State Duma deputy Svetlana Zhurova offered perspective to Gazeta.ru on the ongoing talk among Ukrainian politicians about boycotting the 2024 Olympic Games if athletes from Russia and Belarus are allowed to compete. She frames these threats as leverage aimed at the Olympic movement and international sports federations, noting that sponsors could influence decisions as well.
Zhurova argues that such pressure is not likely to force a real change in participation. She recalls Bach’s own stance, explaining that the Olympic chief opposed punishing athletes from 35 countries by excluding them. The deputy suggests the question is whether Russia and Belarus should compete under a neutral flag, rather than about collective punishment. If a boycott occurs, it would be driven by political posturing rather than a genuine concern about the athletes themselves. She cites Ukraine’s claims that it provoked the push and that supporters will be sought for such actions. In her view, political maneuvering tends to intensify as the Games approach, with sponsors ultimately asking why their athletes should stay home when contracts and marketing deals are tied to Olympic participation.
Zhurova notes that many major contracts rely on athletes appearing at the Games, and while there are rules about advertising during the Olympics, individual athletes remain linked to specific sponsors. She asks whether it makes sense for athletes to withdraw if those sponsorships are at stake, stressing the practical impact of a boycott on branding and funding.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has reaffirmed Ukraine’s position not to allow Russians to compete in Paris in 2024. Prime Minister Denys Shmygal has spoken about a coalition for fair sport that would oppose the Games should Russian and Belarusian athletes be admitted. Ukraine has signaled alignment with a bloc of other nations that share this stance.
Reports earlier indicated that Ukraine and a group of 34 other countries suggested Russians would be prepared to boycott if entry is allowed. The discussion continues to unfold as stakeholders weigh ethical considerations, sponsorship implications, and the practical consequences for athletes rising to the highest levels of competition. The tension reflects a broader debate about sports as a platform for political expression versus a stage for universal athletic achievement. A careful balance remains the central question for the International Olympic Committee, national federations, and the athletes whose futures could hinge on a single decision.