Zheng Zhou
Following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) recommended on 28 February 2022 that Russian and Belarusian athletes and officials not be permitted to participate in sporting events “[i]n order to protect the integrity of global sports competitions and for the safety of all the participants”.
Similar to economic and financial sanctions, international sporting bodies can place sanctions on particular countries whose behaviour attracts international concern, with the aim to penalise or influence national leaders to modify that behaviour. For instance, the world football body FIFA’s sanction against Russia echoes these aims, urging the “urgent restoration of peace and for constructive dialogue to commence immediately”.
Apart from FIFA, sporting bodies around the world, across racing, tennis, and basketball, among many other sports, have subsequently announced their own sanctions on Russia, requiring that Russian athletes participate under neutral flags. In April 2022, the All England Lawn Tennis Club (AELTC) went further than this, announcing a ban on the participation of Russian and Belarusian athletes at this year’s Wimbledon grand slam tournament.
Despite the international concerns behind the sanctions, it puts to question whether the careers of Russian athletes can be legitimately affected by decisions of their country’s government.
Sport as a right for all?
Principle 4 of the Fundamental Principles of Olympism prescribes that “[t]he practice of sport is a human right”. Elsewhere, Article 1 of UNESCO’s International Charter of Physical Education, Physical Activity and Sport provides that “the practice of physical education, physical activity and sport is a fundamental right for all”. Article 1.1 protects “[a]ccess to sport without discriminating on the basis of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property or any other basis [emphasis added]”.
The question of discrimination against Russian athletes has been prominent in media commentary. For instance, commentaries on the recent Wimbledon ban highlight the tension between fairness to an individual and a need for collective action. On the one hand, the sanctions against Russia aim to ensure that global peace is restored; on the other hand, Russian athletes pay the price for a war in which they may not have been involved. In an effort to balance these concerns, the AELTC considered ‘player safety, humanitarian efforts… and the response of other sports’, and was concerned that should Russian and Belarussian players succeed in the tournament, this could be ‘used to benefit the propaganda machine of the Russian regime’.
The inseparability of sports and politics
‘First-order’ events such as the Summer and Winter Olympics are the most prestigious and used by states to promote their global image. A positive image on the world stage, through commerce, culture, and sport, are some of the components of ‘soft-power’. Historians of diplomacy and sport argue that gaining ‘soft-power’ is one of the key reasons why nations choose to invest heavily in international sporting events such as the Olympics. Therefore, where the IOC prohibits athletes from participating under their national flag, this can undoubtedly have an impact on national pride and a nation’s image.
The Olympic boycott against apartheid South Africa
Before the 1964 Tokyo Games, the IOC decided to bar South Africa due to its racial segregation policy, known as apartheid. This combined with broader international condemnation gradually led South African officials to begin discussing racially-mixed sports. South Africa rejoined the Olympics in time for Barcelona 1992 with its first racially mixed national team, a symbolic acknowledgement of the positive contribution sport makes to social integration.
1980 Moscow Olympics
There was also the boycott of the Moscow Olympics in 1980. Due to security concerns, the United States led the biggest boycott in Olympic history in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Although the issue of human rights was a secondary concern for the United States and initially raised to legitimise the boycott, the boycott nevertheless underscored the nexus between sport and politics.
What are the potential impacts of boycotting Russia?
Not all athletes are marketable superstars. Those who lack employment contracts in sports leagues earn their living through a mixture of external private and public funding and part-time jobs. The current sanctions on Russian athletes may also discourage sports leagues and sponsors from signing or renewing long-term contracts with Russian athletes. The boycotts on Russia are likely to have a longer-term impact on the livelihood of less-marketable athletes.
Another issue is that the Russian public may perceive themselves as victims of ‘oppression’ led by the US and the west. The discrepancy in information may lead to negative feelings in the hearts of Russian sports fans and potentially fuel the conflict as opposed to resolving it.
Conclusion
When considering the sporting sanctions against Russia, it is important to note – as the IOC did on 28 February – that Ukrainian athletes have been forcibly displaced, and their ability to travel and compete in international tournaments compromised by the impact of Russia’s 2022 invasion. As both they and their Russian counterparts suffer from the actions of the Russian government, we will watch closely as the dust settles to see the life-cycle and effect of these sanctions.
Zheng Zhou was an intern with the Australian Journal of Human Rights in Term 1, 2022.