How Olympic Neutrality Was Tested at Milano-Cortina

(Photo by Eric Salard via Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED)

The Ukrainian team had 24 hours to change their planned uniform before the 2026 Milano-Cortina Paralympic Games began. The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) confirmed to the team that their uniform, featuring an outlined map of Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders, that it would not be accepted as it violated rules prohibiting political messaging.

The Ukrainian Olympic team also came under scrutiny from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) this year. The IOC banned the Ukrainian skeleton competitor Vladyslav Heraskevych’s helmet for featuring photos of Ukrainian athletes killed by Russia. Heraskevych criticized the IOC for its unfairness in his case, referencing Israeli athlete Jared Firestone, who wore a kippah at the Opening Ceremony with the names of the 11 members of the Israeli delegation who were killed at the 1972 games. 

Article 1.2 of the Olympic Code of Ethics enshires political neutrality and the “principle of universality.” Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter states that “no kind of demonstration or political, religious, or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues, or other areas.”  

Political expression by athletes and the influence of global power dynamics are not new to the Olympics. They are an enduring feature of the games. Athletes are not alone in utilizing the global stage of the Olympic Games for political demonstrations, with governments using the Olympics to make statements connected to broader geopolitical aims. Examples from this year, and the IOC’s continued limiting of athletes’ expression raises the question of whether the Olympics are, or can ever be, truly politically neutral.

Olympics as a Stage for Political Protest

The participation of athletes and states in political protest has a long history at the Olympic Games. 

At the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, two 200 metre Black American athletes, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, stood on the podium and raised their right fists in a Black Power salute. Their demonstration reflected a broader moment of political upheaval in the U.S. as civil rights activism, the murder of Martin Luther King Jr, and anti-war protests reshaped the country’s social and political landscape. Their decision to use the podium to draw attention to the situation of Black Americans came at great personal cost. It effectively cost the athletes their professional sporting careers. 

(Photo by Angelo Cozzi via Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain)

Political pressure also shaped participation at a state level. Two years after authorities jailed Nelson Mandela, the IOC barred South Africa from the Olympics from 1964 to 1988 in response to its system of apartheid. The IOC had demanded that South Africa denounce racial discrimination in sport and overturn their ban on non-white athletes competing. This set a strong precedent for the IOC to use Olympic participation as a form of political pressure.

During the Cold War, geopolitical tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union drastically impacted the Olympics, most notably through a series of boycotts and protests. At the 1980 Moscow Summer Olympics, a U.S.-led campaign to boycott the games — triggered by the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan — resulted in over 60 countries refusing to send athletes to compete. 

As it was announced that Canada would be joining the boycott, Canadian swimmer Cheryl Gibson told CBC, “I guess we have to make a decision whether we are going to stand behind the Russians or the Americans. And it had to be the Americans.”

Political Violence at the Games

Acts of violence that reflect broader geopolitical conflicts have also shaped the Olympic Games beyond athlete protest and state-level participation. 

The most well-known instance is that of the Black September attack at the 1972 Munich Olympics. The 1972 Olympics were an important political symbol for the German government. West Germany aimed to present a new image after the Nazi regime held the 1936 Berlin Olympics. 

The Black September Organization staged the attack to use media coverage to draw attention to the situation of the Palestinian people and bargain for the freeing of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. The group took Israeli athletes hostage in the Olympic village and forced West Germany to negotiate with Israel over demands. Ultimately, 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team were killed, and 5 of the hostage-takers. An estimated 900 million viewers watched live coverage of the attack.

(Photo by Kurt Strumpf via Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain)

In response to the attack, Israel bombed Palestinian refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon, killing hundreds of civilians. West Germany retaliated as well, enacting a new “Alien Law” which enabled the mass deportation of Palestinian temporary residents — primarily students and workers — under the justification that they supported the attack.

Lesser known is the Tlatelolco massacre, which took place only a few years prior, in the lead-up to the 1968 Mexico City Olympic Games. Just 10 days before the Olympics were set to open, riot police and the Mexican army opened fire on a crowd of 10,000 peaceful protesters. Hundreds were killed, beaten, and arrested. Protesters were calling for the release of political prisoners and accountability for heavy-handed state violence. The crackdown at Tlatelolco came as the government wanted to suppress protests ahead of the Olympics to avoid international embarrassment.

These examples show that geopolitical tensions impact the Olympics and firmly embed them. Given the high-profile media landscape of the Olympic Games, they are also a platform for individuals and governments to make political statements that will reach a global audience. 

Nation-State Affiliation Rather Than Neutral Sport

One of the primary political aspects of the Olympic Games embeds itself in the foundational structure of the Olympics themselves. The global nation-state system organizes it.

National Olympic Committees (NOCs) are the ways that athletes are organized and identified at the Olympics. With athletes competing representing a certain country to which they are tied (sometimes only thinly) by citizenship. The flag and anthem are displayed when they win, and medals are counted by country.

