Mel Robbins’ “Let Them Theory” offers a deceptively simple framework that, when critically examined and properly contextualized, transforms how international sports organizations navigate stakeholder conflicts. From Olympic governance disputes to professional labor negotiations, strategic non-intervention paradoxically increases institutional power while reducing organizational burnout.
Executive Summary
The Theory: Robbins’ framework advocates releasing futile attempts to control others’ actions, opinions, and emotions (“Let Them”) while maintaining fierce agency over institutional responses and boundaries (“Let Me”).
The Application: From IOC-NOC tensions to player union negotiations, the framework transforms how sports organizations manage inevitable conflicts by redirecting energy from narrative control to process excellence.
The Complexity: While powerful for stakeholder management, the framework requires sophisticated adaptation in contexts involving competitive integrity, safeguarding obligations, and systemic power imbalances inherent in international sport.
Mel Robbins’ “The Let Them Theory” arrives at a moment when international sports organizations face unprecedented scrutiny, stakeholder activism, and narrative warfare. The book’s central premise—stop exhausting resources trying to control what others think, feel, or do (“Let Them”) and redirect that energy toward what you can actually influence (“Let Me”)—speaks directly to organizations drowning in social media backlash, athlete activism, sponsor pressures, and governance challenges.
Consider the International Olympic Committee’s perpetual struggle to control how different stakeholders interpret its decisions. Whether facing criticism over host city selection, Rule 50 protests, or Russian participation policies, the IOC expends enormous energy attempting to manage narratives across 206 National Olympic Committees, dozens of International Federations, thousands of athletes, and millions of fans. Robbins’ framework suggests a radical alternative: accept that stakeholders will interpret decisions through their own lenses while focusing institutional energy on transparent processes and consistent standards.
This analysis examines Robbins’ framework through the lens of international sports governance, professional sports labor relations, and high-stakes competitive environments. The discussion proceeds in three parts: first, a critical assessment of the theory’s psychological foundations and limitations in power-imbalanced contexts; second, detailed applications to Olympic governance, professional sports conflicts, and international federation disputes; and third, integration strategies for maintaining competitive integrity while releasing unproductive control attempts.
Understanding the Framework: Control Paradoxes in Global Sport
Robbins’ framework rests on established psychological research regarding locus of control, cognitive load theory, and emotional regulation.1 The theory’s elegance lies in its recognition that attempts to control others’ internal states—beliefs, emotions, motivations—not only fail but actively deplete the cognitive and emotional resources needed for effective action. In international sports contexts, where stakeholders span cultures, languages, and legal systems, these control attempts become exponentially more futile and exhausting.
The framework’s two-part structure prevents descent into nihilistic disengagement. “Let Them” without “Let Me” would justify institutional paralysis—a luxury sports organizations cannot afford when managing multi-billion dollar events, athlete welfare, and competitive integrity. Instead, Robbins advocates fierce ownership of controllable factors: organizational processes, communication clarity, boundary enforcement, and response consistency. This distinction proves crucial when FIFA faces corruption allegations: they cannot control media narratives (“Let Them report”), but they can control investigation thoroughness and transparency (“Let Me demonstrate accountability”).2
The neuroscience underpinning deserves scrutiny. Robbins correctly identifies the amygdala hijack phenomenon—where perceived threats trigger fight-or-flight responses that override prefrontal cortex reasoning. In sports conflicts, this manifests when organizations react defensively to criticism, escalating conflicts through attempts to control narratives. The Russian doping scandal exemplifies this: initial Russian attempts to control the narrative through denial and counter-accusation only deepened the crisis. However, Robbins oversimplifies the neuroplasticity required to override these deeply embedded defensive patterns, particularly in institutional contexts where organizational culture reinforces control-seeking behaviors.
Power dynamics complicate pure application of the theory. When the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) renders decisions affecting athlete careers, simply saying “let them disagree” ignores the fundamental power imbalance between individual athletes and sporting institutions.3 Similarly, when professional leagues negotiate with player unions, “letting them” strike might violate fiduciary duties to other stakeholders. The framework requires sophisticated adaptation to acknowledge when structural power imbalances or governance obligations mandate intervention despite the psychological appeal of letting go.
Cultural variations in conflict engagement further complicate international application. Asian Olympic Committees operating from high-context, relationship-focused paradigms may interpret Western federations “letting them” disagree as disrespectful dismissal rather than respectful autonomy. Latin American football associations accustomed to passionate engagement might view UEFA’s boundary-focused approach as cold rejection. The framework’s universalist assumptions require careful cultural translation to avoid misinterpretation across the global sports ecosystem.
