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 banned from participating in the Olympic Games continues to expand. 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. Yet the problem with this apparent neutrality, much like the issues with Switzerland’s, is that, in practice, it is neither simple nor truly neutral. 

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 International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Olympics are apolitical. But if such is the case, what right does the IOC have to dictate political sanctions? Perhaps more importantly, can an institution as global, and as historically political, as the Olympics ever be truly neutral? 

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 politically-motivated neutrality, an athlete may also compete neutrally 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 a single country.  

Russia’s own participation in recent Games shows how blurred boundaries have become. In 2021, in light of mass doping allegations, Russia began competing under the acronym “ROC”, standing for the Russian Olympic Committee. Their flag was replaced with the Olympic Committee’s flag, and their anthem changed from the patriotic war song “Katyusha” to a piece from Tchaikovsky’s Piano Concerto No. 1, still distinctly Russian in cultural identity. Their uniforms contained the colors of the Russian flag. They were, undeniably, Russian athletes. None of this fits any real definition of neutrality. So what does? 

For an organisation designed to be apolitical, the IOC has several criteria for an athlete to be considered neutral. Athletes must qualify under their respective International Sports Federations’ definition of neutrality, most of which mirror the IOC rules. Belarusian and Russian athletes were banned from displaying their flag, colors and singing their national anthems. State officials were not invited, and any athlete found supporting the war or participating in military activities was deemed ineligible.  Throughout all of this, the IOC has maintained that it fully supports Ukraine and Ukrainian athletes. Yet Ukrainian officials argue the IOC has not upheld its own rules.

On 29 December 2023, an open letter signed by 261 Ukrainian athletes revealed that three of the six accepted Russian athletes had openly supported the war, by participating in pro-war rallies or by appearing in pro-war propaganda. Despite not following neutrality rules, such athletes were allowed to compete. 

The IOC continues to claim the Olympics are apolitical, yet the Games have consistently been used for political purposes. The 1936 Berlin Olympics, controversially awarded to the Nazi regime, became a propaganda tool for Hitler. The U.S. boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics protested the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, which the Soviets returned with their boycott of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. As arguably the biggest sporting event in the world, the Olympics cannot be neutral, nor can they appease all nations. 

Athletes inevitably represent more than themselves. Their victories can fuel nationalism, and in some cases, serve as state propaganda. Russia’s long-standing investment in figure skating illustrates this. Since the Soviet era, the sport has been used as a symbol of the “Russian Empire’s” greatness, with athletes becoming cultural icons who skate on behalf of “Mother Russia.” Even though athletes compete for themselves, in Russia an individual victory is a national one. Allowing aggressor states to compete without consequence can be seen as a form of appeasement, giving the impression that hostile actions are acceptable. By not banning athletes or imposing serious sanctions, the IOC risks legitimizing the actions of aggressor governments. Yet banning athletes punishes individuals for state violence they did not commit, and as such neutrality becomes a lose-lose game. 

Fairness is also questioned in how neutrality rules are applied. Iran and several other states have called for Israeli athletes to face the same bans imposed on Russia and Belarus, citing Israel’s  escalation of aggression in Palestine since 7 October 2023. Israel has destroyed numerous Palestinian sporting facilities, reducing even the possibility of Palestinian athletes reaching the Olympics. The IOC’s justification is that Russia violated the Olympic Truce by invading Ukraine four days after the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics ended. Israel, they argue, has not violated it in the same way. This ambiguous differentiation, punishing one state's aggression but not another’s, creates a double standard. If neutrality and sanctions are to have legitimacy, they cannot be selectively enforced. 

At its core, the Olympics want to be Switzerland: neutral, impartial, untouched by political dispute. But even Switzerland is practically, not perfectly, neutral. It stayed out of both world wars, yet shut its borders for Jewish refugees during World War II and allowed Nazi bank accounts. Today it is not part of the EU or EEA, yet participates in the single market. A country or organization may claim neutrality, but the reality is far more complex. For athletes, this complexity is deeply personal. Their dreams, work, and sacrifice can be extinguished by decisions entirely beyond their control.

The problem with playing Switzerland, playing neutral, is that it is not a fair game. Ban the state, and innocent athletes suffer. Do not ban the state, and those harmed by the state suffer instead. The sport of neutrality has no simple rules. And the question remains: how can sporting governing bodies criticize aggressor states while staying true to their values of inclusivity and togetherness through sport? If the Olympic Movement is meant to contribute to a more peaceful world, perhaps the first step is acknowledging that neutrality itself is not peace, but a complicated position. One that the Olympics, despite its ideals, has never been able to truly maintain.