A month ago, we witnessed the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris, France, a 19-day sporting marvel where athletes from all corners of the world came together and pushed the limits of what is humanly possible. More than 200 countries participated in these Olympics, which also included two Individual Neutral Athletes (AIN) and a Refugee Team. AIN athletes in the Olympics come from countries recognized by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), but whose National Olympic Committees lack IOC recognition.
The AIN team for the Paris Olympics consists of athletes from Russia or Belarus who have been barred from representing their respective countries. Russia and Belarus have been the aggressors in the Ukraine War, and the International Olympic Committee, in solidarity with the Ukrainian team, barred Russian and Belarusian representation at the Olympics as a result. According to the IOC, the creation of AIN will ensure that Russians and Belarusians are not punished for the decisions of their government. However, from a broader understanding of the whole situation, the decision of the IOC is far from any sympathy. The article aims to critique the International Olympic Committee’s reasoning for the creation of the AIN team with specific reference to Russia.
The Olympic ‘Ban’
Russia was banned from participating in the Olympic Games as it violated the “Olympic Truce”, The “Olympic Truce“, or “Ekecheiria,” originated in Ancient Greece in the 9th Century BC with a treaty signed by three kings: Cleosthenes of Pisa, Iphitos of Elis, and Lycurgus of Sparta. Its modern revival occurred in the 1990s.
The only other time the Olympic Truce has ever been invoked was in Ancient Greece in the 9th Century BC when a treaty was signed between the three kings: Cleosthenes of Pisa, Iphitos of Elis, and Lycurgus of Sparta. The truce ensured the athletes and spectators from these three Greek places, which were constantly engaged in war with each other, a safe participation in the Olympic Games. In the modern day, the truce was observed for the first time in 1994.
However, it needs to be noted that even though Russia was banned from participating in the Olympics for waging a war against Ukraine, no such sanction has been placed on Israel, which has been allowed to participate despite committing genocide in Palestine.
The IOC acknowledges that a country’s geopolitical actions should not prevent its athletes from competing, thus permitting Russian athletes to participate as Individual Neutral Athletes (AIN). Athletes participating under the AIN label won’t be allowed to display their country’s national flag, colors, anthem or any other national symbol. The Olympic hymn, which is an anthem without words commissioned by the IOC, was played for the AIN athletes who finished on the podium.
Relatedly, medals from neutral athletes won’t be added to the medal tables tally, as these athletes have been stripped of the right to represent their country.
Paradoxical Political Neutrality
The IOC, in its declaration, reaffirmed its strong position against the politicization of sport. It relies on the Fundamental Principles of Olympism, which says that:
Recognising that sport occurs within the framework of society, sports organizations within the Olympic Movement shall apply political neutrality. They have the rights and obligations of autonomy, which include freely establishing and controlling the rules of sport, determining the structure and governance of their organizations, enjoying the right of elections free from any outside influence and the responsibility for ensuring that principles of good governance be applied.
The charter also makes clear that the IOC’s role is “… to oppose any political or commercial abuse of sport and athletes.”
The IOC goes on to critique the “International Friendship Association” created and funded by the Russian government, which plans to organize summer and winter “friendship games” as purely politically motivated sports events. According to the IOC, Russia’s efforts to promote its Friendship Games are “a blatant violation of the Olympic Charter.”
The IOC draws attention to Russia’s past disregard for global anti-doping standards, specifically pointing to its systemic doping program during the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. The IOC further highlights the World Anti-Doping Agency’s concerns regarding Russia’s friendship games.
However, it is ironic how the IOC’s condemnation of the politicization of sport, in sum, feels like a politically influenced declaration. Throughout the declaration, the IOC fails to give a cogent argument. The IOC’s assertions focus more on Russia’s ventures into the sporting arena instead of its failure to comply with specific Olympic norms.
The politicization of the entire declaration by the IOC becomes evident by its plea urging all the “stakeholders of the Olympic Movement and all governments to reject any participation in and support of any initiative that intends to fully politicize international sport.”
Biased Verdict?
This is not the first time that Russian athletes have been disallowed from competing under their country’s name and flag. In 2019, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) banned Russia from participating in international sports for four years after it was found to be involved in a state-sponsored doping program that lasted a year. The Russian athletes found to be eligible for the Olympic games thus had to compete under the banner of the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC). The IOC initially suspended Russia in 2017 for its doping scheme, because of which the Russian athletes who passed the drug test had to compete under the Olympic Athletes from Russia (OAR) delegation in the PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Winter Games.
It is more or less impossible to defend Russia’s doping scheme, and the IOC’s decision to ban Russia’s active involvement in the Olympics seems justified. In this instance, the Russian athletes barred from competition were likely those implicated in the doping scheme, which provides additional justification for their Olympic ban. The rest of the athletes who passed the drug test would compete under the banner of ROC/OAR.
What makes the current scenario different is how all the Russian athletes, despite having no say in Russia’s geopolitical stance, have not been allowed to represent their country. Unlike the past scenarios where at least their country’s name was mentioned—though it was an empty solace as athletes were not allowed the basic right of hoisting their country’s flag or having their country’s national anthem played—the athletes this time have to participate under the banner of Individual Neutral Athletes (AIN). Further, the banner AIN means that Russian athletes can’t compete in any team sports, as the competition therein is country-based, meaning that the athletes, even if vocally against Russia’s war on Ukraine, were banned from sports such as basketball, football, etc.
It is to be understood that this time, the reason for banning Russian athletes’ participation under the country’s flag is its war against Ukraine. The country’s past brushes with WADA are wholly immaterial. However, the IOC’s declaration against the politicization of sport represents a different understanding.
Even if we agree with the IOC’s stance of disallowing the Russian athletes to compete under their country’s banner, the question that arises is why not the same punishment for Israeli Athletes. We all know that Israel has been involved in a ‘genocidal’ sweep of the people of Palestine, murdering children, women, and soldiers alike. However, the Israeli Athletes competed under their country’s banner, winning accolades and getting their flag hoisted and national anthem played. The IOC’s approach to the entire situation needs questioning.
