Between neutrality and sanctions: Political conflicts in sport
Major international sporting events have always been a space into which political conflicts are projected. Current debates about exclusions and sanctions in light of the upcoming FIFA World Cup 2026 make this issue particularly topical. This article sheds light on the geopolitical tensions surrounding major sporting events and also marks the start of the "Football & Law" series, in which we examine the legal issues associated with these tensions and the numerous other issues besides in greater depth in the context of this year's World Cup.
Geopolitical tensions in major sporting events
Major international sporting events are once again at the centre of political disputes. Discussions about excluding Russian athletes, calls for sporting sanctions against Israel and political tensions in the run-up to the FIFA World Cup 2026 make it clear that international sport cannot escape its geopolitical environment and that the claim of political neutrality which the associations often profess is coming under increasing pressure in practice.
This is by no means a new phenomenon. Political conflicts have surrounded international sport for decades and have repeatedly led to boycotts, exclusions or special provisions. What is new, however, is the increasing frequency of such conflict situations under the conditions of a globalised public sphere, in which sporting decisions are more politically charged than ever before and at the same time linked to considerable economic interests.
Historical overview: Political boycotts and bans since the 1960s
From the Olympic Games to football World Cups – major sporting events have long been caught up in the tension between neutrality and political conflicts. A look at history and sporting events of the past shows as much.
Olympic Games as the subject of political boycotts
South Africa was still competing in the 1960 Olympic Games, but was banned from participating in the 1964 Olympic Games in Tokyo on the grounds of its racial segregation and the associated exclusion of non-white athletes and was expelled from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) altogether in 1970. The 1976 Olympic Games in Montreal were boycotted by numerous African countries because New Zealand was allowed to take part despite continuing sporting fixtures with the apartheid regime in South Africa. Further significant upheavals followed with the boycotts of the 1980 Moscow and 1984 Los Angeles Games, which were cancelled by a large number of Western and Eastern countries respectively.
These instances are characterised by the fact that the political conflicts were primarily debated outside the association's statutes and mediated by state action: Influence was exerted through state boycotts (except in the case of South Africa), not through independent sanctioning decisions by the sports organisations.
Football World Cups and political influence
Football has not been unaffected by political influence either. For example, the decision to exclude South Africa from FIFA competitions in 1961 because of the policy of apartheid is an early case in which an international sports association itself resorted to sanctioning. In contrast, the 1978 FIFA World Cup in Argentina illustrated the broad limits of sporting neutrality, as the tournament was organised without any consequences for the associations despite the political conditions under the military dictatorship.
In the 1990s, sanctions were imposed against Yugoslavia as a result of the wars in the Balkans. Russia's exclusion from international football competitions since 2022 ties in with this and has once again intensified the discussion about the prerequisites, scope and political implications of sanctions imposed by associations.
These lines of conflict are deepening with regard to the World Cup 2026 in the USA, Mexico and Canada. Calls for individual countries to be excluded, debates about selective forms of participation and occasionally articulated threats of boycotts not only raise questions of sports policy, but also substantial legal questions, particularly with regard to jurisdiction, equal treatment and the proportionality of measures under association law. Even in the run-up to the tournament, potential for conflict is already emerging that will make the 2026 World Cup a legal test for the autonomy and neutrality of world football.
Changing measures: From a total boycott to banning state symbols
A historical analysis shows an overall change in the measures used. Whereas in the 1970s and 1980s total state boycotts were the dominant means of exerting political influence, international sports organisations today are increasingly resorting to differentiated measures within the sports system. These include expulsions from associations, suspensions of individual associations or athletes and models of neutral participation excluding state symbols.
This development illustrates the endeavours of the parties involved to combine distancing from politics with maintaining the sporting competition and at the same time shifts the venue for political conflicts into the control of association law, which is subject to legal oversight.
The legal framework of international sports organisations
Against this background, the question arises as to the legal framework within which international sports organisations address and handle political conflicts.
Autonomy of sport and political neutrality
The self-conception of international sports organisations such as the IOC and FIFA is based on the claim of political neutrality, which is enshrined in statutes, codes of ethics and programmatic guidelines and is considered a key component of the autonomy of sport. At the same time, these organisations are increasingly confronted with the expectation that they not stand idly by in the face of serious political conflicts and human rights problems.
