The IOC reopens the door to Moscow, caught between Olympic pragmatism and the return of geopolitics in sport

Today, however, the picture looks different: the IOC does not merely allow individual athletes to take part, but returns the political and sporting responsibility for the final decision to the international federations.

This precedent bears a close resemblance to what happened with Belarus. Minsk, which was indirectly involved in the conflict as a strategic ally of Moscow, was subject to similar measures; however, international sporting bodies have gradually sought ways to avoid the collective and permanent exclusion of athletes. The solution of neutrality, initially conceived as an exceptional measure, seems to have become a permanent feature of contemporary sports diplomacy.

Football, too, offers significant examples of this development. In 2023, FIFA attempted a partial reopening of relations with Russia by authorising the return of the men’s and women’s Under-17 national teams to international competitions, albeit under a neutral flag. However, the initiative was blocked by strong opposition from numerous European federations, starting with those affiliated to UEFA, which stated they were unwilling to take to the pitch against Russian teams. This episode demonstrated that, beyond the decisions of international bodies, the political viability of such reopenings also depends on the consensus of stakeholders within the sporting system. Last week, FIFA announced that the new Under-15 Festival – scheduled to take place in Azerbaijan from 22 to 31 October 2025 – would be open to ‘all affiliated federations’, including Russia.

The Olympic case, however, has different characteristics. The Games represent the most important global multi-sport event and the IOC, by tradition, tends to prioritise universalism and inclusion over the logic of indefinite sanctions. It is no coincidence that the decision was seen in Moscow as a positive political signal. Sports Minister Mikhail Degtyarev spoke of an Olympic movement that must remain “free from politics” and described the measure as a green light for the restoration of Russian athletes’ rights.

Behind the official statements, however, there is also a sense of realpolitik. At the Tokyo Olympics, held in 2021, Russia fielded over 300 athletes and won 71 medals, confirming its status as one of the leading powers in world sport. Moscow’s almost total absence from Paris 2024 has inevitably affected the competitive standard in numerous disciplines, fuelling the debate on the effectiveness and duration of the bans.

It remains to be seen how the international federations will respond. Some may swiftly follow the IOC’s guidance and reopen qualification for Russian athletes; others, particularly in sports most affected by geopolitical tensions, may maintain significant restrictions. The result is a fragmented scenario, in which the composition of Olympic participation could vary from sport to sport.

Ukraine has protested against the lifting of restrictions imposed on Russian athletes by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Executive Board, whilst the war triggered by Russia’s invasion of the country in February 2022 continues. “We consider this decision to be premature, unfounded and taken without taking into account the objective circumstances, which remain unchanged: Russia is continuing its large-scale armed aggression against Ukraine,” stated the Ukrainian Olympic Committee.

“The IOC’s decision to lift the ban on Russia and once again pave the way for its participation in the Olympic Games is deeply perplexing. International sport cannot pretend that nothing has happened and, above all, cannot ignore an ongoing war of invasion,” emphasises Mauro Berruto, head of sport for the Democratic Party and a PD member of the Chamber of Deputies. “Once again, the direction taken by the governing bodies of world sport is astonishing. Just a few days after the incident in which FIFA and Gianni Infantino bowed to obvious political pressure from the US administration, we are now witnessing a new decision that raises enormous questions: one cannot help but wonder what reasons and pressures led the IOC to this choice. And to think that there are those who naively continue to believe that sport and politics should remain separate. Violations of international law and the aggression against a sovereign state had prompted the sporting world to take a clear stance, exercising its power to impose sanctions – something that has never happened before – yet it has shown a glaring lack of consistency in the face of Israel’s tragic violations of the Olympic Charter. Today, Russia’s readmission is not a neutral act: without a genuine change in the situation and without a clear disengagement from the war in Ukraine, it risks turning sport into a tool for political normalisation.”