Taking Away The Podium
Olympic bans and the role of politics in sport
A co-authored piece by Eloise Taylor and Dominique Leong.
Is sport really the great unifier; the a-political entity which has the power to bring the globe together? What about when it doesn’t? The Paris 2024 Olympics has seen the ban of both Russia and Belarus from sending athletes to compete under their flags, something other sporting bodies have also adopted since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine in 2022. However, bans of this nature aren’t a new thing for the Olympics; in total, 13 countries have been banned from the games. So, is sport really that a-political?
The reasons for banning countries from participation in the games are varied. Involvement in global conflict, such as World War I and II, and racial segregation have been the main reason for Olympic bans. However, bans have also been issued for government interference in the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and also for violations of the Olympic charter.
The first Olympic ban included Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and Türkiye for their role as the Central Powers in the First World War. All five countries were not invited to the 1920 Summer Games in Antwerp, Belgium, while Germany was also denied entry to the 1924 games. Following the conclusion of the second world war, the IOC maintained this precedent by disallowing Germany and Japan attendance in the 1948 Olympic games.
It appears though, that a nation’s ban at the conclusion of a war is less dependent on the particular actions of the nation during the war period. Instead, bans seem to be distributed according to whether or not a nation belonged to the victorious or losing side of the war. While the actions of these nations is of course relevant to the IOCs decision making, punishing only the losers explains why Germany and Japan were banned at the conclusion of World War II while the United States — who deployed two devastating atomic bombs — were not.
The way in which these bans appear as a mere extension of the way the globe re-orders after large scale conflict perhaps makes these exclusions as uncontroversial as they come
This is not to say that the IOC is unwilling to make bans based on abhorrent behaviour of nations. Arguably, the most significant ban in Olympic history is that against South Africa lasting from 1964 until 1992. The racial segregation in South Africa meant that their national teams were made up of entirely white athletes. The goal of the ban was for the racial segregation in South Africa to end in every aspect, not just sport.
The Olympic ban was a part of the anti-Apartheid movement and is often seen as a testament to the power of boycotting and global pressure. The long exclusion of South Africa from the Olympics is an interesting component within this movement. Key to the ban was pressure from the Organisation of African Unity (OAU, later the African Union) composed of 32 African countries with the goals of decolonising African territories still under the control of the Global North and overthrowing the Apartheid regimes in South Africa and Zimbabwe. The entry of independent African nations into the IOC shifted dynamics and provided the pressure necessary to enable the ban on South Africa. They were excluded from the games for 28 years in total.
It would be naïve to suggest that South Africa’s exclusion from the Olympic games was an instrumental factor in the end to the oppressive regime of Apartheid. However, the message of ostracisation from the international community sent by this ban creates a precedent that violence or oppression — including on a domestic level — will not be tolerated by the international sporting community. Since then, the only other Olympic ban on the basis of oppressive domestic policies has been Afghanistan’s exclusion from the 2000 Sydney games due to the Taliban’s stance on women.
Maybe this is a sign that nowadays there exists only space for symbolic politics in international sport rather than anything material.
Currently, two counties — Russia and Belarus — are banned from competing in the games, including at the most recent Paris Olympics. This is not Russia’s first experience facing a ban by the IOC. Previously, a temporary ban for state-sponsored doping had been issued against the country. However, in that instance the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) itself had not been banned, and athletes were allowed to compete under the ROC acronym rather than the Russian flag. The current ban applies to the ROC itself, for violations of the Olympic charter related to the ongoing invasion and war in Ukraine. The same applies to Russia’s ally in the war, Belarus.
At the Paris games allowances were made for 11 athletes (six Russian and five Belarussian) to compete as Individual Neutral Athletes after being invited by both their national federation and the IOC. No flags were allowed to be displayed for these athletes and they were only invited if they did not support the war and were also not contracted to the respective militaries or national security agencies.
In some ways this ban is different to those that have come before. For one thing, the conflict is not yet over, as was the case with the bans following the two World Wars. Thus, the exclusion from the Olympic games also takes on a similar role of applying international pressure as was the case with the ban on South Africa. However, do these bans have the same impact as those from previous years? What pressure is really being applied when countries’ flags are banned but their athletes are still able to compete ‘neutrally’? If anything, these bans appear as having a more symbolic character than anything capable of actual punishment. Maybe this is a sign that nowadays there exists only space for symbolic politics in international sport rather than anything material.
The absence of real pressure by the IOC is put further on display when considering its lack of action regarding the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The UN’s top court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled shortly before the 2024 Olympics that Israel was guilty of unlawful racial segregation and apartheid in the occupied Palestinian territories. Despite previous examples suggesting that perpetrators of racial segregation should be excluded from the Olympic games, Israel was not banned in this case. Given the historical context of banning South Africa and Afghanistan, a failure to take decisive actions here demonstrates another aspect of politics in sport; that it is not just political to exclude a country from participation, but it is also political to choose not to ban a country.
Is it possible that the world has moved on from imposing this kind of ‘punishment’ for oppressive and violent behaviour? Perhaps, this is an example of the United States using its influence over the international community to protect its long time partner in the Middle East. Maybe, we are all more conscious than ever of politics entering the sacred un-politicised arena of sport and no decision to ban, or not to ban, a country from the Olympic games will ever be uncontroversial.
When it comes to keeping politics out of sport, precedent suggests that global conflict is the big exception. It appears customary that at the conclusion of wars, not only are there processes for treaty signing, territory redistribution, and reparations, it seems that a brief sit out from the Olympics is also necessary. The way in which these bans appear as a mere extension of the way the globe re-orders after large scale conflict perhaps makes these exclusions as uncontroversial as they come. However, politics also seems to have a way of creeping into current conflicts and acts of discrimination as evidenced by South Africa, Afghanistan, and Russia. But when these conflicts have not fully run their course and the winners and losers are yet to be determined, the IOC seems increasingly more hesitant to take a real stand.
In their joint Statecraft debut Eloise Taylor and Dominique Leong collaborate on our first co-authored piece of the year, also marking the first publication from our Pubs Pals program, in this insightful Olympic commentary.
Massive thanks to Luca Bisogni and Devika Moss for their invaluable and thoughtful editing on this piece, as always.