This results in a structural tension: On the one hand, sport is not meant to become a tool for furthering state interests; on the other hand, associations are required not to tolerate blatant violations of international law or systematic discrimination without consequences.
Basis for sanctions under association law
In legal terms, sanctions imposed by international sports organisations are based on their statutes. The member associations are subject to certain obligations, such as maintaining their institutional independence from the state, complying with minimum safety requirements and promoting the association's objectives as set out in the respective statutes, e.g. to combat doping. Violations of these obligations can be penalised with various measures up to and including the expulsion of a member from the association.
The primary responsibility for reviewing the legality of such measures lies with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which examines in particular whether they have a sound legal basis and whether the legal requirements for the respective measure are met. Against this background, the focus is less on the political assessment of individual conflict situations and more on the question of how political influence is legally manifested in sport and how these manifestations are to be assessed under association law.
Typology of politically motivated measures in sport
The different forms of response to political conflict situations in international sport can be categorised typologically depending on whether they start outside the sport system or are embedded within the legal structures of associations.
State boycotts
State boycotts are political measures that are decided outside the legal statutes of sport. They primarily restrict the state actors themselves but not the international sports organisations or their competition structures. Their de facto effect is limited as a rule to individual states refusing to participate; the competition as such meanwhile remains intact. By contrast, decisions by associations have a direct binding effect within organised sport: If an association or team is suspended, it is structurally excluded from participating in the competition. It is precisely this institutional option at the association's disposal that gives sanctions under association law considerably greater enforcement power than purely political boycott decisions, which often are limited to symbolic signalling effects and primarily come at the expense of the athletes concerned.
Expulsions and suspensions by associations
Expulsions and suspensions by associations are measures under association law with a considerable de facto political effect. They are subject to legal review, particularly with regard to proportionality and equal treatment, but at the same time they are increasingly shifting responsibility for political positioning to the sports organisations themselves.
Selective participation and neutral flag models
In recent years, models that allow individual athletes to participate selectively under a neutral flag have become established as a compromise response. State symbols – whether it be the flag, anthem, national emblems, etc. – are banned, while individuals are still permitted to participate in sport under certain conditions. The basis for this is, among other things, the decision of the IOC Executive Board published in the press release of 25 January 2023 to allow Russian and Belarusian individual athletes to participate in the Paris 2024 Olympic Games under strict neutrality conditions, provided that they neither actively support the war against Ukraine nor are contractually bound to military or security bodies. However, this concept is structurally geared to individual sports. It does not apply to team sports in practice, as participation is typically organised via national associations and a "neutral team" without an association affiliation is virtually impossible to organise.
With football, the legal situation is more clearly defined: FIFA and UEFA suspended all Russian football associations from all international competitions on 28 February 2022. This was based on decisions adopted by the Bureau of the FIFA Council and the Executive Committee of UEFA in connection with the Russian attack on Ukraine (FIFA/UEFA Joint Statement, 28 February 2022). The CAS confirmed this suspension in summary proceedings (CAS 2022/A/8708 and others). Russia is therefore excluded from qualifying for and participating in the FIFA World Cup 2026.
Belarus, however, was not suspended by FIFA. The Belarusian national team was therefore still allowed to take part in the qualifying competition, but only under considerable restrictions. In particular, it was not allowed to play home matches on its own territory; these matches had to take place on neutral ground instead. In addition, matches with formal home rights for Belarus were played behind closed doors. (FIFA/UEFA decisions 2022). However, Belarus did not qualify to take part in the FIFA World Cup 2026 and is therefore not taking part in the tournament for sporting reasons only.
Legal justification patterns and their limits
Associations typically justify expelling entire nations from sporting competitions for violations of the statutes of the organising associations. If nations only allow athletes of a certain skin colour to take part in competitions or engage in systematic doping, this directly affects the integrity of the competition and the expulsion follows directly from the association's statutes. This also applies to the exclusion of the Republic of the Congo and Pakistan from the FIFA World Cup 2026 (which has since been cancelled): FIFA had suspended the Congolese Football Federation (FECOFOOT) due to a "particularly serious situation of undue interference by third parties" in its affairs. The Pakistan Football Federation (PFF) was suspended after it failed to adopt a revised constitution that would ensure "truly fair and democratic elections".
Occasionally, safety and organisational arguments are also put forward, as the organising association and the host nation are of course required to ensure that participants and spectators are protected.
