The International Olympic Committee (IOC) banned Russia and Belarus from competing as national delegations at the 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo, Italy. The IOC made this decision after Russia recently invaded Ukraine and Belarus’ support of the invasion, both violating the Olympic Truce. This is not the first time the IOC banned countries from competing. 

The IOC aims to bolster human rights conservation efforts and, as a result of that, countries that do not uphold this are punished. But should the Olympics be allowed to ban countries in the first place? Should politics and sports have any relationship at all?

The Olympics should not have the authority to ban countries from competing, as doing so punishes athletes for the political decisions of their government and undermines the very principles of unity and fair competition that the Games were founded upon.

These efforts are not new to participants or the IOC. The committee first began banning countries in 1920, when the boiling controversy following World War I prevented Austria, Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria and Turkey from participating in the 1920 Antwerp Olympic Games. Later, Germany’s Olympic ban was extended to 1924 in the Paris Olympic Games, accompanying the still-fresh resentment toward the country surrounding its role in World War I. After World War II, Germany was banned once again, along with Japan, from the 1948 London Olympic Games. Each ban resulted from strong abhorrence of hostility, aiming to prevent violence and attacks on “world peace.”

The pursuit of personal achievement and showcasing individual athleticism is polarizing with the strong nationalistic approach to the Olympics by countries. Regarding the 2026 Winter Olympic Games, many American athletes felt a sense of disconnect from their country, especially with the ongoing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) controversy following President Donald Trump’s immigration policies.

For example, Christopher Lilis, an American freestyle skater and two-time Olympic gold medalist, expressed his frustrations with the ICE operations. Lilis represents one case of the general disconnect felt with the United States and the desire of current U.S. athletes to pertain to self-representation rather than just representing the country. Feeling “heartbroken” and deeply concerned with the political state of the United States, he hopes that American athletes represent the America that pursues freedom and equality, rather than its current pursuits. For Lilis, coming to the Olympics was a matter of representing himself, his family and past freestyle skaters rather than solely the country. 

Although the Olympics has long propped itself up as an exhibition of national pride, much of the global tension as of right now has changed these ideals. Many athletes prefer individual representation, focusing on promoting their sport itself and showcasing their own athletic prowess instead.

Is individualism more important than nationalism? Should performance rights be taken away from individuals who have little association with their country’s crimes, but are forced to take responsibility? 

The IOC sees each athlete as a personification of their country’s principles and actions instead of as their contributions to their sport. Rather than stripping them of the opportunity to display their athletic achievement on a global stage, athletes should be separated from their country. Inherently, sports should not be a platform for politics at any capacity.

However, due to the representation and influence that each of these athletes holds, the Olympics forces a stage for political competition. Structured around national representation, the Olympics is intrinsically political due to its strong nationalistic influences. From the array of national anthems to the showcasing of an abundance of different flags, the projection of nationalism is such an important and clear aspect of the Olympics. Additionally, host countries infamously rebrand themselves in a way that “washes away” controversy.

Gaining prominence around 2015, the term “sportswashing” was created to criticize Azerbaijan’s wrongful use of the Olympics as a means of improving its reputation regarding human rights. Thus, the IOC will never shake its political ties and therefore, as much as these athletes try to represent themselves even when under their country, the reputation held by each country will forever determine their participation.

Finding loopholes around the IOC’s policies is something that countries discovered in order to escape this country-banning consequence. Unfortunately, as much as countries should not have to be banned for their political states with their athletes having to suffer from their own country’s affairs, the IOC will likely continue to uphold these standards and possibly tighten their regulations on participation to protect the reputation of the Olympics of a humane and fair competition. If the IOC’s true intent is to protect human rights while also representing each of the participating athletes, then the IOC should veer away from political scrutiny of athletes based on their country, and more on who they are individually along with their qualifications. At the end of the day, the Olympics is a field for skills-based competition.

This approach contradicts the very mission of the Olympics. By excluding nations, the IOC reinforces political division rather than healing it. The Games were founded on the idea of unity through sport — a place where competitors could set aside conflict to celebrate shared human achievement. Punishing athletes for their governments’ wrongdoings only deepens resentment and erases opportunities for diplomacy, understanding and peace. If the IOC truly wishes to promote human rights and global cooperation, it must focus on inclusion, not exclusion, and allow athletes to represent the best of humanity, even when their countries fall short.