It seems the road to getting esports into the Olympic Games has hit another rather bumpy patch.

According to various international reports on the 3rd, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has effectively put its esports commission on ice. This body was originally established under former president Thomas Bach to act as a bridge between the digital gaming world and the hallowed halls of the Olympics.

Reports suggest that the new president, Kirsty Coventry, sent a letter to the esports commission on January 31st, stating, "a more integrated operational approach that aligns with the overall Olympic strategy is required for the future." This is widely read as a pivot back to traditional sports, and commission members have reportedly taken this as the end of the line for their current operations.

Following Coventry’s appointment, the IOC took the drastic step in October 2025 of cancelling its inaugural Olympic Esports Games, previously slated for 2027 in Saudi Arabia, and subsequently scrapped the partnership. At the time, the IOC claimed they needed to "pause and reflect," promising to develop a new approach and seek fresh partnership models based on the feedback received.

To be fair, the IOC hasn't officially declared that all discussions regarding esports are dead in the water. However, between the cancelled Saudi deal and the shuttering of the specialized committee, it is safe to say the light for esports’ Olympic inclusion has turned a rather ominous shade of red.

Analysts point to two main culprits for this shift. First, there is the temperament of President Coventry. Unlike her predecessor, who was keen on expansion, Coventry has taken a more pragmatic, financially conservative stance—notably banning transgender athletes from women's categories. This shift in priorities is likely acting as a significant roadblock for esports’ ambitions.

Then there is the structural wall esports constantly hits. To be an Olympic sport, one needs an International Sports Federation—a non-governmental body like FIFA—to govern it with independence and autonomy. But here is the rub: the profit-driven nature of game publishers is fundamentally at odds with the autonomy required by such a federation, making the formation of a legitimate governing body an uphill battle.