Dmitry Svishchev, who chairs the State Duma Committee on Physical Culture and Sports, reacted to remarks by International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Thomas Bach about athletes carrying responsibility for government actions and the IOC’s call to ignore the Friendship Games in Russia. In an interview with socialbites.ca, Svishchev labeled Bach’s comments as shameful and questioned the motives behind them.
The lawmaker noted it is surprising to hear such pointed criticism from a widely respected sport official who leads the IOC. He pointed out that Bach has traveled to Russia multiple times and suggested that the IOC President, along with members of the IOC Executive Committee and other Olympic leaders, should be backing competitions across levels and across sports rather than casting doubt on events held in Russia. Svishchev asked whether they see a threat to the Olympic movement, and he accused them of presuming Russia is the enemy instead of engaging in dialogue with the country.
Svishchev reminded readers that Russia has repeatedly stressed that the Friendship Games are not designed as a substitute for the Olympic Games, and that the program includes events outside the Olympic program as well. He argued that either the IOC has failed to study the core nature of the competition or its public statement is a provocation meant to intimidate athletes and sports federations into boycotting or avoiding participation in the events.
The parliamentarian challenged Bach to set aside pride and invite key Russian sports officials to the table. He named notable figures such as Stanislav Pozdnyakov, president of the Russian Olympic Committee, and Oleg Matytsin, the Russian minister of sport, urging a candid negotiation to resolve the situation. Svishchev warned that such a meeting was unlikely, but insisted someone should advise the IOC leader to engage constructively. He warned that the IOC risks becoming a punitive body detached from the broader goals of Olympism and sports development.
Earlier remarks from Bach warned that athletes who support government actions could face sanctions. Svishchev framed this stance as a pressure tactic that shifts the focus away from sport’s universal values. He urged a return to dialogue, explaining that athletes often navigate pressures from multiple directions and should be able to compete cleanly and freely without being drawn into political disputes unrelated to sport itself.
The discussion underscored a broader tension within international sports governance: balancing national sovereignty with global standards of fair play and unity. Svishchev emphasized that the Friendship Games were conceived as a separate initiative with a distinct lineup of events, and that excluding athletes on political grounds would undermine the spirit of competition and the rights of athletes to participate in international sport. He argued that sport should act as a bridge, not a weapon, and that leaders of major sports bodies must model principled, transparent governance if they want to maintain trust among athletes, federations, and fans across North America and beyond.
Observers note that the current rhetoric could have practical consequences for teams, coaches, and national programs, particularly in systems where funding and national prestige are closely linked to Olympic participation. Svishchev’s comments represent a push back against what he sees as a punitive approach that could alter the trajectory of athletes’ careers and disrupt leagues, championships, and development pipelines. The episode invites a broader conversation on how international bodies recognize the role of national governments while preserving the autonomy and integrity of sport as a universal language broadcast to audiences in Canada, the United States, and worldwide.
In sum, the exchange highlights a pivotal moment for Olympic governance. Svishchev’s stance calls for accountability, open dialogue, and a recalibration of pressure tactics. He advocates for a system where competition remains accessible, equitable, and focused on the advancement of athletes and sport as a whole, rather than becoming a battleground for political posturing. Whether Bach will accept an invitation to negotiate remains uncertain, but the debate raises important questions about how the Olympic movement can stay true to its core values while navigating an increasingly politicized global sports landscape.