Proof is in the Putin
– Aditi Joshi
FY B.Sc. Economics
Reading Time: 5-6 minutes
In 2023, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced the exclusion of national symbols, including flags and anthems, as well as team sports, for Russian athletes participating in the Olympic Games. The IOC also excluded athletes contracted to the Russian military or security services, or those who publicly supported Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine. Rather than imposing a blanket ban, the IOC permitted Russian athletes to compete as neutral candidates. Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed concern that “politically motivated artificial conditions” could be used to exclude leading Russian competitors. Decisions like these highlight the entwinement of politics and sports.
From the boycotts carried out during the Cold War by the United States and the Soviet Union to present-day attempts at sport washing by Qatar, we can clearly see how the arena of sport continues to serve as a stage for political maneuvering and soft power display. This article argues that while governing bodies such as the IOC and FIFA claim to uphold neutrality and peace,, their selective enforcement of bans paints a different picture. This raises the question: Is the complex entanglement between politics and sport navigated by Sport Governing Bodies (SGBs) transparent enough to safeguard the essence of sportsmanship?
The modern Olympic Games, revived in 1896, were built on the motto “Citius, Altius, Fortius – Communiter” (Faster, Higher, Stronger – Together). It was intended to be an opportunity to showcase the transcendence of human potential above disputes caused by borders, politics, and race. The Olympic Charter clearly states its goal is to “place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.”
Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the modern Olympic Games, said:
“The important thing in the Olympic Games is not winning but taking part; the essential thing in life is not conquering but fighting well.”
This ideal promises neutral ground where the only thing that matters is athletic meritocracy. The proof is in the pudding, the criteria for victory are objective, and the best athlete wins.
There are many notable instances where political ideology and athletic competition intersect, but they often seem to reflect a recurring pattern of exposing the moral fragility of the international sporting conduct codes. The 1936 Berlin Olympics, staged under Nazi rule, transformed the supposed “neutral” sporting space into a propaganda machine, demonstrating how easily athletic spectacle can be co-opted by authoritarian regimes. Many believe that this triggered the politicization of sports, where propagandistic sporting ideals came with a side of toxic glorification. Boycotts were led by nations like the USA and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, illustrating the drops in ideological confrontation seeping into the idea of unity through sportsmanship. On the flip side, the global sporting boycott of apartheid-era South Africa is often hailed as a rare instance where exclusion aligned with ethical standards. The ban was morally justified as it was imposed to fight against discrimination and oppression. Taken together, these cases suggest that the politicization of sport is not episodic but structural. Claims to neutrality are idealistic, but not possible in the face of clashes between powers.
The symbolic capital of hosting major tournaments has made international events coveted opportunities for image-building, giving rise to what critics call “sportswashing.” The Gulf state of Qatar invested an estimated $220 billion, the most expensive World Cup in history, to showcase modernity and global relevance, even as watchdogs documented thousands of migrant worker deaths and widespread abuses in the lead-up. Countries are eager to host mega-events to boost their international credibility, even when doing so comes at a cost to their own citizens. Preparations for the 2016 Rio Olympics displaced thousands of low-income residents, while stadiums built at enormous public cost now stand abandoned. The effect of sportwashing is dichotomous. Domestically, it enables governments to muster national pride and deflect attention from social crises. Internationally, it allows nations to purchase legitimacy. Promises of celebrating the human endeavor lay forgotten as these events transform into global stages for image-polishing
Consequently, if sporting victory is equated with political virtue, then denying athletes from certain countries becomes meshed with condemnation. The exclusion of Russian athletes in the wake of the Ukraine invasion reflects this ideology, as athletes were treated as representatives bearing their state’s political stance, demonstrating the parallel between global athletic success and the construction of national narratives. However, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has long emphasized the importance of keeping politics separate from sporting spectacles. This principle is enshrined in Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter, which explicitly states that “no kind of demonstration or political, religious, or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.” On paper, this signals the IOC’s commitment to neutrality, yet we can clearly observe that this logic is applied inconsistently in practice.
The British and U.S. forces invaded Iraq despite widespread scrutiny, which was described as “not in conformity with the UN Charter” and therefore illegal by then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Yet no comparable sporting sanctions or bans were imposed on U.S. or British athletes by the IOC or FIFA. We can observe an inconsistency in the case of North Korea too. Despite documented systematic human rights abuses that the UN has characterized as crimes against humanity, the totalitarian regime continues to participate in the Olympics without any formal sanctions from the IOC. A notable moment in history, North Korean table tennis players who took a selfie on the podium with South Korean and Chinese athletes at the Paris 2024 Olympics were reportedly subjected to state-run “ideological evaluations” upon their return. This also highlights the degree to which athletes themselves remain under political control. Taken together, such examples reveal how the efficacy of sport governing bodies’ sanctions is undermined by duplicity, which undermines the principle of neutrality. If exclusion is to be justified by moral standards, it must follow transparent, universally applied procedures.
Another instance is when athletes were barred from kneeling during the Tokyo 2020 Olympics in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement. Yet, in the same period, the IOC itself issued strong condemnations of Russia’s actions in Ukraine and enforced restrictions on Russian athletes. The juxtaposition is clear. Individual athletes using the global platform to express moral convictions were silenced under the guise of neutrality. At the same time, the IOC itself engaged in overt political signaling on the international stage. Such contradictions highlight how Rule 50 often functions as a mechanism of selective control.
The spirit of sport, at its fundamental level, is remarkably accessible. A game can be played in a galli, in our society’s parking lot, or on the grand stage of the Olympics, and in every event, it carries the same assurance of joy, connection, and the chance to measure oneself against others on equal terms. This universality is what makes sport such a powerful symbol of human unity. History shows that politics and sport have never existed in isolation. They intersect repeatedly, sometimes in ways that are unavoidable or even necessary, for instance, when collective condemnation through exclusion is required to challenge systemic injustice.
At the same time, this power to exclude must not be reduced to a tool of convenience. If the principle of unity is to remain at the core of athletics, then decisions must be guided with transparency by Sport Governing Bodies (SGBs). Only then can the balance be struck between acknowledging sport’s political dimension and preserving its essence as a space of fairness and shared humanity.
