Neutral Athletes at Paris 2024: Russia, Belarus and Collective Responsibility

Timeline

1. Feb 24, 2022Russia launches a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
2. Feb 28, 2022The IOC Executive Board recommends that Russian and Belarusian athletes and officials not be invited to international competitions.
3. Jan 25, 2023The IOC says it will explore a pathway for athletes with Russian or Belarusian passports to compete as neutrals.
4. Mar 28, 2023The IOC recommends conditions to federations: individual athletes only, no active support for the war, no military or security agency contracts.
5. Oct 12, 2023The IOC suspends the Russian Olympic Committee for incorporating sports bodies from occupied Ukrainian regions.
6. Dec 8, 2023The IOC confirms AIN eligibility for Paris 2024 under strict conditions.
7. Mar 19, 2024The IOC says AIN will not march in the opening ceremony parade.
8. Jul–Aug 202432 AIN compete in Paris; Belarusian trampolinist Ivan Litvinovich wins the delegation's only gold.

The ethical issues

• Collective responsibility: whether athletes should be excluded for their governments' acts.
• Non-discrimination and the Olympic Charter's political neutrality.
• Vetting: whether a review panel can reliably judge an athlete's support for a war.
• Solidarity with victims: Ukrainian athletes' safety, dignity and willingness to compete.
• Consistency: why sanctions applied here and not in other conflicts.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Russian and Belarusian athletes	Careers and the right to compete without answering for their governments.
Ukrainian athletes	Safety, solidarity, and not competing against those who support the war.
IOC and international federations	Political neutrality, universality, and credibility.
Host country and organizers	Security and diplomatic pressure.
Governments	Using sport as a lever of sanctions or propaganda.
Other athletes	Fair qualification and the competitive field.

The case

The Olympic Charter commits the movement to political neutrality and to non-discrimination, including on the basis of nationality. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, tested those commitments. The invasion came days after the Beijing Winter Olympics, during the period of the UN-endorsed Olympic Truce.^[1] On February 28, 2022, the IOC Executive Board recommended that international federations and event organizers not invite or allow Russian and Belarusian athletes and officials.^[2]

Background

The path to Paris moved in steps. On January 25, 2023, the IOC said Russian and Belarusian athletes could compete as neutrals if they did not “actively” support the war, and if Russian and Belarusian flags, anthems, colors and names were barred. That ruled out the designations Russia had used in 2018, 2020 and 2022.^[1] On March 28, 2023, it introduced the AIN name and limited participation to individuals.^[1] A Polish proposal to admit only dissidents was not acted on.^[1]

Doping sanctions overlapped with the war sanctions. On September 22, 2023, WADA again barred the Russian flag and anthem from international events because of RUSADA’s non-compliance.^[1] Unlike earlier neutral athletes, AIN were not allowed to use the Olympic flag or anthem. On March 19, 2024, the IOC published a teal AIN flag and an instrumental anthem “produced solely for this purpose.”^[1]

The rules and governance

The IOC’s recommendations extended to other organizers. For events run by international federations, it recommended using no flag at all, or the event’s or federation’s flag, or the letters “AIN,” along with the event’s or federation’s anthem.^[1] The Paralympic movement acted separately, and Russian and Belarusian athletes were banned from the 2022 Winter Paralympics.^[1]

Russia’s government also shaped participation. In June 2024, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Chernyshenko said athletes would not break Russian law by competing as neutrals and encouraged them to go. Even so, on July 6, 2024, Russia’s wrestling federation announced that its invited wrestlers had unanimously decided not to compete, after most of its top contenders were ruled ineligible.^[1] The open letter from Ukrainian athletes, dated December 29, 2023, said three of the six Russians cleared at that point had actively supported the war, for example by appearing at a pro-war rally or in a propaganda video.^[1]

Building a pathway

In 2023, the IOC began to move away from blanket exclusion. In March it recommended conditions under which federations could admit athletes with Russian or Belarusian passports. They would compete only as individuals, not in teams. They could have no flag, anthem or national colors. They could not have actively supported the war. And they could not be contracted to the military or national security agencies.^[3] In October 2023 the IOC suspended the Russian Olympic Committee after it incorporated sports councils from occupied Ukrainian regions, which the IOC said violated Ukraine’s territorial integrity under the Charter.^[4]

