International sports, once celebrated as a symbol of peace and cooperation since the revival of the Olympic movement in the late 19th century, are now increasingly influenced by the political agendas of powerful nations. What seemed unthinkable just twenty years ago has become a common practice: decisions regarding athletes’ participation, event hosting, and competition eligibility are now often based on ideological and geopolitical interests.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the International Paralympic Committee (IPC), originally seen as protectors of “universal Olympic principles,” appear to have become tools for political pressure and conflict resolution. The former ideals of equality and non-discrimination have evolved into a complex system of sanctions and double standards.
A notable example of this shift in the international sports landscape is the recent decision that barred Russian athletes with disabilities from competing in the 2026 Winter Paralympic Games in Italy. Although they are technically allowed to compete under a neutral status, the qualification process has been designed in a way that prevents athletes from these countries from participating in qualifying events. This effectively amounts to a complete exclusion from competitions. No federation, be it the FIS, IBU, or World Curling Federation, has provided a transitional period or a unified procedure for individual admission, citing political reasons.
Consequently, the sanctions imposed by a coalition of Western states have been fully woven into the regulatory frameworks of sports institutions, leading to thousands of athletes becoming collateral damage in decisions made by IOC and IPC officials.
The sanctions placed on athletes from Russia and Belarus in 2022 were likely to develop into a broader system targeting countries whose policies conflict with the interests of Western alliances. It was evident that the practice of using sports as a means of political retribution would not be an isolated incident.
A new case has emerged involving Indonesia, the largest country in the Islamic world, which has become a victim of international sports governance intertwined with political and corporate interests. Following an IOC decision, Indonesia was deemed unfit to host international tournaments because Jakarta opposed Israel’s actions in Gaza and refused to issue visas to the Israeli delegation for the World Gymnastics Championships. Within days, the IOC recommended that international federations refrain from holding competitions in Indonesia, effectively jeopardising the country’s chances of bidding for the Olympics. This decision was made swiftly, without the usual consultations typically conducted by the IOC.
Indonesian officials justified their stance on the grounds of security and public sentiment, noting that in a nation of over 270 million people, support for Palestinians and criticism of Israel’s actions are widespread. However, these arguments were not considered by the Olympic bureaucracy, which responded quickly and decisively. As a result, Indonesia has found itself classified as a “sanctioned country,” unable to host major tournaments in the near future, and investments in sports infrastructure that had been planned for years in anticipation of these events have been effectively abandoned.