Case Illustration: The Super League Crisis
When twelve elite European clubs announced the Super League in 2021, UEFA’s initial response exemplified control-seeking: threats, ultimatums, and attempts to manage fan outrage. A “Let Them” approach would have acknowledged clubs’ right to explore alternatives while focusing on making existing competitions more attractive—addressing the underlying grievances rather than controlling the rebellion. The crisis ultimately resolved not through UEFA’s control attempts but through organic fan rejection that clubs couldn’t ignore.
International Applications: From Olympic Governance to Professional Negotiations
Olympic and International Federation Conflicts
The International Olympic Committee’s relationship with National Olympic Committees demonstrates the framework’s potential. The IOC cannot control how NOCs interpret Olympic Agenda 2020+5 reforms, resist cost-cutting measures, or react to new sports additions. Traditional IOC approaches involved extensive consultation aimed at achieving consensus—essentially trying to control buy-in. A “Let Them” approach would accept that some NOCs will resist any change while focusing energy on implementing excellent reforms that benefit willing partners.4 The IOC’s handling of Russian and Belarusian participation post-Ukraine invasion shows this evolution: rather than trying to control all stakeholder opinions, they focused on clear criteria and consistent application, letting stakeholders react while maintaining process integrity.
International Federations managing global sports face similar dynamics. World Athletics’ approach to transgender athlete participation exemplifies strategic application of the framework. Rather than attempting to control the heated discourse or achieve universal agreement, they focused on establishing clear, science-based policies while accepting that some will view any decision as either too restrictive or too permissive.5 President Sebastian Coe’s communication strategy—acknowledging disagreement while maintaining policy clarity—demonstrates “letting them” disagree while exercising fierce control over regulatory standards.
The framework particularly aids managing host city relations. When Brisbane received the 2032 Olympics through the new targeted dialogue process, other potential hosts cried foul. The IOC’s response—acknowledging disappointment while maintaining process transparency—exemplified “letting them” be upset while controlling what they could: clear communication about the new process, consistent application of criteria, and improved future engagement. This reduced defensive communication cycles that rarely change minds while strengthening actual governance practices.
Professional Sports Labor Relations
Professional sports leagues navigating collective bargaining demonstrate the framework’s nuanced application. The NBA’s relationship with the National Basketball Players Association during the 2020 bubble playoffs exemplified strategic release of control. Rather than mandating participation, the league “let them” choose whether to play while focusing on creating safe, attractive conditions for those who participated. This approach—accepting player agency while controlling environmental factors—led to successful completion despite initial skepticism.6
The English Premier League’s attempts to implement spending controls illustrate control paradoxes. Wealthy clubs will always seek competitive advantages, and attempts to control their spending desires prove futile. A “Let Them” approach would accept these motivations while focusing on enforceable regulations with clear consequences. Manchester City’s 115 charges for alleged financial breaches show the exhaustion of trying to control intent versus behavior—the league cannot control whether clubs want to circumvent rules, only whether they face consequences for doing so.
Player transfer negotiations reveal the framework’s practical benefits. When Kylian Mbappé’s potential move from PSG to Real Madrid dominated headlines, both clubs exhausted themselves trying to control narratives, leaking strategic information to manage public perception. A “Let Them” approach would have accepted that media would speculate and fans would react, focusing instead on actual negotiation parameters. PSG’s eventual acceptance that they couldn’t control Mbappé’s desire to leave, pivoting to extracting maximum value, demonstrates the framework’s eventual if reluctant adoption.
Doping and Integrity Violations
Anti-doping organizations face the ultimate control paradox: they cannot control whether athletes want to cheat, only whether cheating carries consequences. WADA’s evolution from trying to eliminate doping desire to accepting its persistence while strengthening detection and sanctions exemplifies institutional maturation through the “Let Them” lens.7 The Russian state-sponsored doping scandal forced this recognition: WADA couldn’t control whether Russia wanted to cheat systematically, but they could control their investigative response and sanction consistency.
Tennis’s approach to match-fixing allegations shows similar evolution. The International Tennis Integrity Agency cannot control whether players face financial pressures or receive corrupt approaches. They’ve shifted from prevention-through-persuasion to acceptance that some will always be vulnerable, focusing instead on robust monitoring, swift investigation, and severe consequences. This transition from trying to control motivation to controlling consequences demonstrates the framework’s practical application in integrity management.
International Sports Applications of “Let Them” Theory
Olympic Governance: Let them (NOCs/IFs) resist changes → Let me implement excellent reforms with willing partners
Professional Leagues: Let them (players) explore options → Let me create compelling competitive environments
Transfer Markets: Let them (agents/clubs) negotiate publicly → Let me maintain clear contractual boundaries
Anti-Doping: Let them desire advantages → Let me ensure consistent detection and consequences
Media Relations: Let them create narratives → Let me provide transparent, accurate information
“You cannot control what other people think, say, or do. But you can control how you respond, what boundaries you set, and where you direct your energy.”