The third reason for exclusion, and the most controversial to be discussed, is the violation of human rights and armed conflicts. Unlike in the case of a specific violation of the association's statutes or a danger to athletes or spectators, there is a lack of clear and uniform standards in this respect. By the end of September 2025, 89 wars and warlike conflicts were registered worldwide (35 wars, 54 limited wars), an increase of 11 compared to the previous year. The only team to be excluded from all FIFA competitions in 2022 due to armed conflicts – specifically the Russian invasion of Ukraine – was the Russian team, which remains banned from the FIFA World Cup 2026. In February 2022, the German Olympic Sports Confederation (DOSB) also spoke out in favour of completely excluding Russia and Belarus from international sport. In contrast, the IOC allows Russian and Belarusian athletes to participate under a neutral flag and is now in favour of allowing Russia and Belarus to participate in youth competitions again without restrictions and under their own flag.
Structural challenges and recurring points of criticism
Against the backdrop of increasing conflicts worldwide, the global decline in freedom of expression and democracy and the increasing disregard for international law in the East and West, the question arises as to how selective sanctions against a few nations or their sports associations fit in with the statements regularly made by international sports associations that sport is apolitical and should foster international understanding.
Consistency and equal treatment
In principle, it seems consistent and appropriate for drastic breaches of the rules of international sports associations by national sports associations to lead to a national association being excluded from an international sporting event. For example, there is every reason to exclude national sports associations from international sports events that refuse to allow athletes to participate because of their skin colour or that tolerate or even promote systematic doping among their athletes. What constitutes a violation of the rules and what does not is also subject to judicial scrutiny, in particular by the CAS, meaning that appropriate mechanisms exist to prevent arbitrary punishment. None of this applies to purely politically motivated decisions.
Collective effect of sporting sanctions
We should also not lose sight of the fact that the primary participants in international sporting events are people – athletes – and not nations. Even if these athletes compete under the flag of their country and thus represent it, that does not necessarily mean that they approve of their country's policies or can even be held responsible for their country's actions. As a rule, they have not chosen the country they are representing; they were simply born there. As a result, it is usually innocent people who are affected by the exclusion of entire nations from international sporting events. This is another reason why such an exclusion should be carefully examined and justified.
Outlook: The World Cup 2026 as a test case
The FIFA World Cup 2026 is a special case in several respects. It is being held in three countries – Mexico, the USA and Canada – between which there are also currently considerable political tensions. The USA has imposed travel bans on 39 countries, including 4 countries that qualified for the World Cup and whose fans are now unable to travel to their matches in the USA. However, the athletes themselves are not affected by the travel bans, so this is not a case of exclusion from the tournament.
FIFA, which is interested in maintaining good relations with the USA for many reasons and recently awarded President Trump a peace prize created especially for him, apparently has no intention of doing anything about this violation of its rules or even criticising them. In contrast, a debate has flared up in Germany and Europe about possibly boycotting the World Cup. Ultimately, however, it can be assumed that such a boycott will not take place and that people are coming to realise that boycotting sporting events is just as futile a political act as excluding nations from sporting events. The boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow by no less than 65 nations, including the USA, West Germany and Japan, in response to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan did not change the world, nor did the tit-for-tat response by the USSR and the Eastern Bloc, which boycotted the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles.
Major sporting events remain an arena for political conflicts, but cannot resolve them
Political boycotts and sporting bans will remain a constant element of international sport in the future. The past few decades have shown that major sporting events cannot escape geopolitical reality and repeatedly become an arena for political conflicts. At the same time, it is becoming clear that neither boycotts nor exclusions are capable of resolving complex political conflicts in the long term.
International sport is therefore permanently caught between the claim of sporting autonomy, the legal obligations in its statutes and the expectations of a politicised public. This tension forces sports organisations to make decisions that have to be legally viable, politically sensitive and at the same time compatible with sport's self-conception.
In the run-up to upcoming major events – not least the FIFA World Cup 2026 – key questions remain unanswered: What standards can or must sports organisations use to respond to political conflicts? How can equal treatment be guaranteed without overlooking the specifics of individual conflict situations? And to what extent can or should sport take responsibility for developments that lie outside its actual sphere of influence?
Attempts to tackle these questions will therefore continue to surround international sport even beyond the 2026 World Cup and form the starting point for the other articles in this blog series.
