IOC’s Special Operation Concludes as Boxing Returns to LA 2028, but at What Cost?

The long-standing conflict between the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the International Boxing Association (IBA) has reached its climax. After years of turmoil caused by the IOC’s own actions, boxing has been confirmed for the Los Angeles 2028 Olympic Games, but under a different governing body, World Boxing.

This decision marks the culmination of a calculated effort by the retiring IOC leadership, which first threatened boxing’s Olympic status, suspended the then-AIBA (now IBA) in 2019, and systematically worked to eliminate the organization. Despite these efforts, the IBA, led by President Umar Kremlev, not only survived but transformed the sport, introducing financial support programs, prize money allocations, and governance reforms.

The IOC’s actions against the IBA appear to follow a clear pattern:

1.⁠ ⁠2019: IOC suspends AIBA, cutting off its crucial Olympic revenue.

2.⁠ ⁠2021: Under new leadership, IBA clears debts, secures sponsors, and restores operations.

3.⁠ ⁠2022-2024: IBA implements major reforms, improving governance, financial integrity, and athlete support.

Despite these improvements, the IOC continued its efforts to replace the IBA, providing no clear explanations for its stance. Reports such as Professor Richard McLaren’s investigation exposed deep corruption under former AIBA leadership, particularly under CK Wu, an IOC Member and Executive Board member at the time. This corruption, which tainted boxing at the Rio 2016 Olympics, was overlooked by the IOC itself, raising questions about its true motives.

The IBA’s independence became inconvenient for the IOC, which preferred an organization that would align with its directives. The formation of World Boxing and its subsequent fast-tracked recognition suggest a predetermined plan to establish a more compliant governing body.

World Boxing’s financial viability has been a concern. In December 2024, its auditor declared it over-indebted. Yet, on February 24, 2025, the organization secured a sponsorship agreement with an unknown events firm, which is a company only weeks old. Within just two days, the IOC Executive Board granted World Boxing provisional recognition, an unprecedented speed for such a major decision.

Meanwhile, the IBA, which possesses millions of dollars in funds, was dismissed by the IOC, despite offering transparency in financial matters. If Olympic revenue for at least two Olympic cycles is now redirected to World Boxing, it raises serious legal and ethical concerns over the rightful allocation of these funds.

The future of Olympic boxing is now under a non-independent governing body, raising concerns about athlete rights and fair governance. The IBA, despite being sidelined, remains committed to fighting for the best interests of boxers, coaches, and National Federations.

While the IOC presents this as a fresh start for boxing, the lack of financial transparency, rushed decisions, and history of interference suggest otherwise. The question remains: is this truly about boxing’s future, or simply about control?