Since last February 24 and the attack on Ukraine wanted by Vladimir Putin, athletes, clubs, (national) federations and fans around the world have never ceased to call for peace or even to take sanctions against any form of Russian representation.
It is clear that the position of the International Olympic Committee of February 28 marks a change in doctrine and will have allowed other sporting authorities to assume sporting sanctions against Russian sport (and athletes).
Find in this new JO-rama of the Observatory of Sport Business, the analysis of Armand de Rendinger, expert in the world of Olympism.
To discover
The 2022 Winter Olympics medal table
Full results of the 2022 Winter Olympics
Read alsoThese Ukrainian athletes who take up arms
Russian Head of State Vladimir Putin decided unilaterally and with the support of Belarus, on Thursday February 24, 2022, to invade Ukraine with his own armies and threaten the world with his nuclear forces. The Olympic truce imagined, on the occasion of the Beijing Olympics which were to be extended during March 2022 with the Paralympic Games, is therefore broken. What does this new event for the Olympic movement inspire in you?
The event of the Beijing Olympics in progress and their governance seem quite derisory in the current and future world situation.
By this decision, the world political order is shaken, the war, which one believed excluded in Europe since 1945, is again on our continent and, considering the attitude and the declarations of Putin, the risk of a conflict widespread nuclear power has never been so important.
Read alsoWar in Ukraine: Russian athletes who have become pariahs despite their opposition to the war
It is not Olympism that will save the world from possible chaos and the democracies that are attacked in their very foundations, even if the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is considered by the UN and UNESCO as an instrument useful for peace and education.
However, with the new context in which the world is brutally plunged today, it goes without saying that the Olympic movement has the opportunity to show that its existence, its raison d'être and the values it claims to embody are not no vague economic concepts actually masking a seriously controversial Olympic reality.
Despite this reality, I think that the sports and Olympic movement has major assets to make itself heard, to prove its usefulness and above all in the long term why not improve its image.
Without being naive and blissfully optimistic, one can think that Olympism could find new colors vis-à-vis both its fans and its opponents from a misfortune that is befalling Europe.
It still needs to “move” credibly and quickly.
Precisely in the face of this situation, is the sports and Olympic movement taking action and making itself heard?
The question is not to know which sports institution acts faster than another vis-à-vis Russia (the IOC, as usual, temporized at first with an ambiguous press release, then took over), but we are witnessing a real domino effect in the world of sport.
Rarely have we seen such a chain of reactions so fast, in terms of reprisals.
It ranges from the IOC banning Russians and their allies from all international competitions, to international sports federations banning their athletes and organizations from traveling to Russia, to clubs renouncing their sponsorship contracts, such as that of Gazprom, with Russian companies at
FIFA's exclusion of Russia from the next FIFA World Cup and the moving of the Champions League final from Saint Petersburg to Paris next May, and many athletes, including Russians, who no longer wish to take part in sporting events with representatives of Russia until seeing the forfeiture of the title of honorary president of the International Judo Federation granted in his time to Putin.
A real upheaval in the hushed universe of Olympism.
Will this make 'competitor' Putin flex?
Probably not, but what is certain it will have serious economic consequences for him and for the Olympic movement.
who no longer wish to participate in sporting events with representatives of Russia until they see the forfeiture of the title of honorary president of the International Judo Federation granted in his time to Putin.
A real upheaval in the hushed universe of Olympism.
Will this make 'competitor' Putin flex?
Probably not, but what is certain it will have serious economic consequences for him and for the Olympic movement.
who no longer wish to participate in sporting events with representatives of Russia until they see the forfeiture of the title of honorary president of the International Judo Federation granted in his time to Putin.
A real upheaval in the hushed universe of Olympism.
Will this make 'competitor' Putin flex?
Probably not, but what is certain it will have serious economic consequences for him and for the Olympic movement.
In this, the sporting world is participating in the vast movement of reprisals affecting all economic sectors with the aim of bringing Russia to its senses, of isolating Putin vis-à-vis the international community and of his own people who are victims of the measures which are and will be taken.
Will this be effective?
Faced with this situation, in the short term: a European Union seems to be forging itself in terms of its defense and the Western democracies condemn the Russian showdown.
But let's not deceive ourselves too much about this saving momentum, because many countries remain which for personal reasons are silent or for some support the Russian intervention.
