International sport, long seen as a unique arena where athletes compete beyond the boundaries of politics, ideology, or religion, is facing one of the most serious tests in its modern history. Since the revival of the Olympic Movement, neutrality has been a guiding principle, yet recent developments suggest a growing strain on that foundation.
The politicization of eligibility rules, the exclusion of entire groups of athletes, and increasing alignment of federations with broader geopolitical dynamics have raised questions about the future credibility, inclusiveness, and financial sustainability of global sport.
The International Ski and Snowboard Federation (FIS), under new leadership since 2021, has become one of the prominent examples of this ongoing tension. Initially, the federation’s leadership emphasized modernization, transparency, and fairness as guiding goals. However, its approach to the participation of Russian and Belarusian athletes has reflected the broader complexities of the global environment.
In early 2025, the FIS publicly noted that athletes should not be held collectively responsible for political developments, signaling support for possible neutral participation. Yet by spring, the federation extended restrictions on Russian and Belarusian athletes without specifying timelines, conditions, or a framework for review. For many observers, this inconsistency highlighted the challenges federations face in reconciling principles of neutrality with external pressures and stakeholder expectations.
The perspectives of Northern European nations, which have traditionally been dominant in skiing disciplines, have also influenced the debate. Countries such as Norway, Sweden, and Finland have consistently advocated for firm restrictions, aligning with their broader political positions.
The exclusion of athletes from Russia and Belarus has, at the same time, reshaped competition. Disciplines that historically featured fierce rivalries have seen reduced competitive intensity, altering both the sporting spectacle and audience engagement.
Financial implications have followed. The 2025 World Ski Championships in Trondheim, despite strong organizational efforts, struggled with lower attendance, weaker broadcast figures, and declining sponsorship appeal. Analysts link this in part to the absence of several of the sport’s top competitors, underscoring how the exclusion of high-profile athletes can directly affect both revenues and global visibility.
While the FIS has maintained a restrictive approach, other federations have sought more structured pathways. World Aquatics, for example, introduced detailed admission rules for neutral athletes, and by mid-2025 had approved over 140 applications from Russian athletes. The International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) followed a similar path, establishing processes that offered athletes clarity about their eligibility and future prospects. These cases suggest that transparency and consistency can help balance political sensitivities with the core values of sport.
The broader implications extend far beyond winter sports. For athletes in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the current trend raises concerns about precedent. If exclusions are justified on political grounds today, federations in the future may face pressure to extend similar measures to other countries or regions. This could significantly undermine the universality of global competitions, which have historically brought together nations regardless of their political differences.
The financial dimension of politicization is increasingly visible. Major events depend on global viewership, sponsorship contracts, and the prestige of showcasing the “best of the best.” When top competitors are absent, tournaments risk being perceived as incomplete. Reduced audiences translate directly into weaker revenues for host cities, organizers, and federations, while long-term reputational risks may discourage future investment and fan engagement.
Experts suggest that federations seeking to maintain credibility and safeguard competition should establish transparent frameworks for athlete eligibility. This would include:
- Clear criteria for participation,
- Defined timelines for sanctions or reviews,
- Independent appeal mechanisms to ensure fairness,
- Separation of sporting rules from broader political considerations.
Such mechanisms would reassure athletes that their careers depend on individual merit and performance, not shifting international alignments. At the same time, they would provide clarity for organizers, broadcasters, and sponsors, strengthening confidence in long-term planning.
As international sport navigates this era of uncertainty, the balance between external pressures and the traditional values of neutrality, equality, and inclusiveness will be critical. Maintaining that balance is not only about fairness to athletes but also about protecting the financial health and global credibility of sport itself.
The experience of recent years demonstrates both the risks of prolonged ambiguity and the opportunities that transparent governance can bring. With reforms and clear communication, federations can continue to serve as platforms for unity and excellence, ensuring that sport remains what it was always intended to be: a universal space for cooperation, competition, and mutual respect.
