When Olympic competition and diplomacy collide

As the world eagerly anticipates the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris, the intersection of international politics and sport once again takes centre stage. The participation of so-called "rogue states” (or pariah states) in the Olympic Games has long been a contentious issue, with Russia's involvement being particularly controversial given its ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

Russia's troubled relations with the Olympics dates back to the 2014 Sochi Winter Games, where a state-sponsored doping program was uncovered. It was also around this time that Russia invaded and then annexed Crimea. The fallout from the doping scandal had far-reaching consequences, affecting the participation of Russian athletes in subsequent Olympic Games.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 added another layer of complexity to its Olympic participation. 

In 2016, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) allowed Russian athletes to compete in the Rio Olympics, but only if very strict conditions were met. Subsequently, the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang also saw strictly vetted Russian athletes compete under the neutral Olympic flag as "Olympic Athletes from Russia". For the 2021 Tokyo Olympics and the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, Russian athletes participated under the name "Russian Olympic Committee" (ROC).

However, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 added another layer of complexity to its Olympic participation. The international sporting community widely condemned the invasion, with the IOC recommending that athletes from Russia be banned from events. The world’s football governing bodies FIFA and UEFA were quick to follow suit, banning all Russian teams from competitions. However, the two organisations lifted the ban on Russian youth teams in October 2023. Dozens of other international sports federations have also severed their ties with Russia and banned its national teams from participating in international competitions.

As the Paris Olympics approach, the debate over Russian participation remains heated. On 15 June, the IOC approved 14 athletes from Russia with neutral status to compete at this year’s Games, but the extent of Russia’s participation remains unknown. Russian athletes will not be allowed to participate in the opening ceremony, while the Russian anthem is also barred, replaced with music commissioned by the IOC. Medals won by Russian athletes will not be included on any table.

Ukraine has threatened to boycott the Games if Russian athletes are allowed to participate, even under a neutral flag. This puts the IOC in a difficult position, balancing political pressures with its goal of promoting peace through sport.

While Russia's situation has dominated headlines, it's not the only nation facing Olympic restrictions.

North Korea has also had its fair share of Olympic troubles. After not participating in the Tokyo 2020 Olympics due to Covid-19 concerns, the IOC suspended the North Korean Olympic Committee until the end of 2022 for its unilateral decision to withdraw from the Games. But North Korea is set to return this summer in Paris, with 14 athletes cleared for participation as of June.

The isolated nation's participation in international sporting events has often been seen as a rare opportunity for diplomatic engagement. The 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea’s city of Pyeongchang, for example, set the foundation for a breakthrough in inter-Korean relations. The two Koreas also marched together in the opening ceremony of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, representing a historic moment of unity. With inter-Korean ties at a dangerous low point, however, this year’s Games are unlikely to bring North and South closer together.

The Olympic Charter promotes peace, solidarity, and fair play, emphasising that discrimination based on politics should have no place in the Olympic movement.

Besides Russia and North Korea, other states have also faced restrictions in participating in world sports events. Ever since the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan in 2021, there have been repeated calls for the country to be banned from participating in the Olympics due to the prohibition on women playing sport. The IOC stated earlier this month that a team consisting of three women and three men will be representing Afghanistan but that no Taliban officials will be allowed to attend the Games.

Iran has also faced scrutiny due to its policy prohibiting its athletes from competing against Israeli opponents. This has led to controversies in past sporting events, with Iranian athletes sometimes forfeiting matches to avoid facing Israeli competitors. There are also those calling for Iran to be banned from the Paris Olympics due to reported involvement in the Hamas attack against Israel last October, as well as in relation to its discriminatory policies against women and female athletes. Iran will, however, be participating in the Games this year, with 34 athletes having secured a spot so far.

There have also been calls for Israel to be barred from participating in this year’s Games. The president of the Palestinian Olympic Committee, protestors, certain groups, and other individuals around the world, and even some Israelis themselves have called for the country not to be allowed to take part in the Paris Olympics. There are also those who have strongly criticised the IOC for what they perceive to be double standards, banning Russia but allowing Israel to take part in the Olympics. Israel will also be participating in the Olympics this year, sending around 85 athletes – its second-largest Olympic delegation ever.

The controversy surrounding the participation of states with problematic political records in the Olympics highlights the tension between the Games' ideals and the complex realities of international politics. The Olympic Charter promotes peace, solidarity, and fair play, emphasising that discrimination based on politics should have no place in the Olympic movement. Others, however, argue that allowing such states to participate in the Games undermines the very values the Olympic movement aims to promote.