Among these, the weight of the Chinese empire is not neutral and the recent agreement between Moscow and Beijing for the transportation and supply of gas is the perfect illustration of this.
Olympic truce or not, economic interests always take precedence over sporting morality.
In this context, what will the IOC do vis-à-vis Russia concerning its participation in the Paralympic Games which will
open in Beijing?
Will he approve of the International Paralympic Committee, much tougher than him on doping issues relating to Russian athletes, if it decides to sanction China for its support of Russians, athletes or not?
As for the answers to these questions, the future will tell us quickly, but what is certain is that this movement will not be without a future and will have short and medium-term consequences for the world of sport.
If all the boycotts that have been imagined and applied in the past on the occasion of the Olympic Games have not had the lasting effects hoped for for some, it is clear that the measures taken today are of a completely different scope.
This situation reminds me in part of the time when the sporting world showed progressive efficiency and unity with regard to apartheid and consequently to South Africa.
It is clear that the firmness of the IOC, prohibiting the latter from participating in the Olympic events until it had renounced the practice of apartheid, contributed to eradicating this injustice and this discriminatory scourge.
What will Putin do in his early isolation?
Will the current passivity and/or benevolent "political" neutrality of China, the African continent and countries that are not aligned and/or hostile to the United States and its allies in particular, serve the ambitions and convictions of the master of the Kremlin?
Let political leaders and experts answer these questions.
As for me, at this stage, I will limit myself solely to my area of expertise, to comment on the situation of the world of sport in the context of this crisis which is as unprecedented as it is dangerous.
What is remarkable and unprecedented about this position taken by the Olympic movement and in particular by the IOC on the occasion of this crisis and what lessons do you draw from it?
What is remarkable, after the moment of hesitation when the IOC asked the International Federations to sanction Russia and its ally Belarus without itself taking any decision, is its rapid about-face and the clarity of the decisions finally took hold as the umbrella institution of the Olympic movement.
What is equally remarkable is the near-unanimity of sporting institutions (football, basketball, handball, volleyball, tennis, boxing, judo, skiing, ice sports, Formula 1, etc.) to sanction the two guilty States within the framework of all future competitions.
What is new is the argument put forward by the IOC to justify its decision and its position.
Coming out of its neutrality and sometimes its political complacency, like Switzerland participating in the freezing of Russian assets in its establishments, the IOC puts forward in particular an Olympic argument which is equity between athletes.
Ukraine invaded, its athletes cannot participate in international competitions.
From a legal point of view, vis-à-vis the Olympic Charter to which every Member State of the Olympic movement must submit, the argument is indisputable and even without doubt irrefutable.
The consequences of a possible appeal envisaged by Russia to the CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) to challenge the IOC's decision would be interesting to analyze.
In the circumstance the
The IOC therefore considers that we are in a time of war and that it is up to it to sanction, in the extension of the political decisions of the States, those responsible for this state of affairs, even if it means abandoning the principle of Olympic neutrality behind which it was always sheltered.
In this context, a certain benefit, certainly risky in the long term in certain cases, but useful appears: the sporting morality often advocated, so often flouted, is rehabilitated thanks to the contribution of the law.
Beyond the supremacy of international law, the position taken by the IOC also reinforces the unity of the sports movement under its aegis.
The diplomat, who is its President Thomas Bach, has apparently put his economic interests in the background in this case by excluding Russia, a major contributor to the Olympic movement, despite certain members of the IOC who either Russians or simply Russophiles.
In this field, the States represented by certain members of the IOC are particularly impacted by the economic decisions taken vis-à-vis Russian oligarchs close to Putin, residents in these countries and/or owners of sports clubs.
In the circumstances, the IOC again finds a certain moral aura and political authority within global sports governance.
On this level and that of Olympic morality, is the France of sport just as impacted?
The France of sport, although attached for essentially cultural reasons to Franco-Russian friendship, is less so, if not very little.
If your question concerns French sports institutions, their active or passive attitude is of secondary interest, knowing that Emmanuel Macron as President of the Republic and France as President of the European Union, through their intervention , fully assume their responsibilities in the context of this conflict.
On the other hand, this is different for the French members of the IOC.