— Mel Robbins, The Let Them Theory
Critical Integration: Governance Obligations and Competitive Integrity
Safeguarding and Duty of Care Limitations
The framework’s most significant limitation in international sport involves safeguarding obligations. When Larry Nassar abused USA Gymnastics athletes, “letting them” handle it individually would have perpetuated systemic failure. When FIFA receives reports of abuse in youth academies, non-intervention violates fundamental duty of care.8 The theory requires sophisticated discrimination between situations demanding intervention (athlete welfare, child protection, discrimination) and those permitting strategic non-engagement (disagreements, emotional reactions, opinion differences).
Recent safeguarding failures across multiple sports reveal the danger of misapplying “Let Them” to welfare issues. British Gymnastics’ independent review found that excessive focus on performance while “letting” athletes manage their own welfare concerns created environments enabling abuse. The framework must explicitly exclude safeguarding from its scope, maintaining vigilant intervention where athlete welfare is threatened while applying non-intervention to less critical conflicts.
The intersection with mental health support complicates application. When Simone Biles withdrew from Tokyo Olympics events citing mental health, some argued organizations should “let them” make such choices without question. Others insisted on intervention obligations. The nuanced reality requires distinguishing between respecting athlete autonomy in decision-making while maintaining robust support systems—letting them choose while ensuring they have resources for informed choices.
Competitive Integrity and Regulatory Obligations
Competitive integrity creates non-negotiable intervention requirements that constrain pure application of Robbins’ framework. When the Tennis Integrity Unit detects suspicious betting patterns, “letting them” play out would destroy sport credibility. When VAR reveals clear errors, “letting them” stand would undermine competition legitimacy. These contexts require what might be termed “selective intervention”—acting decisively where integrity is threatened while releasing control elsewhere.9
Regulatory obligations further complicate the framework. Sports organizations operating under governmental recognition, tax exemptions, or statutory monopolies cannot simply “let” stakeholders violate regulations. When the U.S. Congress threatens to revoke MLB’s antitrust exemption over minor league contraction, the league cannot merely “let them” threaten—they must engage substantively. The framework requires adaptation to acknowledge when external regulatory requirements mandate engagement despite preference for non-intervention.
The challenge lies in distinguishing mandatory from optional interventions. CAS jurisprudence provides guidance: fundamental rights violations, competitive integrity threats, and safeguarding failures require intervention, while disagreements over policy, emotional reactions to decisions, and narrative control attempts permit non-intervention. This discrimination becomes the critical skill for sports leaders implementing Robbins’ framework.
Systemic Power Imbalances
International sport’s structural power imbalances complicate pure application of “Let Them” theory. When African football associations challenge FIFA’s slot allocation for World Cups, “letting them” complain while maintaining status quo perpetuates historical inequities. When female athletes challenge prize money disparities, “letting them” be upset without addressing systemic discrimination violates equity principles.10 The framework requires conscious consideration of when non-intervention reinforces injustice.
Athlete activism particularly challenges the framework’s boundaries. When NFL players knelt during national anthems, league attempts to control the protest failed spectacularly. A “Let Them” approach—accepting athlete expression while focusing on league excellence—ultimately proved more successful than control attempts. However, when athlete activism involves human rights violations by sponsors or host nations, pure non-intervention may violate organizational values. The framework requires values-based boundaries determining when letting them conflicts with organizational principles.
The global nature of sport adds complexity through varying cultural expectations about intervention. Middle Eastern football associations may expect FIFA intervention in disputes that European associations would handle independently. Pacific Island rugby unions might view World Rugby non-intervention as abandonment rather than respect. The framework requires cultural sensitivity in determining when “letting them” translates as support versus neglect across diverse stakeholder communities.
Strategic Implementation for International Sports Organizations
Phase 1: Intervention Audit
Map current interventions across stakeholder conflicts. Categorize as: mandatory (legal/safety), strategic (competitive integrity), or optional (opinions/emotions). Identify energy drains from attempting to control uncontrollable factors.
Phase 2: Boundary Clarification
Establish clear boundaries between acceptable stakeholder autonomy and non-negotiable standards. Communicate these boundaries transparently. Focus on behavior regulation rather than emotional management.
Phase 3: Process Excellence
Redirect energy from narrative control to process improvement. Accept that stakeholders will interpret decisions variously while ensuring decision-making processes are transparent, consistent, and fair.
Phase 4: Cultural Adaptation
Adapt implementation to cultural contexts. Recognize when “letting them” requires different expressions across stakeholder communities. Maintain core principles while allowing tactical flexibility.
Practical Implications for Sports Leadership
For International Federations:
Stop exhausting resources trying to achieve universal buy-in for reforms. Accept that some member associations will resist any change. Focus on implementing excellent programs that benefit engaged partners. Maintain clear standards while letting members choose their engagement level. When facing criticism, distinguish between legitimate governance concerns requiring response and opinion differences permitting non-engagement.