Opposing NOCs are Independent Olympic Athletes (IOAs). The first case of IOA’s occurred in 1992, where athletes from the Republic of Yugoslavia competed independently due to UN sanctions on the fracturing country. The IOC refugee Olympic team is another example of a non-national team. This team provides a place for displaced athletes to compete outside of state affiliation.

These instances of neutral athletes are exceptions to well-established norms and instead reinforce state affiliation within the Games.

Olympics as a Global Stage of Geopolitics

As a result, the Olympics act as much more than a sporting event. As seen in examples of protest, they provide a global stage for both athletes and states. They operate as a global institution that reflects a dominating international system. States use the games to project soft power, make statements, and impact their international image. This is especially true for host nations, which have the largest impact on how the Olympics and their own image are presented. 

As the Olympic host nation in 2008 and 2022, China has often been accused of sportwashing. Sportswashing is a way nations use the Olympics to enhance their global image while redirecting attention away from human rights abuses. Specifically, China has used the Olympics to hide their abuses against the Uyghur community, disappearances of human rights activists, and political repression in Hong Kong.

Fundamentally, nations use the Olympics for legitimacy, as hosting decisions and participation signal international recognition of the state’s power. At the same time, the prominence of national symbols such as flags and anthems displays nationalism. Sports ultimately provide a key link between national identity and political identity. 

In this context, the idea that the Olympics exist in a politically neutral space and that it is the duty of individual athletes not to violate this becomes increasingly untenable.

So Who Pays the Price for Neutrality? 

Looming large in this year’s Olympics is the controversy surrounding the continued ban of Russian and Belarusian athletes competing under their own flag in response to the invasion of Ukraine. 

After the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine, the Russian NOC was banned from participating. Russian and Belarusian athletes’ only option is to undergo vetting by the IOC to compete as “Independent Neutral Athlete” (AIN) status. They compete without national flags and anthems, and their results are not counted toward their home countries. In this way, they “in no way represent their state.”

(Photo by YantsImages via Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED)

The eligibility to compete as an AIN requires that athletes have not actively supported the war in Ukraine, or be connected to the Russian military or national security agency. 

In practice, these policies place the primary burden of geopolitical conflict on individual athletes. Many of whom, especially for the infamous Russian figure skating team, are youth athletes, including teenagers. Following the path of some South African athletes during their apartheid-era ban, athletes have sought to circumvent these restrictions by acquiring alternative citizenship and competing under different national delegations.

Double Standards and Parallels

These dynamics become even more complex when compared to how similar principles are applied in other geopolitical contexts. 

Double-standards have been directed at the IOC for allowing Israel to compete despite its ongoing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. These concerns have surfaced online as well as in media coverage. Stefan Renna, a Swiss sports broadcaster, highlighted an Israeli bobsled athlete’s public social media support for military actions in Gaza. Renna noted the IOC’s rules on athletes’ military connections and active support of war, drawing a parallel between differing standards for Russian and Israeli athletes. 

The IOC has not required Israeli athletes to compete under neutral status. The organisation does not screen them to ensure they are following the neutrality rule of not supporting military action. The Palestinian NOC argues that Israel’s continued military campaign in Gaza has killed hundreds of athletes since October 2023, destroyed sporting infrastructure, and violated the Olympic truce tradition.

These parallels highlight broader questions about the uneven application of global norms. While the IOC has taken a firm stance in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — also determined to be illegal under international law by the UN — the Israeli NOC has not been held to the same standard. We can see this in the wide international complicity of Israel’s actions.

Rethinking Neutrality   

In the context of the Olympic Games, despite the IOC’s regulations, neutrality is an untenable aspiration. As long as the Olympic Games remain rooted in national affiliation, they will continue to function not only as a sporting event but as a reflection of the geopolitical systems. 

The conversation of neutrality is looming large over the upcoming 2028 Los Angeles Summer Olympics. The 1984 Olympics were held in Los Angeles and saw the 14-country boycott directed toward the Soviet Union. It is expected that the 2028 Olympics will be politically continuous. Especially as the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement continues. Furthermore, calls have grown demanding the resignation of Casey Wasserman, the chairman of the 2028 Olympics, due to his ties to Jeffrey Epstein. 

These tensions, and others, are unlikely to fade in the near future. The 2028 Olympics will operate within a highly politically charged environment.

Rather than asking if politics belong in sport, audiences must acknowledge that politics are fundamentally embedded in the Olympics. The more pressing question is how global institutions like the IOC acknowledge and navigate political realities, and what impact this has on the sporting experience for athletes and fans. This includes considering how officials apply rules, who competes, whose voices institutions restrict, and how institutional decisions impact marginalized athletes and communities.

Edited by Khushi Mehta