The 4 (Guy Drut, Martin Fourcade, David Lappartient and Jean-Christophe Rolland), independently of their affinities with their counterparts in Eastern Europe and in particular Russia, declare their solidarity with the decisions of the IOC and the measures which are taken.
In this they join the presidents of the national sports federations who quickly took the measures they considered essential.
In this regard, even though he retired from the IOC after the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics, the voice of legend Jean-Claude Killy still has a certain reach. Knowing the relationship that was established between him and Putin during the preparation and organization of the Sochi Games, what do you think he could think and say about this conflicting situation?
Rather than speculate on what he might think and say, the simplest thing would be to ask him directly to speak on this subject and on the behavior of "comrade" Putin.
The respect and friendship that I have vis-à-vis Killy do not authorize me to speak in his name.
But what I can simply say, observing his attitude since the end of his sporting career: he has always behaved, with his convictions and demands, as a legitimist and legalist vis-à-vis the causes he has served.
Concerning his action within the IOC (the only element that interests us today) since his induction in 1994, he has put his experience acquired during the Albertville Games in 1992, his know-how and his intelligence to the only tasks that have been entrusted.
Concerning Sotchi in particular, if the IOC could be proud of having saved the Games, it owes it in particular to Killy.
If they represented a staggering cost (the most expensive in history!), this is mainly due to the promise that Putin made to the members of the IOC when the 2014 Olympic Games were awarded to Guatemala City in July 2007. During this session of the IOC which saw Sochi win by 4 votes against the Korean city of Pyeongchang, the master of the Kremlin at the head of the Russian delegation, had captivated the members of the IOC by the promises he had made to win the case.
For history buffs, I refer them to his speech where he clearly expressed in particular the objectives that
To conclude on this chapter, I would be surprised if the Gaullist patriot Jean-Claude Killy, retired from Switzerland, remains insensitive to what is happening today in Europe and especially in Ukraine.
Its duty vis-à-vis the IOC having been accomplished and no doubt also tired of criticism of the supposed nature of its relationship with Putin and of the weak recognition of the authorities of the IOC with regard to its members having worked for the "success" of Sochi, Jean-Claude Killy resigned from the IOC, although he was a life member.
Attitude consistent with this legitimist and legalist which is not common in this environment and which some could draw inspiration from.
Question of character and disinterestedness no doubt.
In the meantime, many politicians and responsible people within the sports and Olympic movement do not hesitate to ask him for advice and some would like to enjoy his support.
Let's come back to the consequences that you perceive concerning the decisions taken by the Olympic movement
?
They will be diverse, numerous and drastic for the Olympic movement and in particular for its governance.
The only benefit of the crisis is that it forces sports officials to review the way they manage their ecosystem.
In his 2021-2025 agenda, it does not matter if this crisis is a "happy" pretext to achieve this long-awaited transformation, what is certain is that Thomas Bach will have to lead it before leaving office in 2025, if he wants that the IOC and the Olympic Games are no longer, at regular intervals, the object of criticism and attacks prejudicial to sport.
Paradoxically before the crisis, the Tokyo Olympics in 2021 and the current Beijing Olympics are a precursor and determining element in this mandatory transformation.
The pandemic, with the absence of spectators, has forced officials to recalibrate the Games and above all to favor the sporting nature of Olympism.
Notwithstanding the absence of atmosphere, the Japanese heat, the Chinese polar cold, the artificial snows of China, the robotization and the dehumanization of the processes… the media coverage of sports disciplines has been put forward for the happiness of the viewers.
The Games were for the athletes and the spectacle of the opening and closing ceremonies, although innovative and modern, was of a sobriety and distinction, for lack of spectators, remarkable.
This should give some ideas
Despite the diplomatic boycott, we must believe and hope that the meetings between the 3 presidents (IOC, China and Russia) during the Beijing Olympics addressed the situation of the world which was going to become unstable, Olympic truce respected or not.
Henceforth, given the weight of the players on the international sports scene (United States, China, Russia, Middle East, European Union), it is no longer possible to imagine that Olympic sport, given the importance of its contribution to the economic system and social world, is maintained in a subordinate role that is agitated every two years on the occasion of the Olympic Games.
By publicly abandoning its pseudo-principle of Olympic neutrality, the IOC is turning its back on its traditional doctrine: no interference in the political affairs of a country.
