There are few things pettier than two older privileged men behaving increasingly passively aggressively towards each other in the pursuit of sporting political power.
Thomas Bach and Sebastian Coe have, over the past few years, perfected the art of the pass-agg comment, subtly disparaging each other without overtly resorting to criticism.
Bach took the pass-agg-ness to another level last week and while it’s often entertaining to watch entitled men cling frantically to power or, in this case, ensure power is not transferred to their arch rival, the knock-on effects are likely to impact far more than two men’s sizeable egos.
Let’s starts with Bach; the German is a former Olympic gold medal-winning fencer and is the president of the International Olympic Committee, a role he was elected to in 2013. After completing his first term of eight years, he was re-elected in 2021 for four more years, meaning the end is rapidly approaching.
Coe is also an Olympic champion – the Englishman won 1500m gold in 1980 and 1984 – but has spent far longer in sports administration than he ever did on the track. Perhaps his greatest post-athletic achievement was leading the London 2012 Olympic bid before becoming chairman of the London 2012 Organising Committee.
Since 2015, he has been president of athletics’ governing body, World Athletics, and as the end of Bach’s time as IOC president began drawing closer, it became apparent both that Coe would like that role and would be heavily fancied to be elected by the organisation’s members.
There is just one problem for Coe, however, and that is that he and Bach famously don’t get on, and the German is desperate to ensure one of his proteges takes over from him rather than Coe.
So far, so typical of the jostling that occurs between the blazers at the top of any organisation.
What needs to be taken into account when reviewing Bach’s time as president is that he has been terrible in the role, as well as being a wholly unlikable leader.
The Olympic Games have thrived over the past decade in spite of Bach, rather than because of him.
In the most important moments, and on the most pressing issues for Olympic sport, Bach has been found wanting. He has been more interested in self-preservation than in doing the right thing for the Olympics and the athletes.
Bach’s modus operandi is not to do what the leader at the top is charged with doing, which is make the hard decisions; rather, he dodges and deflects any kind of controversy. Instead of taking a strong stance on matters of importance, he palms it on to the individual sport’s federation, or just ignores the issue altogether.
There are more than a few major issues on which Bach has been found wanting in recent years, in many cases, disgracefully so.
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the IOC banned Russia and Belarus from Olympic competition. However, they allowed Russian and Belarusian athletes to participate at Paris 2024 but under a neutral flag, ensuring there wasn’t a blanket ban after all.
And at Paris 2024 itself, the passing of the buck continued. When it became clear that the Netherlands had selected a child rapist, Steven van de Velde, in their beach volleyball team, the IOC’s response was “ask the Dutch Olympic Committee”. Basically, not the IOC’s problem.
And when Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting were entered in the women’s boxing competition having failed the International Boxing Association gender eligibility tests, the IOC did not even properly address the issue, never mind act. “These athletes are women,” Bach repeated again and again, despite no compelling evidence that this was unequivocally the case.
The Games ended with Bach stating that being a woman could not be proven by science. Eh, okay.
So the fact we’ll be seeing the back of Bach next year is an excellent thing for Olympic sport.
Ahead of the German’s term ending, potential candidates must express their interest in running by today. Until last week, Coe seemed a dead cert to throw his hat in the ring, until an intervention that may prevent him from standing.
Coe is a member of the IOC due to his role at World Athletics but with his term finishing in 2027, he will lose his IOC membership meaning he would not adhere to a newly-introduced rule that candidates must be an IOC member for the duration of their term as IOC President, something Coe will not, as things stand, be able to fulfil.
I’m no cheerleader for Coe but there is little doubt he’d be a better president than Bach.
Coe has been strong and decisive on issues like the Russian doping scandal and protecting the women’s category, and in introducing prize money at the Olympics, he has proven he is willing to take decisions that may not be universally popular but are unquestionably in the interest of the athletes.
This is in stark contrast to Bach.
The Olympic Games is a juggernaut that cannot be derailed by much but Bach’s dismal leadership was certainly threatening to disrupt the standing of what is the greatest sporting event on the planet.
It would be naive to assume the Olympic movement is immune to damage done by poor leadership. But a good leader can make the Olympic movement stronger.
By tomorrow, we’ll know if Coe has found a way round the new rules. If not, the Olympic movement will be all the poorer.
