Playing Switzerland: An Unfair Game

Germany and Japan in 1948, South Africa in 1964, Yugoslavia in 1992, Taliban-ruled Afghanistan in 2000 and now Russia and Belarus in 2024: the list of nations who have been banned from participating in the Olympic Games expands. Historically, so-called ‘banned’ nations were fully barred from sending athletes or delegates. Nowadays, a banned nation does not necessarily indicate banned athletes. Enter the ‘neutral’ athlete, an exclusive title only few possess.  

One’s nationality does not implicate them in their state’s actions. So then why should athletes of aggressor nations be penalized? Why should, for example, Viyaleta Bardzilouskaya, a 19-year-old trampoline gymnast, who went on to take a silver medal in the 2024 Olympic games as a neutral athlete, not hear her national anthem like other athletes? Why should an athlete who has no direct control over their country’s policies be sanctioned? Sporting events, like the Olympics, are meant to be a celebration of sport and inclusivity, not a criticism of politics. The Olympic charter itself states that the IOC and the Olympics are apolitical, and if such is the case, what right does the IOC have to dictate political sanctions? 

But, why is it important to properly discern what a neutral athlete actually is? The concept of officially ‘neutral’ athletes is relatively modern. In 2016, following Russian doping scandals, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) proposed the idea. While Russia as a nation was allowed to compete in the 2016 Rio Olympics, in 2017, World Athletics—then IAAF—banned Russian athletes from competing at the World Championships with the exception of  nineteen Russians who competed as neutral athletes. 

Apart from being neutral for negative politically-motivated reasons, an athlete may also be neutral due to geopolitical realities. The Paris 2024 Olympics Games saw 37 athletes compete under the Refugee Olympic Team, representing more than 100 million displaced people around the world as opposed to competing for a single country.  In 2021, in light of these mass doping allegations, Russia began competing under the acronym ‘ROC’, an acronym for the Russian Olympic Committee. Further sanctions for Russia meant that in place of the country’s national flag, the flag of the Olympic Committee flew in its place. Additionally, the anthem was changed from the patriotic war song ‘Katyusha’ to a piece from Tchaikovsky’s Piano Concerto No. 1, such choice instilled nationalism due to Tchaikovsky’s cultural status within Russia. However, this does not mean that athletes competing under the ROC were fully neutral. After all, they still were Russian Olympic athletes, and their uniforms contained the colors of the Russian flag. 

So what is it that makes an athlete completely neutral? For the Olympics—a body designed to be apolitical—there are several criteria necessary for an athlete to be neutral and thus eligible to compete. Athletes must qualify under their respective International Sports Federations’ definition of neutrality—most of which follow the same rules as the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Belarus and Russia were banned from displaying their flag, colors and from singing their national anthems. Further, government and state officials from these countries were not officially invited to the games and any athlete who had shown support for the war or participated in the war was not allowed to compete. Throughout all of this, the IOC has maintained that it fully supports Ukraine and Ukrainian athletes. However, while clear in its rules, the IOC has been criticized for not being true in their application, especially by Ukrainian officials. On the 29th of December 2023, an open letter signed by 261 Ukrainian athletes showed that three of the six Russian athletes accepted to compete in the Olympics had supported the war, either by participating in pro-war rallies or being part of propaganda videos supporting the Russian military. This evidence would mean these accepted athletes did not follow neutrality rules, yet were still allowed to compete. 

Other sporting bodies have imposed sanctions on Russian and Belarusian athletes in other sporting events. In 2022, tennis players from Russia and Belarus were banned from competing in the Wimbledon Championships and other tournaments held in the United Kingdom. While this measure was reversed a year later, the move caused controversy throughout the sporting world, especially as tennis players compete under their own names, rather than their nationality. The Olympic Committee claims the Olympics are apolitical, yet the notion that the Olympics have no political connotations is realistically untrue, as, historically, the games have been used for political reasons. The 1936 Berlin Olympics, controversially given to the Nazi regime despite ongoing human rights violations, was used as a propaganda tool for Hitler to promote German nationalism. The decision of allocating the games to the Nazis fell under many European nation’s policy of appeasement. Likewise, the US boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics, protesting the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, which the Soviets returned with their boycott of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. As the Olympics are arguably the biggest sporting event in the world, it is impossible for them to be neutral and appease all countries. 

Likewise, athletes are representative of their country, thus they can fuel nationalism in a country if they win a medal. This is often used by aggressive governments for propaganda. For example, in the case of Russia, sports like figure skating have been used by the government for state promotion, with figure skaters becoming celebrities who skate for ‘Mother Russia.’ Figure-skating, something funded since the Soviet Union and the success of the sport is associated with the triumph of the ‘Russian empire,’ which is seen as a time of greatness and honor. Even though athletes compete for themselves, in Russia, an individual victory is seen as a victory for the nation. Further, allowing aggressor states to compete in sporting events rather than banning them is a form of appeasement, giving the impression that hostile actions are acceptable. Athletes are not the only actors affected, and appeasement can cause harm to those affected by states like Russia. By not banning athletes, or imposing sanctions, the Olympic Committee effectively acknowledges the Russian state, thus its actions as legitimate. Not punishing human rights violations and violence intrinsically goes against the Olympic charter which states that ‘the goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world.’ Therefore, is it even possible for the Olympics to be neutral and apolitical? Yes, the Olympics strives for inclusivity, but is inclusivity an utopian ideal in a world often characterized by divide? 

At its core, the Olympics want to be Switzerland, neutral and uninvolved with political dispute. But even Switzerland is practically, not completely, neutral. Whilst it stayed out of both wars, it shut its borders for Jewish refugees in World War Two and allowed for Nazi bank accounts. In modern times, although not part of the EU or EEA, it is part of the single market. The point is, a country or an organization may say they are ‘neutral’ but in reality such a concept is hard to implement. The issue was that its policies of neutrality can be seen as unfair, not just against athletes but against nations. While athletes represent their country, for some, events out of their control mean that their ‘Olympic dream’ is extinguished—the suffering, the hardwork, the commitment wasted due to a higher power. 

Likewise, banning athletes and states is argued to be unfair in its application as the IOC’s designation of Russia and Belarus as ‘aggressor’ states that can only compete with neutral athletes has been accused of setting ‘double standards’ in the sporting community. Multiple states e.g., Iran have called for Israeli athletes to face the same bans as Russia and Belarus, after Israel’s escalation in aggression in Palestine since 7th October 2023. Israel has destroyed many of Palestine’s sporting facilities, reducing even the chance of athletes making it to the Olympics. The main difference, according to the IOC itself, is that Russia violated the ‘Olympic Truce.’ While Israel has been accused of breaking the truce, due to their belligerence , the IOC maintains the state has not. The truce, enshrined in the Olympic charter stipulates that for a few days before and after, as well as during the Olympic Games, participating countries must not engage in acts of aggression. Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine took place on the 24th of February, four days after the end of the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics, thereby violating the terms of the truce. This ambiguous application for different nations relates to athletes and states, where one rule does not apply to all, calling into question the validity of bans and thus, its principles. 

The problem with playing Switzerland, therefore playing neutral, is that it is not a fair game. Ban the state, hurt the athletes. Do not ban the state, hurt those affected by the state. The sport of neutrality is not simple, nor does it have defined rules, and the question remains, how can sporting governing bodies criticize aggressor states whilst staying true to their values of inclusivity and togetherness through sport?