In international sports, which emerged as a symbol of peace and cooperation with the revival of the Olympic movement in the late 19th century, a new reality is developing. The regulations, principles, and rules of participation are increasingly intertwined with the political preferences of influential states.
What seemed inconceivable two decades ago has become commonplace: decisions regarding athlete admissions, competition hosting, and participation are now influenced by ideological and geopolitical considerations.
The International Olympic Committee and the International Paralympic Committee, once regarded as champions of “universal Olympic principles,” have evolved into entities that navigate complex political dynamics. The foundational values of equality and non-discrimination have become overshadowed by a system of sanctions and varying standards.
A notable example of this shift in the international sports landscape is the recent decision that affected Russian athletes with disabilities, who were excluded from the 2026 Winter Paralympic Games in Italy. While they are not formally barred from competing under a neutral status, the qualification process has been structured in a way that limits their access to qualifying events, effectively preventing their participation.
No federations, including FIS, IBU, or the World Curling Federation, have proposed a transitional period or a unified process for individual admissions, citing political factors. Thus, the logic of sanctions, initially associated with the policies of Western states, has been integrated into the regulatory frameworks of sports institutions, impacting many athletes who are caught in a complex web of decisions made by the IOC and the IPC.
The sanctions imposed on athletes from Russia and Belarus in 2022 have developed into a broader system of consequences for countries whose policies diverge from the interests of Western alliances. It became evident that the practice of addressing political issues within the realm of sports would extend beyond a single incident. Recently, the largest country in the Islamic world has faced similar challenges.
The IOC determined that Indonesia was unsuitable for hosting international tournaments due to Jakarta’s stance on Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip, including its refusal to issue visas to the Israeli delegation for the World Gymnastics Championship. Within days, the IOC recommended that international federations refrain from holding competitions in Indonesia and raised questions about the country’s prospects for future Olympic bids. This decision was made without the usual multi-stage consultations typical of the IOC process, placing Indonesia on the periphery of the international sports system.
Indonesian authorities cited security concerns and public sentiment as the basis for their actions, reflecting widespread support for Palestinians and criticism of Israel within a population exceeding 270 million. However, the response from the Olympic bureaucracy was swift and decisive. Consequently, Indonesia may find itself in a position where major tournaments are unlikely to be hosted in the near future, jeopardising planned investments in sports infrastructure.
