Nine European Union countries have found a direct way to pressure the IOC and International Federations since the Olympic institution opened the door to the return of Russia and Belarus to the global sporting stage: withdrawing public funding. The initiative, proposed last week, creates a precedent that could alter the relationship between governments and sports institutions. Meanwhile, Ukraine continues to protest the decision while still facing the Russian invasion.
Estonia, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Sweden asked the European Commission to exclude the IOC, World Aquatics and the International Fencing Federation from Erasmus+ and other EU programmes. The nine governments oppose the decisions that have allowed Russian and Belarusian athletes to return and believe they disregard the situation faced by Ukrainian athletes.
The signatory countries did not disclose the amount of funding at risk or specify which projects would be affected. Beyond the immediate financial impact, the important point is the attempt to turn a political disagreement —a serious one in this case— into a condition for accessing European funds.
Autonomy does not guarantee subsidy
The IOC and International Federations are fully entitled to regulate their competitions. That autonomy protects sport from governments seeking to appoint officials, change rules or use national teams as an extension of political power.
Governments are equally entitled to decide how their citizens’ money is spent. A sports organisation can make an independent decision and then accept that the decision may have financial consequences. Autonomy protects its ability to choose; it does not create an automatic right to receive public funding.
Erasmus+ is a European Union programme supporting education, training, youth and sport. Its sports initiatives promote inclusion, integrity and European values, among other objectives. The Commission can demand consistency between those goals and the organisations receiving its funds. A threat to withdraw subsidies could force projects, budgets and partnerships to be reviewed.
A precedent that could spread?
Russia and Belarus represent the first major case, but the same mechanism could be used in other disputes. Human rights, equality, sustainability, integrity or relationships with certain governments could also become conditions for receiving funding.
All of this is legitimate. Sports organisations retain the freedom to make decisions within their areas of responsibility, while public institutions retain the freedom to finance only those projects that align with their principles.
Ultimately, sporting autonomy ends where public money begins because a subsidy is never neutral. Any organisation accepting funds from an institution also accepts that the institution may assess how those funds are used and what values it is helping to support.
*The IOC’s argument for changing its position on Russia and Belarus is that Russia stopped including regional sports organisations located in territories under Ukrainian jurisdiction as members, thereby resolving the direct violation of the Olympic Charter. In the eyes of these EU countries, that is a secondary issue. Their decision is driven primarily by the fact that Russia continues its invasion of Ukraine.
Last related articles
