-doping compliance and athlete safeguarding.

• A core evaluation of global appeal, athlete representation, cost and operational complexity.

• A comparative assessment in which stronger candidate disciplines may be considered against lower-performing existing disciplines.

The intention is to make decisions more consistent and transparent while allowing the programme to evolve.

This does not mean that the IOC will select sports simply because they are commercially attractive or popular on social media. Nor does it mean that long-established Olympic sports will automatically lose their place. The policy creates a structured assessment process, with the final decisions remaining subject to approval by the IOC Session.

Olympics+1

Why Brisbane is the first major test

Brisbane 2032 is particularly important because it will be the first Summer Olympic Games to use the new methodology.

The IOC has confirmed that the full sports programme will be finalised at its 147th Session in April 2027 in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic.

Before that decision, the IOC Executive Board intends to identify in December 2026:

1. Existing disciplines that will be automatically recommended for inclusion.

2. Existing and candidate disciplines that will proceed to a combined comparison phase.

3. Candidate disciplines that will not progress further.

The majority of existing disciplines are expected to be recommended for inclusion. The remaining process will determine which candidates and existing disciplines require further comparison.

There is an important practical consideration. Brisbane's operational planning is already well advanced. The IOC has said the new methodology will be applied flexibly, in close cooperation with the Brisbane 2032 Organising Committee, taking account of the planning and delivery work already undertaken.

That matters because the sports programme is not simply a list of competitions. It determines how venues are designed, which facilities need to be built or upgraded, how events are scheduled and what resources are required.

A late change to a discipline can have consequences for venue configuration, equipment, technical officials, athlete accommodation, transport and broadcast operations.

The IOC's approach therefore needs to balance sporting ambition with the practical realities of delivering a Games on a fixed timetable.

Olympics+1

The discipline question: why the detail matters

The distinction between a sport and a discipline may appear technical, but it has significant consequences.

A sport can contain several disciplines with different competition formats, athlete populations and venue requirements. Treating each discipline individually allows the IOC to examine what it actually takes to deliver that competition.

It also creates a more detailed conversation about the sporting value of each discipline.

Does it have meaningful participation across different regions? Is there a credible international competition structure? Are athletes properly represented? Does the governing body meet appropriate standards? Can the discipline be delivered without imposing disproportionate costs on the host city?

These questions matter because Olympic inclusion is not simply a recognition of sporting popularity. It is a commitment to provide an international competition environment that meets Olympic standards.

The framework also creates an incentive for international federations to strengthen their organisations and demonstrate the value of their disciplines.

That includes investing in athlete development, improving governance, expanding international competitions and building more reliable participation data.

For emerging sports, the challenge is to demonstrate that their growth can be sustained. For established sports, the challenge is to show that their place in the Olympic programme continues to deliver value to athletes and the wider sporting movement.

The influence of Los Angeles 2028

Brisbane's programme will not develop in isolation. The Los Angeles 2028 Olympic Games provide a useful point of comparison.

The LA28 programme includes sports such as cricket, baseball and softball, flag football, lacrosse and squash, reflecting the ability of host editions to introduce additional sports.

Cricket's return is especially significant for countries such as India and Australia, where the sport has a major cultural and commercial presence.

However, it is important to distinguish between confirmed Olympic decisions and future possibilities. Cricket's inclusion at Los Angeles 2028 does not automatically guarantee its inclusion in Brisbane 2032.

The Brisbane programme will be determined through the IOC's new process.

That distinction is important for sporting organisations and businesses. They should not make long-term investment decisions on the assumption that a particular sport or discipline will be included in 2032 until the IOC confirms the programme.

Nevertheless, the wider Olympic direction is clear. The Games are seeking to remain relevant to new generations while managing the practical demands of hosting an event involving thousands of athletes and spectators from around the world.

What this means for Australian sport

For Australia, the Brisbane programme is an opportunity to consider how the Olympic Games can reflect the country's sporting strengths while connecting with the wider international sporting landscape.

Australia has established high-performance systems across swimming, athletics, cycling, rowing, hockey, sailing and many other sports. It also has a broad sporting culture that extends well beyond the Olympic programme.

The challenge is to connect these strengths with a Games that must serve both elite competition and the wider community.

The programme will influence the type of facilities required, the demand for specialist coaches and technical officials, the development of athletes and the commercial opportunities available to sports.

It will also affect how sporting organisations plan beyond 2032.

A sport that secures a place on the programme may experience greater visibility and investment. But Olympic inclusion alone does not create a sustainable sporting system. That requires regular competition, strong grassroots participation, qualified coaches, effective governance and accessible pathways for athletes.

The same applies to sports that are not included. Their development does not need to stop because they are outside the Olympic programme. Strong national competitions, community participation and commercial opportunities can sustain a sport independently of Olympic status.

For Australia, the most useful outcome would be a programme that strengthens the wider sporting ecosystem rather than concentrating all attention and resources on a short period of competition.

India's Olympic ambitions make the discussion more relevant

India brings a particularly important perspective to the Olympic programme debate.

The country has expressed an ambition to host a future Olympic and Paralympic Games, with Ahmedabad central to its proposed 2036 plans. However, India has not been awarded the 2036 Games, and its ambitions should not be described as a confirmed hosting arrangement.

The IOC's November 2026 announcement identified seven interested parties in the 2036 host-selection process, including India. Being an interested party is not the same as being selected as host.

Olympics

For India, the evolving Olympic programme has implications beyond the possibility of hosting.

