Vladimir Putin’s Russia once leveraged global sports events to enhance its international image, a strategy prominently displayed through hosting prestigious events like the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics and the 2018 FIFA World Cup. No other leader has invested as heavily in sports diplomacy as the Russian president. These events served as grand stages to exhibit Russia’s capabilities and expand its influence within international sports organizations. Therefore, Russia’s exclusion from the 2024 Summer Olympics marks a significant downturn for Putin and Russia on the world stage, highlighting the intricate relationship between political actions and international sports participation.
This ban was enacted in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, a stark departure from the recent trend of prioritizing athlete participation in the Olympics regardless of geopolitical tensions. This shift contrasts sharply with the post-Cold War era consensus, which emerged after the Olympic movement endured the damaging political boycotts of three consecutive Summer Olympic Games—Montreal, Moscow, and Los Angeles. These boycotts significantly reduced international participation and underscored the deep rifts between nations.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) aims to avoid a return to those days of widespread boycotts and endless debates about eligibility, which is why their sanctions against Russia are specifically framed. However, while legal justifications provide a framework, political realities often complicate matters. Given the amplified political significance of sports globally, it’s unsurprising that both the IOC and FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) are facing “whataboutism” arguments, such as calls to ban Israel due to the ongoing conflict in Gaza.
The Limits of the Olympic Truce
The Olympic Truce, a tradition advocating for peace during the Games and a week before and after, symbolizes the Olympic ideal of sport fostering peace. It echoes the ancient Olympic tradition of ensuring safe passage for athletes to the Games during conflicts.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, commencing just four days after the conclusion of the Beijing Winter Olympics in February 2022 and shortly before the Paralympic Games were set to begin, was swiftly condemned by the IOC as a violation of this truce. While some might view this as a technicality—is invading a sovereign nation more acceptable a month after the Olympics than days?—this justification allowed the IOC to specifically target Russia without broadly sanctioning other nations involved in conflicts. Compounded by Russia’s existing probationary status due to repeated doping scandals, the IOC presented this ban as a direct consequence of offenses against the Olympic movement itself.
Further escalating sanctions, the IOC suspended the Russian Olympic Committee in October 2023. This action was prompted by Russian sporting authorities’ annexation of Ukrainian Olympic federations in Russian-occupied territories. This move was seen as a direct breach of the Olympic Charter and an infringement upon the sovereignty of Ukraine’s sporting bodies.
In contrast, when IOC President Thomas Bach faced questions about potential sanctions against Israel during a press conference before the 2024 Summer Games, he pointed out that Palestinian and Israeli Olympic committees maintain peaceful coexistence. Bach emphasized that Russia’s actions were a unique transgression against the Olympic movement and the spirit of sport, setting it apart from other geopolitical conflicts.
Bach further underscored the IOC’s commitment to political neutrality, arguing that adopting a policy of excluding nations based on international conflicts would drastically reduce Olympic participation, potentially halving the number of competing Olympic committees in Paris.
Governance Challenges in International Sports
Bach’s hesitation to position the IOC as an arbiter of international disputes and to judge nations’ worthiness to participate in the Games is understandable. While calls for Israel’s exclusion exist, the complexities of applying such standards universally are evident. If the IOC were to adopt human rights criteria similar to the European Union’s membership requirements, even nations like the United States, with practices like the death penalty, might face scrutiny regarding their participation. This raises the critical question: where should the line be drawn?
Considering participation in international sports, particularly events like the Olympics or the World Cup, three key questions emerge:
-
Is Olympic or World Cup participation a privilege or a right? And does this distinction shift when deciding which countries can host these major events? This question probes the fundamental nature of international sports participation and whether it should be considered an inherent right or a conditional privilege granted by governing bodies.
-
Who competes at the Olympics: athletes or nations? The IOC insists that the focus is on athletes, as enshrined in the Olympic Charter. However, the intense nationalistic fervor surrounding medal counts, flags, and anthems suggests a different reality. The IOC has long paid lip service to de-emphasizing national rivalries while simultaneously benefiting from the intense national interest that these rivalries generate. The participation of a delegation of stateless refugees and “neutral” Russian athletes in Paris attempts to reconcile this inherent contradiction—acknowledging individual athletes while navigating geopolitical complexities.
Furthermore, distinguishing between governments and broader societies is crucial when discussing sporting sanctions. Hanan Khashoggi, the widow of Jamal Khashoggi, voiced this sentiment to NBC News, stating her belief that the Saudi Arabian government was responsible for her husband’s murder, yet she opposed ostracizing the entire nation from sports. This perspective highlights the potential for sports sanctions to harm populations rather than solely impacting the targeted regimes.
- Whose values should international sports governing bodies reflect? Balancing inclusivity with upholding ethical standards presents a significant challenge. This is a dilemma frequently debated by students passionate about human rights, democracy, and enhancing the representativeness of global institutions. While these goals are commendable, they can sometimes conflict. For example, increasing inclusivity in international sports governance by granting equal voting power to every national committee could dilute the emphasis on human rights and democratic principles. This conundrum is not unique to sports, mirroring the challenges faced by multilateral governance institutions like the United Nations General Assembly, where consensus often reflects the lowest common denominator of adherence to the rule of law among its diverse membership.
Students often idealize sports as a purer domain, yet international sport is particularly susceptible to exploitation by unsavory regimes seeking to improve their image and financial interests. As global sports governance becomes less exclusive and more representative, moving away from its aristocratic origins, it inevitably grants greater influence to these less desirable actors.
While advocating for broad and inclusive participation in international sports over excluding participants based on stringent standards or shifting political landscapes, it’s important to acknowledge that this stance is inherently political. It stems from the belief in a right to participate in sport and the potential for this participation to drive positive societal change. This approach, however, requires navigating complex ethical considerations and acknowledging that achieving a perfect balance is often elusive.
Despite leaning towards the “play and let play” philosophy in sports, historical instances such as the 1936 Berlin Olympics and the 1978 FIFA World Cup in Argentina serve as stark reminders of abhorrent and indefensible decisions to host major events in nations with egregious human rights records. Conversely, the long-standing exclusion of South Africa from international sporting competitions during apartheid stands as a justifiable and effective use of sports sanctions to promote ethical principles.
The ongoing challenge lies in finding a balanced approach that prioritizes inclusion while maintaining ethical considerations, especially in extreme cases. As demonstrated by Putin’s Russia, exceptions to the rule are sometimes necessary. The decision to ban Russia from the Olympics, therefore, is not merely a political act but a complex navigation of these enduring tensions within international sports governance.
