World Tennis, formerly the International Tennis Federation -ITF-, has voted to maintain the suspension of the national federations of Russia and Belarus. National associations took the decision at the General Meeting held on 12 and 13 October in Almaty, Kazakhstan, taking a different direction from organisations that have restored membership rights and national representation. The decision highlights the differing approaches to an Olympic return: while some federations maintain institutional sanctions, others have moved towards reinstating athletes, teams and national governing bodies.
Those differences operate at several levels. A national federation’s membership determines its rights within the international organisation; individual eligibility establishes who can compete, while rules on flags, anthems and teams determine how they participate. Olympic entry carries its own requirements. Keeping a federation suspended does not automatically exclude all its athletes, just as restoring national representation at a World Championship does not, in itself, guarantee participation at Los Angeles 2028.
Aquatics restores membership rights
The tennis vote confirms a position the organisation had already defended in May: announcements by the International Olympic Committee -IOC- did not automatically alter the suspensions, which remained subject to review by its members under its constitutional procedures. Delegations from 128 countries attended the Almaty meeting, although the published report does not provide a numerical breakdown of the vote. The decision therefore comes from the body representing national associations and keeps the institutional status of the suspended federations separate from the conditions applying to their players.
World Aquatics took a different approach on 13 April, restoring Russia and Belarus to full membership and allowing their senior athletes to compete with national uniforms, flags and anthems, having previously extended that opportunity to juniors. Specific safeguards remain: athletes must pass at least four consecutive anti-doping tests conducted in partnership with the International Testing Agency -ITA- and complete background checks by its integrity unit. Its model combines institutional reinstatement and the restoration of national symbols with individual entry requirements.
Gymnastics shows the limits of sporting clearance
World Gymnastics also lifted its general restrictions but introduced transitional arrangements for certain competitions awarded before the change. Where a host country communicates binding government measures concerning flags, anthems or national identifiers, alternative representation under the international federation applies. At the World Championships in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, which begin on Saturday, the Russian and Belarusian delegations will use the identifiers WG2 and WG1, respectively. This differs from keeping their federations suspended: it permits a sporting return while adapting national representation to the host country’s requirements.
The championships, scheduled for 17–25 October, present another obstacle: World Gymnastics has confirmed that three Russian female athletes due to compete have been refused visas. The episode demonstrates that sporting eligibility does not replace permission to enter a country. The international federation sets competition requirements, but national authorities retain responsibility for immigration decisions. At an event that opens team qualification for Los Angeles 2028, that distinction has sporting consequences: federation clearance does not guarantee access to the competition where places are awarded.
Who decides the conditions for a return?
The IOC’s framework has also changed. In its July decision, the International Table Tennis Federation -ITTF- noted that the IOC Executive Board had provisionally lifted the suspension of the Russian Olympic Committee and withdrawn its restrictive recommendations concerning Russian athletes and teams. The ITTF then authorised their return to individual and team events under its ordinary conditions, while expressly preserving Olympic jurisdiction over accreditation, quotas and representation. Withdrawing a common recommendation does not produce identical decisions across federations: each organisation must still apply its statutes and adopt its own resolutions.
The decisions reveal two approaches: maintaining institutional suspensions while treating athletes’ eligibility separately, or restoring membership rights and national representation subject to entry requirements. Gymnastics also demonstrates that transitional arrangements exist between the two. No single body determines which approach will prevail across the Olympic Movement: federations decide on membership and their competitions; the IOC retains authority over the Games, and governments control entry into their territories. The route to Los Angeles will depend on how those decisions interact, rather than simply on an organisation announcing Russia’s return.
Last related articles
