What Happened Until Now

This all starts with Russia illegally invading Ukraine in an attempt to overthrow the government and take the country. Within days of the outbreak of war, the IOC recommended the exclusion of Russian and Belarusian athletes. The formal ban on the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) had been in place since October 12, 2023 — imposed because the ROC had recognised regional Olympic councils in the Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories of Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia, a direct violation of the Olympic Charter and the territorial integrity of Ukraine’s National Olympic Committee (The Moscow Times, July 7, 2026).

While the ROC was banned, there was still a significant number of Russians competing under the “Individual Neutral Athletes” designation in both Paris 2024 and Milano Cortina 2026 — 32 in Paris, 20 in Milan (IOC, July 7, 2026).

IOC Justification

The news has shocked many in the Western world due to the IOC seemingly going against their own values. The justification given by the IOC Executive Board stated:

Furthermore, with the unbanning of Russian athletes, the IOC has put in place some stipulations for the ROC to follow. One of the most notable states that Russian athlete selection for the Olympic Games “shall be based not only on their sports performance, but also on their ability to serve as role models who respect, uphold and promote a peaceful society through sport as set forth in the Olympic Charter. (Bye-law 2.1 to Rules 27 and 28)” (IOC, July 7, 2026).

This rule — that the ROC must ensure Russian athletes serve as “role models who respect, uphold and promote a peaceful society through sport” — is a slap in the face to Ukrainian athletes. The ROC is not a neutral committee. It has been caught operating systematic state-sponsored doping programmes in order to win more medals and display Russian “strength” to the world. The country has been under scrutiny since a 2015 World Anti-Doping Agency report found evidence of systematic doping, followed by findings of a state-sponsored cover-up around the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics (Global News, July 8, 2026).

The IOC still states that it stands in solidarity with the Olympic community of Ukraine. The reality on the ground tells a different story. Less than 48 hours before the IOC announced its decision, Russia launched a deadly missile and drone attack on Kyiv — killing 11 people and injuring 64 (The Hill, July 8, 2026). Ukraine’s National Olympic Committee called the decision “premature, unjustified, and adopted without due regard for the objective circumstances,” stating that it contradicts not only the principles of justice but also the fundamental principles of Olympism (Euronews, July 7, 2026).

This is not the first time Ukraine has felt a blow from the IOC. Back at the 2026 Winter Olympics, Ukrainian skeleton racer Vladyslav Heraskevych was disqualified from the Games for refusing to remove a helmet bearing the faces of Ukrainian athletes and coaches killed by Russian strikes — a helmet he called a “memorial,” not a political statement (Mann, 2026). Ukrainian President Zelenskyy posted his support, stating that 660 Ukrainian athletes and coaches have been killed since the Russian invasion began, and that “sport shouldn’t mean amnesia” (Eisenberg, 2026). Five months later, the IOC welcomed back the country responsible for those deaths.

FIFA’s View

Since February 2022, Russia has also been banned from FIFA and UEFA competitions. However, there are talks that FIFA might make a decision similar to the IOC and reinstate Russia. FIFA President Gianni Infantino has been a vocal proponent of Russian reinstatement. Infantino said in February 2026 that “we have to look at reinstating Russia, definitely, because this ban has not achieved anything. It has just created more frustration and hatred” (Infantino, 2026). Sure, the bans have not stopped ballistic missiles from striking Ukraine — but that is an extremely simplistic reading of what sporting bans are for. The purpose of a ban stops working when people in positions of power start to believe it has no effect.

Infantino further stated that he hopes to enshrine in FIFA statutes that “we should never ban any country from playing football because of the acts of their political leaders” (Infantino, 2026). What Infantino fails to recognise is that the Russian state uses sport as a deliberate instrument of soft power. As I have written previously, Russia is one of the most aggressive proponents of weaponising sport for national image-building — and the 2026 World Cup made this clearer than ever.

Russia understands that being reinstated into organisations like the IOC and FIFA would allow it to restore its image and credibility — while still illegally occupying parts of Ukraine. Ukraine’s sports minister Matvii Bidnyi responded directly to Infantino: “Gianni Infantino’s words sound irresponsible — not to say infantile. They detach football from the reality in which children are being killed. War is a crime, not politics” (Bidnyi, as cited in ESPN, 2026).

The core frustration with the IOC — and potentially FIFA — is that they banned Russia in the first place because of the war in Ukraine. The war still has no end in sight, yet the ban was lifted, directly contradicting the reason it was imposed.

The Counterargument

It is important to consider the arguments for lifting the ban. The most common is the athlete-versus-government situation. Like many people, I prefer sport to be about sport — not politics. Unfortunately, Russia has made sport inseparable from its political strategy. The athletes are simply a vessel through which the Russian state projects itself onto the world stage. Russia hosted the FIFA World Cup in 2018, just four years after the illegal annexation of Crimea, and the international community barely blinked. The “bans don’t work” argument is another position that is correct in a narrow reading — the war has continued regardless of sporting exclusions.

Why the Counterargument Falls Short

Both arguments have surface logic — but they collapse when you look at what the IOC’s decision actually signals.

On the athlete-versus-government argument: Ukraine’s athletes have also suffered through no fault of their own. The question is not whether Russian athletes are personally guilty — it is whether international sport should signal that invading a sovereign nation and killing its civilians has consequences, or not. By lifting the ban while the war continues, the IOC has answered that question: no consequences.

On “bans don’t work”: it is correct that a sports ban does not stop missiles. It would be naïve to think it would. Sports bans are not primarily about changing Putin’s behaviour. They are about the signal sent to the international community, to Ukrainian athletes and civilians, and to future aggressors. The signal the IOC has now sent is: invade, wait four years, make a minor administrative concession, and you are welcomed back.

On a brighter note, World Athletics — one of the world’s most prominent athletic federations — voted to reaffirm its ban on Russian and Belarusian athletes, directly contradicting the IOC’s stance. Russia is now challenging that decision with an appeal to sport’s highest court, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Reuters, July 9, 2026).

Closing

The Olympic Charter speaks of “a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.” On July 7, 2026, there was no peace, and the dignity of millions of Ukrainians was being violated daily. Sport did not cause the war. But sport just made it a little easier for Russia to pretend the war does not define it.

Is sport powerful enough to change geopolitics? Probably not. But it is powerful enough to decide what it stands for.

Yesterday, the IOC decided.