In December 2023 the IOC confirmed that Individual Neutral Athletes (AIN, from the French athlètes individuels neutres) could compete at Paris 2024. Each athlete had to qualify through normal sporting routes, be cleared by their international federation, and then be cleared again by an IOC review panel.^[5][6] AIN would not march in the opening ceremony parade, would compete under a specially designed flag and anthem, and would not appear in the medal table.^[1][7]

Paris 2024

Thirty-two AIN took part: 15 from Russia and 17 from Belarus.^[1][8] Some sports, such as athletics, kept Russian athletes out entirely, and Russia’s wrestling federation declined invitations.^[1] The Russian contingent won one silver medal, compared with 71 medals won by Russian athletes at Tokyo 2020, where they competed as the “ROC” because of earlier doping sanctions. Belarusian trampolinist Ivan Litvinovich won the delegation’s only gold.^[1] The AP reported that the Russian neutrals were politically isolated and largely ignored at home.^[8]

Criticism from both sides

Ukrainian officials said the IOC should have kept Russia out entirely, given repeated breaches of the Olympic Truce. They also said the vetting was ineffective. An open letter from 261 Ukrainian athletes presented evidence that some cleared athletes had attended pro-war events or appeared in pro-military content.^[1] Others argued that the conditions treated athletes as proxies for their state in ways the IOC had not done in other conflicts. The Russian Olympic Committee called the rules discriminatory, and its president warned Russian athletes about the “personal responsibility” of competing as neutrals.^[1]

Coverage at home

The main Russian and Belarusian broadcasters did not air the Games, apart from brief news summaries. According to the AP, viewers relied on channels from neighboring countries such as Kazakhstan.^[1] The IOC also donated $5 million to Ukraine’s National Olympic Committee.^[1] Critics such as the head of the Palestine Olympic Committee accused the IOC of “double standards,” arguing that Israeli athletes should face the same treatment.^[1]

Aftermath

The Paralympic movement moved first after Paris. At its General Assembly in Seoul on September 27, 2025, the International Paralympic Committee’s members voted on the national Paralympic committees of Russia and Belarus, which had been partially suspended in 2023 “for breaches of their constitutional membership obligations.” Members rejected a motion to fully suspend Russia’s committee by 111 votes to 55, with 11 abstentions, and then rejected a motion to keep its partial suspension by 91 to 77, with 8 abstentions. Motions to fully or partially suspend Belarus’s committee failed by 119 to 48 and 103 to 63. Both committees regained “their full rights and privileges of IPC membership.”^[9]

The IOC kept its neutral-athlete model for the Milano Cortina Winter Games in February 2026. Thirteen Russians and seven Belarusians competed as neutrals after a panel vetted them for public support of the war and for links to state security or military agencies. Russian teams remained excluded, so the country could not field a hockey team.^[10] In December 2025 the IOC Executive Board recommended that youth athletes from Russia and Belarus no longer be restricted in international youth competition, and that their flag and anthem could be used where the national body was in good standing. It said other sanctions, including bans on inviting Russian government officials, should remain.^[10] During the Games, a spokesperson for Russia’s foreign ministry said about 70 international federations had already authorized Russian athletes to compete, and that Russia was looking for the suspended Russian Olympic Committee to be reinstated.^[10]

The core dilemma

When a state wages an aggressive war, should its athletes be excluded from international competition, admitted as individuals, or admitted on condition that they distance themselves from the war? And who is competent to judge an athlete’s political conduct?

Competing values

• Individual rights vs. collective sanctions: athletes did not start the war, but their success can serve state propaganda.
• Political neutrality vs. moral solidarity: the IOC’s claim to stay above politics against solidarity with an invaded country.
• Universality vs. safety and dignity: including everyone against protecting Ukrainian athletes from competing against war supporters.
• Consistency vs. responsiveness: acting forcefully here raises questions about other conflicts.

Strongest arguments

For the AIN model: it punishes the state, by removing its flag, anthem, team events and medal table presence, while respecting individuals who have not supported the war. It preserves the principle that athletes are not held responsible for their governments.