For Professional Leagues:
Release attempts to control player social media, agent negotiations, or media narratives. Focus on creating compelling competitive products that attract talent and fans. Accept that players will explore options while making your league the obvious choice. When facing labor disputes, distinguish between negotiable interests and non-negotiable standards. Let unions posture while maintaining focus on sustainable agreements.
For Olympic Organizations:
Accept that stakeholders will interpret Olympic values differently across cultures. Focus on consistent application rather than universal agreement. When facing athlete activism, distinguish between expression rights and competition obligations. Let NOCs advocate for their interests while maintaining global standards. Release the impossible task of controlling Olympic narrative in favor of demonstrating Olympic values through action.
For Dispute Resolution Professionals:
Help parties identify energy drains from control attempts versus productive action zones. In mediation, redirect focus from changing others to setting boundaries. In arbitration, acknowledge party emotions while maintaining procedural focus. Recognize when power imbalances require intervention despite theoretical preference for party autonomy. Adapt frameworks to account for cultural variations in conflict engagement expectations.
Conclusion
Mel Robbins’ “Let Them Theory” offers international sports organizations a powerful framework for escaping the exhausting cycle of trying to control uncontrollable stakeholders. From IOC attempts to manage Olympic narratives to FIFA’s struggles with member association compliance, the futility of controlling opinions, emotions, and motivations becomes clear. The framework’s true value lies not in universal application but in strategic deployment—knowing when to let go and when to hold firm.
The theory’s limitations in sports contexts—safeguarding obligations, competitive integrity requirements, systemic power imbalances—require sophisticated adaptation rather than wholesale adoption. Sports leaders must distinguish between mandatory intervention zones (athlete welfare, integrity, discrimination) and optional control attempts (narratives, opinions, emotions). This discrimination becomes more complex in international contexts where cultural expectations, regulatory requirements, and stakeholder diversity create multiple, sometimes conflicting, intervention obligations.
The framework’s greatest contribution may be permission—permission to stop fighting unwinnable battles over stakeholder hearts and minds, permission to focus on excellence rather than consensus, permission to accept disagreement while maintaining standards. For organizations exhausted from perpetual narrative warfare, Robbins offers liberation: you cannot control what they think, but you can control what you do. This shift from external fixation to internal excellence could transform not just how sports organizations manage conflict but how they define success itself.
Ultimately, “The Let Them Theory” challenges sports leaders to examine their deepest assumptions about control, influence, and power. In a world where social media amplifies every criticism and stakeholders demand ever-greater voice, the instinct to control grows stronger precisely when it becomes most futile. Robbins’ invitation to drop the rope in unwinnable tug-of-wars offers not defeat but strategic redeployment—focusing finite organizational energy where it can create genuine impact rather than dissipating it in futile attempts to control the uncontrollable. For international sports organizations navigating unprecedented complexity, this may be the most valuable lesson of all.
Sources
1 Mel Robbins, THE LET THEM THEORY: A LIFE-CHANGING TOOL THAT MILLIONS OF PEOPLE CAN’T STOP TALKING ABOUT (Hay House 2024).
2 Andrew Jennings, THE DIRTY GAME: UNCOVERING THE SCANDAL AT FIFA (Arrow Books 2016).
3 Antonio Rigozzi & Fabrice Robert-Tissot, “Consent” in Sports Arbitration: Its Multiple Aspects, in SPORTS ARBITRATION: A COACH FOR OTHER PLAYERS? 59-94 (ASA Special Series No. 41, 2015).
4 International Olympic Committee, OLYMPIC AGENDA 2020+5: 15 RECOMMENDATIONS (2021).
5 World Athletics, ELIGIBILITY REGULATIONS FOR TRANSGENDER ATHLETES (2023).
6 Marc J. Spears, THE BUBBLE: AN INSIDE STORY OF THE NBA’S FIGHT TO SAVE A SEASON (The Undefeated 2020).
7 Richard H. McLaren, WADA INVESTIGATION OF SOCHI ALLEGATIONS: INDEPENDENT PERSON REPORT (World Anti-Doping Agency 2016).
8 Anne White KC, WHYTE REVIEW: FINAL REPORT (Gymnastics Australia 2022).
9 International Tennis Integrity Agency, 2023 ANNUAL REVIEW (ITIA 2024).
10 Sheila Farr, GAME ON: WOMEN CAN COMPETE (University of Washington Press 2023).
Note: All citations follow Bluebook format. For questions about specific citations, consult The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (21st ed. 2020).
About the Author
Joshua Gordon, JD, MA serves as Professor of Sports Law at the University of Oregon and Senior Practitioner at the Sports Conflict Institute, specializing in international sports governance and dispute resolution. Read full bio →
Navigate Complex International Sports Conflicts
Strategic guidance for knowing when to intervene and when to let go