Ethics CasesSport

Cases · FIFA / UEFA · 2022–2023

Suspended Until Further Notice: FIFA, UEFA and Russia's Exclusion From Football

On 27 February 2022, three days after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, FIFA ordered Russia to play as the 'Football Union of Russia' at neutral venues without flag or anthem. Poland, Sweden and the Czech Republic refused to play them anyway. The next day, FIFA and UEFA suspended all Russian national and club teams 'until further notice'. In July 2022 the Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld the bans while calling their effect on blameless players 'unfortunate'. In 2023 UEFA tried to readmit under-17 teams, then withdrew the plan after about a dozen associations refused to play. The case asks whether collective suspension is fair, and who should decide.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. Russia launches its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
  2. Poland, Sweden and the Czech Republic say they will not play Russia; England announces a boycott.
  3. The FIFA Council Bureau imposes neutral venues, the name 'Football Union of Russia' and no flag or anthem.
  4. FIFA and UEFA suspend all Russian teams from their competitions until further notice.
  5. UEFA Circular 21 sets out the consequences of the suspension for Russian clubs.
  6. CAS dismisses six appeals by the Football Union of Russia and four clubs.
  7. UEFA announces it will readmit Russian under-17 teams.
  8. Ukraine, England and Poland say they will not play them.
  9. UEFA withdraws the plan, citing no 'technical solution'.

The ethical issues

  • Collective punishment of individuals.
  • Sport's neutrality versus moral solidarity.
  • Governing bodies following member boycotts.
  • Children and youth sanctions.
  • Consistency across conflicts.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
Russian players and clubsAccess to competition and careers.
Ukrainian football and peopleSolidarity and isolation of the aggressor's representatives.
Opponent associationsNot being forced to play against Russia.
FIFA and UEFAOrderly competitions and their legitimacy.
Russian youth playersDevelopment opportunities.
CASApplying statutes consistently.

The case

Background

Sport’s governing bodies have long claimed political neutrality. But Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 came weeks before Russia was due to play Poland in a World Cup qualifying play-off semi-final on 24 March. The winner would face the Czech Republic or Sweden for a place in Qatar [4]. All three opponents said publicly that they would not play Russia [1][4]. England’s Football Association said it would not play Russia “in any international fixtures for the foreseeable future,” at “any level of senior, age group or para football” [4].

What happened

On 27 February 2022, the Bureau of the FIFA Council, which comprises the FIFA president and the six confederation presidents, condemned “the use of force by Russia in its invasion of Ukraine.” It took “immediate first measures,” in line with International Olympic Committee recommendations [1]:

  • No international competition would be played on Russian territory; “home” matches would be played on neutral ground without spectators.
  • Russia would compete as the “Football Union of Russia (RFU),” not “Russia.”
  • No Russian flag or anthem would be used.

FIFA said it would consider “a potential exclusion from competitions” should the situation not improve rapidly [1].

The opponents were not satisfied. Polish FA president Cezary Kulesza wrote: “FIFA’s decision today is unacceptable to us. In the situation of war in Ukraine, we are not interested in the game of appearances.” The Polish team, he said, would not play Russia “regardless of the name of the Russian team” [4]. The Indian Express noted that if the three countries withdrew, Russia could have been handed a path to the World Cup itself [4].

The next day, 28 February, FIFA and UEFA jointly announced “that all Russian teams, whether national representative teams or club teams, shall be suspended from participation in both FIFA and UEFA competitions until further notice.” The decisions were taken by the FIFA Bureau and the UEFA Executive Committee, “the highest decision-making bodies of both institutions on such urgent matters.” “Football is fully united here and in full solidarity with all the people affected in Ukraine,” the statement said [2]. The suspension removed Russia from the World Cup play-offs and Spartak Moscow from the Europa League. UEFA also ended its sponsorship with Gazprom, the state-owned energy company [4]. UEFA also took the 2022 Champions League final away from St Petersburg and the 2023 Super Cup away from Kazan [6].

The rules and governance

The Football Union of Russia appealed both decisions to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Zenit, Sochi, CSKA Moscow and Dynamo Moscow challenged UEFA’s Circular 21 of 2 May 2022, which set out the consequences for Russian clubs. The panel heard all six appeals together and dismissed them on 15 July 2022 [3]. It found that the conflict and “the public and government responses worldwide, created unforeseen and unprecedented circumstances to which FIFA and UEFA had to respond.” In deciding that Russian teams should not take part “while such circumstances persisted,” both bodies had “acted within the scope of the discretion granted to them under their respective statutes and regulations.” The panel found it unnecessary to characterise the conflict itself [3]. It added:

“The Panel finds it unfortunate that the current military operations in Ukraine, for which Russian football teams, clubs, and players have themselves no responsibility, had, by reason of the decisions of FIFA and UEFA, such an adverse effect on them and Russian football generally, but those effects were, in the Panel’s view, offset by the need for the secure and orderly conduct of football events for the rest of the world” [3].

