If Squash Doesn’t Belong in the Olympics, What Does?

By Peter Carlisle
April 6, 2026

The sports landscape is constantly evolving. New sports emerge, and existing sports continue to develop. Most seek inclusion in what many consider the pinnacle of international sport: the Olympic Games. Each cycle brings new candidates, and the Olympic program is widely assumed to reflect meaningful standards for inclusion among established international sports. That assumption, however, is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.

Today, the Olympic program is determined not only by stated principles, but also by commercial priorities and host-nation preferences. Sports are added to modernize the Olympic image and attract younger audiences, while popular existing sports expand their medal programs through additional events that increase broadcast inventory. As a result, the criteria for inclusion have become less clear, with real implications for how limited space is allocated and whether the Olympic program reflects the current state of international sport.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) maintains that inclusion decisions are governed by objective criteria: universality, gender parity, sustainability, cost discipline, and governance integrity. These standards, articulated in Olympic Agenda 2020 and Agenda 2020+5, are presented as the foundation of a principled and coherent program applied consistently across candidate sports. The treatment of squash will test whether that is in fact the case.

Squash is played in more than 180 countries and has an established international federation, national governing bodies, and a global ranking and championship system that predates many current Olympic sports. It achieved gender parity early, requires a modest athlete field, and can be staged in a temporary glass court. This places squash squarely within the group of sports that meet the IOC’s stated criteria for Olympic inclusion.

Its inclusion beyond LA28 remains uncertain. If squash satisfies those criteria, what additional factors determine whether it remains in the program? The IOC has not articulated a clear answer.

If universality remains a governing principle, squash compares favorably with many recent additions, played in more countries and across more regions than several sports introduced to refresh the Olympic program. If athlete quotas are a concern, squash is part of the solution, requiring only two medal events and a limited athlete field. If cost containment is a priority, the case is clearer still: Brisbane has committed to delivering a fiscally responsible Games, and squash requires no permanent venue, as it can be staged in temporary facilities with minimal cost and no post-Games burden. These are the criteria the IOC itself has emphasized.

The process is now underway to determine whether squash will remain part of the Olympic program beyond 2028. That process involves both the Brisbane Organizing Committee and the IOC, but the authority to determine the program ultimately rests with the IOC.

Other candidate sports present a different set of tradeoffs. Some bring substantial broadcast value and strong regional audiences, while also requiring larger team quotas and more significant venue commitments. The question is not whether these sports deserve inclusion, but whether the criteria communicated by the IOC are being applied consistently across sports with fundamentally different requirements.

Squash’s inclusion should not depend on host preference or commercial momentum, but on whether the Olympic program is determined by the principles the IOC has set out. It is globally played, institutionally mature, gender-balanced, and operationally efficient, and it does not expand the program unnecessarily, add pressure to athlete quotas, or require permanent infrastructure. If that profile is insufficient, the issue is not squash, but the absence of clear and consistently applied criteria for determining what belongs in the Olympic Games.

Brisbane and the IOC now have an opportunity to demonstrate that modernization does not come at the expense of clear and consistent standards, and that the principles the IOC has presented have real meaning. If they do, squash’s place in the Olympic program should be secure; if not, the IOC should explain clearly what governs its decisions.