That being said, it will have to radically revise its cautious attitude concerning state doping observed in Russia and for which it has found a convoluted formula to nevertheless accept Russian athletes likely to be “healthy”.
Furthermore, when the IOC asks the governing bodies of the Olympic movement to impose sanctions on a State, does it do so in the name of a higher power and will it let these same bodies themselves take similar penalties?
In this case, it is the entire architecture of the governance of the sports movement (Federations, National Olympic Committees) that needs to be reviewed, without counting on the role and initiatives that the athletes themselves could take in this new framework.
After the 1981 revolution with the arrival of professionals and marketing at the Games, and that of 2013 with the 2020 agenda requiring the integration of their organization into the national policies of the organizing countries, we are witnessing a third rupture which concerns the current order of sports governance.
On the other hand, the alignment of the Olympic movement with the decisions taken by the States condemns the status quo relating to the role of the NOCs in each of the countries.
Given their interdependence, and for some their little power and influence, with the governmental authorities in most countries, the question arises of their real usefulness and autonomy.
Certainly the 207 NOCs that populate the world of sport and the continental bodies that bring them together will undoubtedly be reorganized vis-à-vis the IOC, sports federations and national governments.
Change of doctrine with inevitable effects relating to global sports governance, but what will happen, given the nature of the current conflict, vis-à-vis the preparation for the next Games, in particular those of Paris 2024?
France has barely 30 months left to organize its Games, which the Paris 2024 OCOG has promised to be spectacular, innovative and responsible.
The timing and the difficulties are known.
The risk and needs audit is in progress.
Its result and the measures to be taken will be announced after the presidential elections in the second half of 2022. Also, barring generalized conflict or a new health or security-type disaster, normally Paris 2024 should not be too impacted by the current crisis, insofar as where the OCOG actually focuses on the essentials, that is to say the organization of the Games and not on the sports policy of France.
However, in a laudable concern to want to mobilize the French behind the operation of the Olympics, the officials of the COJO are obliged to disperse in place of the political leaders by wanting to "Olympize" systematically all the French territories and the spirit of its nationals, through schools, monuments, living conditions and hygiene.
A complex task which brings out ipso facto the permanent and controversial debates on the usefulness of the Olympic Games and the reality of the values of Olympism and sport, as they are conveyed today.
To want to go beyond the framework of the obligations of an OCOG, namely to offer athletes and sport the best possible environment so that they can achieve their performances,
we bring out the eternal demons concerning the personality of Coubertin, the contradictions of the Olympic charter and its application, the social and financial shortcomings of the governance of sport … by amalgamating them with the real significance of the Olympic Games for a country.
The technicality, to make the Games and their legacy a success and to respect the announced promises, implies a chiselled communication to avoid unnecessary hiccups, such as that of the recent announcement of the financing of the course of the Olympic flame or the number of medals (80) that France is supposed to obtain in 2024.
In this context of increased economic crisis, this communication will be all the more important, because everyone knows the difficulties that the financing of the Olympic Games already represents in normal times.
Also it will be up to their leaders to control the growing attempts to consider that their organization, in the current situation, is an "inappropriate" burden and not a priority for the French, when in fact they should not be beyond a superb and temporary show lasting twice 15 days, an investment for the transformation and the future of sport in France.
Moreover, the IOC is lucky that the next Games (summer and winter) will take place in Paris in 2024 and in Milan in 2026, and not in Russia or Belarus.
What would he have done if that hadn't been the case?
Would he have taken them away from them.
Hadn't he acted much more brutally when he had excluded Germany from the 1920, 1924, 1948 Olympic Games and, for the latter, Japan?
What will he do for the attribution of the 2036 Games?
Will he invite Putin's Russia and its allies to nominate their organization?
These questions remain open and no doubt the IOC may have to answer them soon, to ensure its new credibility and so that its declarations and intentions do not remain the expression of pious hope.
In addition, the current period 2022-2025, with the emergence of a multitude of questions to be resolved, lends itself well to this and is undoubtedly becoming a major challenge in the transformation of the IOC and the Olympic movement desired and repeated by its President, in office for his final term.
So let's hope this is the case and that we have confirmation for Paris and France that the JOP of 2024 will be a chance and not a curse.