Other Author

At the 2026 Milano-Cortina Winter Paralympic Games, the biggest debate surrounding the event has little to do with sport. This year’s Paralympics represent the first major international sporting event since the 2014 Paralympic Winter Games in Sochi in which Russia has competed under its national flag. The ban included the recent Olympic Games, where Russia and Belarus were not allowed to send teams. Six Russian and four Belarusian para-athletes are competing at the Paralympics, marking the end of a 12-year period of exclusion rooted first in state-sponsored doping and then Russia’s war against Ukraine. The decision to let Russia and Belarus back in has sparked heated public debate. People are asking hard questions about fairness, disability rights and who gets to decide the rules of international sport. While some international sport federations cling to the idealistic notion that sport and politics are separate, this situation demonstrates the deeply entrenched role of geopolitics in major sporting events. Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter explicitly prohibits political demonstrations and displays. Yet the reality for those at the Games is very different.  

Russia returns to the Paralympics

In 2022, Russian athletes competed under the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) flag rather than their national flag. This sanction was already in place as punishment for the preceding Russian doping scandal. However, as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine unfolded in the lead-up to the Games, the IPC went further, ruling that results for Russian and Belarusian athletes would not be counted in the official medal table. At the IPC General Assembly in 2025, members voted to allow Russia and Belarus to return to the Games. This meant that athletes from those countries could compete under their own flags and national anthems. Following this decision, 16 countries formally boycotted the Paralympic opening ceremony. Fewer than 40 per cent of athletes were present, with many deliberately absent from opening ceremonies in an act of solidarity with Ukraine.  

Inclusion for athletes, silence for victims

On the one hand, the IPC’s founding mission is to “make for an inclusive world through Para sport.” The exclusion of athletes on the basis of their government’s actions appears to conflict with this principle of universality. IPC president Andrew Parsons framed the reinstatement of Russia and Belarus as consistent with what the movement stands for: a democratic organization treating all national Paralympic committees equally under due process. People with disabilities, including para athletes, are often excluded or overlooked in society. Supporters argued that punishing disabled athletes for their government’s conduct conflicts with disability-rights principles. Disability rights work aims to dismantle discriminatory practices that exclude people because of social, political or embodied difference. But the decision exposed a deeper tension. The IPC already includes athletes from states involved in active conflicts. That makes it harder to argue exclusions are applied consistently. On the other hand, the IPC’s mission of building “an inclusive world” is undermined when a state actively destroys the lives and bodies of civilians, many of whom may themselves become disabled. Rob Koehler, director general of Global Athlete, stated: “There is simply no justification for allowing Russia and Belarus back while the invasion continues.” The Canadian Paralympic Committee opposed the reinstatement, indicating that the ongoing war contradicts the Olympic Truce. Further, Karen O’Neill, the committee’s president, stated that no evidence has emerged to suggest the doping issue has been resolved. The inclusion of Russian war veterans injured fighting in the war with Ukraine has been upsetting for some athletes. Yet this debate continues to overshadow the far more pressing issue of Paralympic athletes receiving the attention and respect they have long been denied.  

When neutrality becomes complicity

While the IPC president maintains that the focus must remain on sport and athletic competition, this stance carries a serious risk. Allowing Russia back could send the wrong message that sport has no red lines; it suggests participation matters more than accountability. The IPC had a defining opportunity to demonstrate moral leadership. History shows that international sport is capable of precisely this kind of leadership. As Richard Pound, a former Canadian International Olympic Committee member, has argued, sport has a proud tradition of standing in opposition to oppressive regimes. In 1970, South Africa was banned from the Olympics because of apartheid — the government’s policy of racial segregation. It was a powerful moment when sport took a clear moral stand. Giovanni Malagò, president of the Milano-Cortina organizing committee, said in his opening-ceremony speech:

“We cannot ignore that these Games are taking place in an increasingly and profoundly divided world, torn apart by wars, grief and suffering, at one of the most dramatic turning points of our time.”

This sentiment has cast a shadow on the messaging and importance of inclusion and celebration of sport at the Paralympic Games. Paralympic athletes have fought hard for recognition, and the politics of these Games have dominated public attention.  

What the debate reveals about sport and politics

Sport has always been more than entertainment. It reflects the social and political climate in which it takes place, often exposing tensions and contradictions within society. This is especially clear in the Paralympic context, where questions of inclusion, disability rights and geopolitical conflict sit side-by-side. The debates surrounding Russia’s return to the 2026 Winter Paralympic Games show how sport can both mirror and magnify broader ethical dilemmas. Athletes and sporting bodies have long been part of wider social change, but the current events reveal how sport is also entangled with deeper issues — discrimination, war, unresolved doping concerns and the struggle over who gets to participate and under what conditions. The Paralympic movement was built on the idea that sport should be open to everyone. But that ideal is being tested by a world dealing with war, political division and unresolved cheating scandals. It is unfortunate that this controversy is drowning out what the Paralympics are meant to be about — celebrating remarkable athletes and promoting inclusion. Laura Misener, Professor & Director, School of Kinesiology, Western University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Expert Insight reflects the perspective and scholarly interest of Western faculty members and is not an articulation of official university policy on issues being addressed.