The Olympic Games have long stood as an symbol of fairness, peace, and equity, transcending international points of contention through the shared camaraderie between nations fostered by sport. Unfortunately, recent conflicts such as the Russia-Ukraine war, threaten to mitigate the bonds established by the Games. Indeed, athletes from aggressor nations have been barred from participating in the Olympics, which is seen as a way to condemn belligerent actions and advocate for world peace. Nevertheless, blanket bans on athletes from specific nations is a detrimental measure that views athletes as simply extensions of their government’s policies, instead of individuals with their own inherent beliefs. Athletes from countries in conflict should still be able to participate in the Olympics due to the clear distinction between these individual beliefs and the policies of their governments.

Banning athletes from warring nations is contradictory to the very ideals the Olympics stand for. The Olympics were created to promote peace between nations and educate young people through sport in a spirit of mutual understanding, competition, and friendship. These admirable motives are shown by the principles outlined in the Olympic Charter; emphasizing that “the rights and freedoms set forth in this Olympic Charter shall be secured without discrimination of any kind, such as… political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status,” according to Fundamental Principle #6. Blanket bans plainly contradict this sentiment by singling out certain athletes on the basis of the nation that they belong to; that is, discriminating based on “national or social origin”—precisely what the Olympic Charter discourages. By contradicting the Olympic Charter, we diverge from the Olympics Games’ peaceful mission and disfigure the purpose of Olympic Games to be a means of furthering political agendas and punishing nations that don’t see eye-to-eye with rather than simply being an opportunity for nations to exercise respectful competition, promote peaceful coexistence, and exchange perspectives.

Some may argue that it’s impossible to separate an athlete’s identity from their nation’s policies. After all, it may seem that by choosing to compete for and represent a country, an athlete must be condoning its actions. However, this assumption is misleading; indeed, it’s entirely possible for an athlete, even from aggressor nations, to compete while not condoning their country’s actions. This instance is empirically proven by the 1992 Summer Olympics in Barcelona, Spain. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was sanctioned for its war in the Yugoslav Wars, but its athletes still found a way to compete as IOPs, or Independent Olympic Participants. This occurrence clearly demonstrates that athletes are not merely extensions of the nations they represent; they can choose whether they’d like to condone their nations’ actions and participate independently if their morals and beliefs don’t align with their country’s actions. The reality that athletes would voluntarily choose not to compete without supporting their countries clearly shows that blanket bans are not necessary to condemn violence.

While it is assumed that letting these athletes participate would be detrimental because it would imply that the Olympics condone this violence, realistically, the opposite would happen. The Olympics serve as a huge platform for these athletes; millions tune in from around the world and are fixated on their every doing. In fact, according to Forbes, “the Paris Olympics averaged 30.6 million viewers across NBCU platforms.” Athletes, even those from nations embroiled in conflict, can and do use these prominent platforms to advocate for peace. Take the example of the world-famous Russian tennis player, Andrey Rublev. While belonging to a nation that has acted extremely aggressively in the past, Rublev has done nothing but oppose his nation’s actions. In fact, Rublev wrote “‘No War Please’ on a TV camera moments after advancing to the final at the Dubai Championships,” as reported by ESPN. By banning these athletes, we strip the Olympics of its potential for athletes to inspire widespread global change, ensuring that the condemnable events taking place in the status quo will persist.

All in all, while banning athletes has previously been seen as a way to denounce reprehensible actions of the nations they belong to, it’s evident that doing so only worsens the problem by failing to account for an athlete’s individuality and taking away the platform that Olympic athletes could otherwise use to criticize unacceptable practices, serving as a beacon of change and influence. The Olympics have always symbolized a universal celebration of human potential and shared value, showcasing both physical and mental prowess as athletes are pushed beyond their limits. Denying athletes the chance to compete not only undermines this mission but also silences voices. Indeed, the Olympic spirit should remain to be a torch of unity lighting the way for worldwide collaboration and progress, not extinguished by the winds of conflict. Only by embracing these ideals, once and for all, can the Olympics truly continue to inspire generations and remind us of what humanity can achieve when we come together.