Aftermath

On 26 September 2023, UEFA said that “children should not be punished for actions whose responsibility lies exclusively with adults” and that Russian under-17 teams would be readmitted during that season [5]. The Ukrainian Association of Football “strongly condemns” the decision and said it would not take part in any competition including Russian teams. It urged others to boycott too [5]. England and Poland said their youth teams would not play Russia [5]. About a dozen associations publicly opposed the plan [6].

On 10 October 2023, UEFA withdrew it. “No technical solution to allow Russian teams to play could be found,” a spokesperson said [6]. FA chair Debbie Hewitt said England would not play Russia “in any category age group as long as there is a war.” Ukraine’s federation said, “Russian football remains isolated, that is where it belongs” [6].

The core dilemma

Is it fair to exclude every Russian team, including club sides and children, for a war that its players did not choose? Or is collective exclusion a legitimate, even necessary, response by sport to an invasion?

Competing values

  • Individual responsibility: players are not the state [3].
  • Solidarity: sport should not normalize an aggressor [2][5].
  • Orderly competition: opponents would not play, and safety was at issue [3][4].
  • Due process: sanctions should rest on rules, not public pressure.
  • Protection of children: youth players have the least agency [5].

Strongest arguments

For the suspension: a national team represents the nation, and in a team sport there is no neutral way to field “Russia” under another name, as FIFA’s first measures showed [1][4]. Opponents refused to play, so competitions could not run fairly [4]. CAS held that FIFA and UEFA acted within their statutes [3].

Against it: the bans punish people for acts they did not commit, as CAS itself acknowledged [3]. The governing bodies moved from neutral status to full suspension in a day, under pressure from members, which looks reactive rather than principled [1][2]. UEFA’s under-17 reversal was presented as technical, but it followed the boycott threats [5][6]. And sport has not applied the same standard to every state engaged in armed conflict, which invites charges of selectivity.

Applying the frameworks

Justice

Retributive justice targets wrongdoers. Collective suspension instead distributes the burden to people who did nothing wrong. Justice may still permit it if the goal is to protect the integrity of competition rather than to punish.

Rights

Russian players’ right to work and compete conflicts with Ukrainian players’ interests, and with the freedom of association of opponents who refuse to play. Children’s rights to development weigh especially heavily.

Utilitarian

The bans signalled international condemnation and kept competitions running without forfeits [2][4]. Against that are the harms to Russian players and youth, and the risk that sport becomes a tool of foreign policy.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. Identify the problem: whether, and how, to allow a nation that has invaded its neighbour to compete.
  2. Gather the facts: opponents’ positions, security, statutes and precedents.
  3. Identify the stakeholders: Russian and Ukrainian players, opponents, fans, clubs and the governing bodies.
  4. Consider the options: neutral status, neutral venues, suspension of national teams only, or full suspension.
  5. Apply values and frameworks: individual responsibility, solidarity, order and consistency.
  6. Decide and review: set criteria for review and for return, and apply them consistently.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled: FIFA and UEFA suspended all Russian teams on 28 February 2022, and CAS upheld the suspension [2][3]. UEFA withdrew its 2023 youth readmission plan [6].

Contested: whether collective exclusion is fair, whether youth teams should be treated differently, and what should trigger a return.

Why this case matters

Team sports cannot field neutral athletes the way individual sports can. Compare Neutral Athletes at Paris 2024: Russia, Belarus and Collective Responsibility, Russian State-Sponsored Doping and the WADA Response and Chaos at the Stade de France: Blaming Fans for the 2022 Champions League Final.

Key terms

Due process
Fair procedures before a sanction: notice, a chance to respond, an impartial decision-maker and a right of appeal.
Multiple points of view
Analyzing a dilemma from each stakeholder’s position in turn (athlete, parent, coach, administrator, official, bystander) before reaching your own reasoned view.
Institutional accountability
Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.
Stakeholders
Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.
Crisis ethics
The obligations that apply when an organization is under pressure: honesty, timeliness, accountability and care for those harmed.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Was the shift from neutral status to suspension within a day principled or reactive?
  2. Should children's teams be treated differently?
  3. Was CAS right that safety and order outweighed the harm to blameless players?
  4. Should associations be free to refuse fixtures?
  5. What conditions should govern Russia's return?

Sources

  1. Bureau of the FIFA Council takes initial measures with regard to war in Ukraine — FIFA
  2. FIFA/UEFA suspend Russian clubs and national teams from all competitions — FIFA
  3. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) dismisses the appeals filed by the Football Union of Russia (FUR), FC Zenit, FC Sochi, PFC CSKA Moscow & FC Dynamo Moscow — Court of Arbitration for Sport
  4. Explained: FIFA's U-turn and how Russia's suspension impacts the Qatar World Cup — The Indian Express
  5. Ukraine urges Uefa to reconsider Russia decision and will boycott tournaments — The Guardian
  6. Uefa backs out of decision to readmit Russia U17s — BBC Sport