The Paralympic movement has taken a step this autumn that could mark a before and after: the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) voted at its general assembly to lift the partial suspensions imposed on the committees of Russia and Belarus, opening the door for their athletes to compete under their flags at the Milano-Cortina 2026 Paralympic Games. The decision, which still needs to be finalized by the international federations of each sport, comes with both praise and criticism, but it should also be read as an opportunity to ask whether sport should once again regain distance from politics.
The outcome of the vote held at the end of September was tight in Russia’s case: 91 votes against prolonging the suspension, 77 in favor and 8 abstentions. In Belarus, 103 votes supported lifting the sanction, compared to 63 against and 10 abstentions. This means that both Paralympic committees regain all their rights and privileges of IPC membership, with the organization committing to implement the necessary practical mechanisms. At the same time, it shows there is no unanimity on the issue and that much work remains.
If this proposal is confirmed, athletes from both countries could march under their flags at the Paralympic Games, although each international federation of the six disciplines included in the Milano-Cortina program will have the final say. A crucial detail, since there is still no guarantee that all will accept this step.
Astrit Hasani’s letter against neutral athletes
The debate on neutrality and symbols is nothing new. Just last week, Astrit Hasani, president of the European Weightlifting Federation (EWF), sent an open letter to Kirsty Coventry, the new president of the International Olympic Committee. In it, he called for an end to the status of “Individual Neutral Athlete” (AIN), arguing that it contradicts the principles of equality and justice within Olympism.
Hasani stressed that punishing athletes for their governments’ decisions is unfair and breaks with the spirit of universality in sport. He also recalled his own experience: as a leader originally from Kosovo, he knows firsthand what it means to compete in a context of political tensions. And he summed it up in a central idea: “Athletes should be judged by their effort, not by the conflicts of their states.”
Optimism beginning to take shape
At SportsIn, we are optimistic that this situation will reach a positive outcome and, why not, that sport could become a driver of unity and an example to strengthen political ties. The IPC’s decision, even if surrounded by controversy, can be interpreted as a sign of openness toward a more inclusive model. And above all, it fits with the vision that Hasani has placed on the table: that athletes should not be hostages to geopolitical disputes.
The stone thrown by Hasani is supported by a large part of the sports community, which sees the Olympic movement as a tool for unity rather than exclusion. One example was the Paris 2024 Olympic Village, where athletes from countries in conflict lived together peacefully. In any case, the fact that this debate has entered the international agenda is already a sign of change.
A first step toward the IOC’s future?
The big question is whether this opening will be a first step for the IOC to also reconsider its stance. Under the leadership of Kirsty Coventry, a new stage is expected, one capable of turning around the policy of forced neutrality. If the Milano-Cortina 2026 Paralympic Games demonstrate that full inclusion does not erode the sporting spirit, perhaps the reflection will extend beyond the IPC.
Much will depend on the international context. Perhaps, hopefully, the war in Ukraine will have ended by then. But even if the conflict continues, sport cannot lose its role as a meeting ground. The IPC’s decision, combined with the voice of leaders like Hasani, invites us to imagine a future in which both the Olympic and Paralympic Games return to being spaces of unity above borders and tensions -and inspire peace in political corridors.