Against it: in an authoritarian state, athletes’ careers depend on state institutions, often including the military, so “neutrality” is hard to verify. Any participation offers the aggressor a platform, and Ukrainian athletes bear the burden of competing against representatives of the country attacking theirs.

Applying the frameworks

Justice

A justice lens asks whether athletes should bear consequences for their government’s war, and whether individual vetting is a fair compromise between collective responsibility and individual desert. It also attends to Ukrainian athletes, whose training and lives the war disrupted.

Rights

A rights lens balances the Olympic Charter’s ban on nationality-based discrimination against the rights of Ukrainian athletes and the principle of the Olympic Truce. It also asks whether vetting athletes’ political views and social media respects freedom of expression and due process.

Utilitarian

A utilitarian lens weighs the symbolic and practical effects of exclusion, such as pressure on governments, against the costs to individual athletes and the risk of politicizing sport. It also considers effects on Ukrainian participation and morale.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You are a member of the IOC’s eligibility review panel considering a Russian athlete who has qualified on merit. The stakeholders include the athlete, Ukrainian athletes, other competitors, federations, the IOC and fans. The codes in play are the Olympic Charter, the AIN conditions and federation rules.
2. Gather facts. Is the athlete contracted to the military or security agencies? What public statements, social media posts or event appearances are on record? How reliable is the evidence?
3. Test options. Options: (a) clear the athlete; (b) refuse clearance; (c) ask for more information and a hearing. Weigh fairness to the individual against the integrity of the conditions.
4. Check codes and law. Would your decision withstand scrutiny if new evidence emerged? Are you applying the same standard to every athlete?
5. Decide and document. Record the evidence and the reasons for your decision.
6. Communicate and follow up. Communicate the outcome to the athlete with reasons and a route to appeal, and publish the criteria used.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: the IOC decisions and conditions; the suspension of the Russian Olympic Committee; the number of AIN at Paris and their results.
• Contested: whether vetting was effective; whether a full ban would have been fairer; how these principles should apply to other conflicts.

Why this case matters

The AIN framework is the most detailed attempt so far to separate individual athletes from state responsibility. Whatever one concludes, it gives future decision-makers a model to adopt, improve or reject.

Key terms

Distributive justice

Fairness in how scarce opportunities, resources, benefits and burdens are shared.

Agency

An athlete’s ability to make decisions and act independently about their body, career and voice.

Due process

Fair procedures before a sanction: notice, a chance to respond, an impartial decision-maker and a right of appeal.

Sportswashing

Using sport, through events, teams or sponsorship, to improve the reputation of a state or company and distract from wrongdoing.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Is it fair to exclude an athlete because of their government's actions? Does the answer change if the athlete is employed by the military?
2. Can a panel reliably determine whether an athlete has "actively supported" a war? What evidence should count?
3. Ukraine argued that any Russian presence at the Games served propaganda purposes. How should the IOC weigh that against individual athletes' rights?
4. The IOC suspended Russia's Olympic Committee for absorbing sports bodies from occupied Ukrainian regions. Should national federations bear the main sanctions instead of athletes?
5. What would a consistent rule for athletes from countries engaged in aggressive wars look like?

Sources

1. Individual Neutral Athletes at the 2024 Summer Olympics — Wikipedia
2. IOC EB recommends no participation of Russian and Belarusian athletes and officials — International Olympic Committee
3. IOC issues recommendations for International Federations and international sports event organisers — International Olympic Committee
4. IOC Executive Board suspends Russian Olympic Committee with immediate effect — International Olympic Committee
5. Strict eligibility conditions in place as IOC EB approves Individual Neutral Athletes for Paris 2024 — International Olympic Committee
6. Panel including Pau Gasol will decide Olympic eligibility for Russians — The Washington Post
7. Paris 2024 Olympics: Russia & Belarus athletes will not be part of opening ceremony — BBC Sport
8. The 15 Russian 'neutrals' at the Paris Olympics are politically isolated — Associated Press
9. IPC member organisations vote not to maintain NPC Belarus and NPC Russia's partial suspensions — International Paralympic Committee
10. Russia is still waging war in Ukraine, but door opening for more of its athletes to compete — CBC News