Four years after the swift expulsion of Russian athletes following the invasion of Ukraine, international sports organizations are demonstrating markedly different responses to recent U.S.-led military actions against Iran, sparking allegations of geopolitical bias and institutional hypocrisy.
The parallel timing of both conflicts—occurring between Winter Olympics and subsequent Paralympics, and ahead of summer World Cup tournaments—highlights the inconsistent approaches of FIFA and the International Olympic Committee. While Russia faced comprehensive bans within four days of its 2022 invasion, current responses to the Iran conflict have been limited to safety assurances for Paralympic athletes.
Sports governance experts identify multiple factors driving this discrepancy. Simon Chadwick, sports geopolitics specialist at EMLyon Business School, notes that despite similar competitive circumstances, no discussions have emerged regarding American exclusion from international competitions. The United States, as co-host of the upcoming World Cup and host of the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, occupies a position of significant institutional power.
French academic Pim Verschuuren characterizes the current approach as ‘blatant avoidance,’ explaining that political realities force pragmatism. ‘In 2022, political pressure was so intense that the IOC was forced to exclude the Russians,’ Verschuuren told AFP. ‘Today it can’t afford to single out and antagonize the United States.’
The analysis reveals structural power imbalances within global sports governance. Verschuuren notes that sport is effectively ‘in the hands of the United States, with funding from its Gulf allies,’ creating inherent constraints on impartial decision-making. This power dynamic is exemplified by FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s cultivation of close U.S. relations, including creating a special ‘FIFA Peace Prize’ for Donald Trump—a move described by sources close to football governance as ‘beyond ridiculous’ but strategically rational.
Geopolitical considerations extend to affected nations’ global standing. Iran, despite qualifying for the World Cup, remains the world’s second-most sanctioned country and possesses limited sporting influence. Unlike Russia’s powerful athletic allies, Iran receives minimal support from China and Russia, the latter still navigating its own reinstatement challenges.
The situation reflects broader collapses in multilateralism, with sports organizations mirroring the failures of international diplomatic bodies. As Verschuuren concludes, ‘The very idea of multilateralism is collapsing, and sport is one dimension of this collapse.’