More than twelve years after the protests and official assurances, the same confusion persists. Who is defending the authenticity of the Olympic Flame today?
No matter how many articles we write, how many discussions we hold or how many protests we voice, those responsible for the Olympic Movement persist in the same practice.
The ceremony held on 10 September 2026 at the Kallimarmaro—the Panathenaic Stadium in Athens—brings back an issue that has remained unresolved for more than fourteen years: giving the name and symbolism of the Olympic Flame to a flame lit far from Olympia.
The Hellenic Olympic Committee’s own announcement states it plainly: the flame for the Dakar 2026 Youth Olympic Games was lit at the Panathenaic Stadium and is presented as “Olympic”. The ceremony took place in the presence of IOC President Kirsty Coventry, and Hellenic Olympic Committee President Isidoros Kouvelos handed the flame over to the organisers.
The contradiction remains: an “Olympic Flame” that was not lit in Olympia.
The Olympic Charter, in the edition in force from 24 June 2026, retains the clear definition in Rule 13, paragraph 1: “The Olympic flame is the flame which is kindled in Olympia under the authority of the IOC.” Its origin is an integral part of the symbol’s identity. The text contains no specific exception for the Youth Olympic Games flame, nor any provision for lighting it at the Panathenaic Stadium.
In its announcement, the Hellenic Olympic Committee invokes a “special protocol” for the Youth Games, under which the lighting and handover take place in the same ceremony and at the same venue—namely, the Kallimarmaro Stadium. It must, however, publish the decision establishing that protocol and explain how this designation is consistent with the Olympic Charter. Above all, it must explain why combining the lighting and handover in a single ceremony should exclude Olympia, and which provision justifies using the same name for a flame of a different origin.
The historical significance of the Panathenaic Stadium is beyond dispute. Olympia, however, has its own unique place in the origin and identity of the Flame. The ritual can be relocated; the historical bond with the place cannot be transferred by an administrative decision.
When I describe this flame as “pseudo-Olympic”, I am referring precisely to the discrepancy between its origin and its name. Its official presentation as Olympic gives spectators the impression that it is the same symbol, with the same starting point and the same authenticity.
The confusion is reinforced by the President of the International Olympic Committee herself. In the video of the ceremony posted on the IOC’s official website on the day of the lighting, Kirsty Coventry states:
“Every single National Olympic Committee across Africa will celebrate in their own way that this Olympic flame is finally reaching our continent. As an African, this moment means so much to me. For so many years, we have spoken about the day when an Olympic event would finally come to our continent, and now we have that great honour.”
And all these concerns had been raised well in advance.
As early as December 2011, ahead of the Innsbruck 2012 Youth Olympic Games, objections from the Municipality of Ancient Olympia were being recorded. A published resolution opposed the relocation of the lighting ceremony, recorded the decision that the mayor would not attend the ceremony at the Panathenaic Stadium, and called for Olympia to be formally guaranteed as the lighting venue for the Youth Games as well.
In 2014, ahead of the Nanjing Games, the protests gained wider momentum: a unanimous Municipal Council resolution on 18 January; public statements and letters from Mayor Thymios Kotzias; a further meeting attended by regional representatives and members of Parliament; and, on 30 April, a protest gathering in Olympia involving residents, schoolchildren and local organisations.
There were, therefore, public protests and institutional interventions. What is being judged today is their effectiveness and whether the campaign was sustained.
The most revealing evidence appears in the parliamentary record. On 21 February 2014, replying to Ilia MP Efstathia Georgopoulou–Saltari, the then Deputy Minister for Sport, Ioannis Andrianos, cited a decision of the IOC Executive Board and gave assurances that the designation “Olympic Flame” was reserved exclusively for the Summer and Winter Olympic Games. Regarding the Youth events, he stated:
“Whereas, for the Summer and Winter Youth Olympic Games, the term ‘flame’ is used.”
That was the government’s official response in Parliament. During the same debate, the MP had reported that the Hellenic Olympic Committee, through its press office, also supported the distinction between the Olympic Flame and a flame for the Youth Games. Proceedings of the Hellenic Parliament, 21 February 2014, pp. 7699–7700
Twelve years later, the Hellenic Olympic Committee’s own announcement demonstrates that this distinction is not being observed. The flame of the Kallimarmaro is explicitly called Olympic. The assurance offered then in response to the protests is being contradicted in official communications.
Where, then, is the distinction we were asked to accept? How is the uniqueness of the Olympic Flame protected when the same name is used for a flame of a different origin? And what value do assurances to Parliament and the local community have when the conduct of those responsible renders them meaningless?
In 2016, in my article “Panathenaic versus Olympic Flame: The Great Confrontation Continues”, I had already pointed out that the promised distinction was disappearing in speeches and public presentations. Today, we face the same problem and the same misleading conflation.
This inevitably raises questions for the Municipality of Ancient Olympia and the Region of Western Greece. Where is the follow-through on those resolutions and protests today? Why are we not seeing comparable public interventions by these institutions? Since the central demand was never met, what justifies the retreat from that campaign?
If they stopped pursuing the issue, why did they do so? How were they persuaded that everything was in order with the pseudo-Olympic flame? What changed to resolve the problem and allow the matter to be considered closed? Today’s announcement by the Hellenic Olympic Committee confirms that the confusion remains.
The current authorities must publicly account for their actions and take a concrete initiative. Defending Olympia requires persistence, a well-documented institutional case and results. Those earlier resolutions establish a responsibility for the administrations that followed.
This issue particularly concerns the young people who will gather in Dakar from 31 October to 13 November 2026. The first Olympic event on the African continent deserves a message of historical truth and unity. Olympic education requires accuracy about the origins of its symbols and consistency between institutional rules and actions.
There are proposals that could serve that consistency. The idea of an ever-burning flame in Olympia, drawing on the ancient hearth of the Prytaneion, deserves serious consideration by the relevant institutions. With the necessary artistic care and appropriate ceremonies for passing on the flame, a living bond could be maintained between Olympia and the events of the Olympic Movement.
Adding to the disappointment is the impression of a small audience—particularly for a European capital such as Athens—that I gained from the published footage of the ceremony. An event aspiring to send a global message to young people needs genuine public participation.
In the main evening news bulletin on ERT that I watched, I found no mention of the ceremony, while the change of coach at Olympiacos received, by my observation, approximately five minutes of coverage. I do not know whether the limited attendance influenced that editorial decision. The gap between the event’s proclaimed importance and its place in the news is nevertheless disappointing. The public broadcaster could have highlighted both the event and the substantive questions surrounding it.
I therefore appeal to the President of the Hellenic Olympic Committee, Isidoros Kouvelos, and the President of the International Olympic Committee, Kirsty Coventry: take the initiative to correct this mistake. Restore consistency between the Olympic Charter, the ceremonial practice and the name publicly given to the Flame. Restore Olympia as the source of the light that accompanies the Youth Games too.
One and only one Olympic Flame, from Olympia to all humanity, for a united and radiant Olympic Movement.