As the Paris 2024 Olympics approach, these debates are likely to intensify. Whatever the outcome, the 2024 Games will once again demonstrate the inextricable link between sport and global politics, challenging the notion of the Olympics as a purely athletic endeavour divorced from worldly concerns.

Hosting the Olympics does not come cheap. The cost of the upcoming Paris Games is estimated to be at least €9 billion (A$14.5 billion).

Against the cost proponents of the Olympics and other mass event games argue that hosting brings benefits in economic stimulus, much needed infrastructure, boosts to tourism, and soft power. The overall value of the Olympics depends on whether these benefits, some hard to measure, exceed the costs. The history of the Olympics suggests that the economics rarely stacks up. So this leaves soft power – the warm inner glow for the citizens of the host city, the diplomatic gains from positive perceptions of the country – as the balancing factor.

So how well have the Olympics done in adding value for their hosts?

One argument for hosting an Olympics is that it provides a fiscal stimulus for the host city. The long run from bid to event rules out the smoothing role that public spending can play in balancing out the business cycle. The value lies in the transport and other infrastructure that is built for the event having an economic return well into the future.

The Games bring a boost to tourism, but with the exception of the 1992 Barcelona Games, there is little evidence of a sustained rise in tourist numbers.

The investment in both the 1956 Melbourne and 2000 Sydney Olympics has had long term benefits from the infrastructure investment. Sydney, for example, used the event to redevelop degraded areas near the city. London also sought to use the 2012 Olympics to restore the fortunes of East London.

While these investments yield value, it is likely that their construction cost more as part of an Olympic build than would otherwise have been the case simply because Olympic timetables concentrate the demand for construction workers and supply. The event horizon also gives firms, and unions, greater leverage to push up prices, and large expensive projects offer greater scope for corruption. The 1976 Montreal Games was an illustrative example.

The value from purpose-built facilities, while great for their specific sports, is less clear. Facilities built for world scale events tend to be costly to maintain, and hard to fill with regular events. Similarly, the Games bring a boost to tourism, but with the exception of the 1992 Barcelona Games, there is little evidence of a sustained rise in tourist numbers. Hosting does tend to increase interest in sport, and the availability of some facilities has enabled sporting achievements on the global stage. Australia’s Fox family no doubt benefited from the 2000 Olympic white water canoe facility.

Olympics are hosted by cities, so the cost calculation for the city depends very much on how much funding they can leverage from higher levels of government, the private sector and recoup on ticket sales. The International Olympics Committee (IOC) owns the broadcast and marketing rights, but these are not a source of revenue for building the infrastructure. As governments at all levels face greater fiscal pressure, making the case for hosting very expensive sporting events is getting harder.

This problem was reflected in Australia last year when the Victorian state government cited rising costs in the decision withdraw from hosting the 2026 Commonwealth Games. Even with the IOC moderating its demands it is hard to make an economic case unless the Games mostly use existing infrastructure, as for the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics.

So what of the soft power argument? The Eastern European countries and Soviet Union boycotted the 1984 Los Angeles Games in retaliation for the US boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics. A total of 22 African countries earlier boycotted the Montreal Games after New Zealand was allowed to participate despite the All Black’s rugby team violating sport sanctions with a tour of South Africa.

As long as the world can bring together the best athletes from all nations, including from countries under heavy sanctions, to compete under agreed rules of engagement, there is hope.

While this spate of political boycotts has not been repeated, the Games provide an opportunity to pressure governments, such as on Indigenous rights for Sydney 2000 and the treatment of the Uighurs for 2008 Beijing. These protests tend to be forgotten during the Games, but, adding the disruption to locals, corruption scandals, and cost overruns, most Games bring more bad than good press for governments in the lead up. High level political attendance at the Games, however, does offer an opportunity to reopen dialogue between countries in a neutral setting. The 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympics was a case in point, with South Korea and North Korea using the event kick off another phase of diplomacy.

Despite questionable economics and mixed soft power impact, the idea of hosting the Olympics remains attractive to many city and country governments. Similarly, industry policies are politically attractive as they can be sold on bringing back “good” jobs and improving security. Just like the Olympics, governments should subject these policies to thorough scrutiny before they bid.

There is a final consideration that goes beyond the value to the host country, and perhaps points to why hosting the Olympics has value. As long as the world can bring together the best athletes from all nations, including from countries under heavy sanctions, to compete under agreed rules of engagement, there is hope. Hope that cooperation can extend to resolving differences through peaceful rather than military means. And hope that international organisations will be able to remake the rules to provide for ongoing and global cooperation.