It raises questions about which sports can develop stronger international competition structures, how athlete pathways should be strengthened and how national federations can improve governance and performance support.

India has a large population and a growing sports economy, but population size alone does not guarantee Olympic success. Sustainable progress requires investment in coaching, sports science, competition opportunities, athlete welfare, infrastructure and organisational capability.

The Olympic programme debate provides an opportunity to look at the systems behind sporting performance.

For example, a discipline seeking stronger international representation needs more than talented athletes. It needs domestic competitions, qualified coaches, accessible facilities, consistent funding and an effective national federation.

These are areas in which Australia and India could learn from each other.

Australia and India: cooperation beyond medals

The Australian Government's India–Australia Roadmap for Sports Collaboration recognises the importance of the period leading to the 2030 Commonwealth Games in Ahmedabad, Brisbane 2032 and India's ambition to host a future Olympic and Paralympic Games.

The Roadmap identifies several practical areas for cooperation, including:

• Sharing knowledge on high-performance sports centres.

• Coach development and two-way exchanges.

• Para-sport classification, coaching and performance support.

• Joint research in sports science and technology.

• Athlete performance analytics, injury prevention and sports nutrition.

• Major-event planning and shared sporting facilities.

• Women's leadership, health, high performance and participation.

• Collaboration between Australian and Indian sports businesses.

  DFAT

These priorities provide a useful foundation for understanding how the Olympic programme discussion could translate into practical cooperation.

For instance, universities could work together on research into athlete performance and injury prevention. National sporting organisations could develop coach education exchanges. Technology companies could explore performance analysis and athlete monitoring. Event professionals could share experience in competition operations and venue planning.

Para-sport is another important area. A modern Olympic and Paralympic system requires more than accessible venues. It needs trained coaches, classification expertise, athlete support, appropriate competition structures and pathways that enable athletes with disability to participate and progress.

Women’s sport also deserves attention. Olympic visibility can create opportunities, but lasting progress depends on investment in participation, coaching, leadership and professional pathways.

The Roadmap provides a framework for facilitating engagement. It does not mean every proposed activity is already funded or underway. The document specifically describes implementation as pragmatic, outcomes-focused and dependent on available resources and arrangements between participating organisations.

That distinction matters. Credible bilateral cooperation is built through practical projects, not broad statements of intent.

The sports business implications

The Olympic programme also influences the wider sports economy.

When a discipline is included in the Games, it may create opportunities for broadcasters, sponsors, equipment manufacturers, technology providers, event organisers and professional services.

However, Olympic inclusion should not be treated as an automatic commercial guarantee.

A sport's commercial potential depends on its audience, media rights, competition calendar, sponsorship market, domestic participation and ability to build a lasting relationship with fans.

For Australian and Indian businesses, the more important question is how to identify capabilities that will be needed across the Olympic decade.

These may include:

• Sports technology and performance analytics.

• Venue and event management.

• Broadcast and digital fan engagement.

• Sports equipment and manufacturing.

• Coaching and professional education.

• Athlete health, recovery and nutrition.

• Accessibility and inclusion services.

• Competition operations and integrity systems.

Some of these opportunities may be linked directly to Brisbane 2032. Others may emerge through the wider growth of sport in India and Australia.

Businesses should assess specific procurement, partnership and market requirements rather than assume that Olympic ambitions automatically create commercial access.

The question that matters most: what kind of sporting future?

The debate about Olympic sports often becomes a discussion about winners and losers. Which sports will be included? Which disciplines might be excluded? Which country will benefit?

Those questions attract attention, but they are only part of the story.

The more important issue is what the Olympic programme should achieve for global sport.

The Games must remain a credible platform for the world's best athletes. They must also be relevant to different regions, reflect the development of sport and operate within realistic financial and organisational limits.

An Olympic programme that changes too slowly may struggle to connect with new generations. A programme that expands without sufficient consideration of cost and complexity may place unsustainable pressure on host cities.

The IOC's new framework is an attempt to manage this balance.

For Brisbane, the challenge is to demonstrate that a modern Olympic programme can be internationally relevant, athlete-focused and operationally achievable.

For national sporting organisations, the message is equally clear: long-term development cannot depend entirely on the possibility of Olympic inclusion. Strong sporting systems must be built regardless of the programme decisions.

PlayForward perspective: the Olympic decade is bigger than one Games

Brisbane 2032 is an important milestone in the Australia–India sporting relationship, but its significance extends beyond the competitions held in Queensland.

The decisions about the Olympic programme will influence how sports develop, how national organisations invest, what capabilities host cities need and where international collaboration may become more valuable.

India's 2036 ambition and the 2030 Commonwealth Games in Ahmedabad create a wider context for understanding these developments. Australia and India have an opportunity to exchange knowledge in coaching, high performance, sports science, technology, para-sport, women's sport and major-event delivery.

For PlayForward, the task is to follow these developments carefully and connect them with the practical questions facing sporting organisations, universities, businesses and communities.

That means distinguishing confirmed IOC decisions from proposals, understanding the policy context and identifying where cooperation is genuinely possible.

The next major milestones are the IOC's planned December 2026 assessment announcement and the final programme decision in April 2027.

Brisbane 2032 will be the first Games to apply the IOC's new methodology. The decisions made during this process may influence the future of Olympic sport for years to come.

The real measure of success will not simply be which disciplines make the programme. It will be whether the Olympic movement can build a sporting future that is competitive, inclusive, sustainable and relevant to the world it represents.