Ban Russia, Ban USA, Blame Canada

[UWSaint]

Should Russia be banned from competing in the world juniors, Olympics, etc.?

Put me in the "no" camp.

First, organizations are best when they stay in their lanes and do what they do best. Like host hockey tournaments. No one elected them to conduct foreign policy, and no one (honestly) thinks that Russia will change its policies based on whether or not it has a team at these tournaments or (even worse because the athletes are individuals) ban Russians from Wimbledon.

Second, there is a real harm to the players themselves, who are no more responsible for Russian policy than the IIHF. Banning Russia means that a bunch of kids (at juniors) or Olympians who likely are obsessed only with their sport bear the entire weight of the virtue signal. Most are probably apolitical, some might hate Putin, some might love him -- but the people who should bear the price of a "principled" stance is the person making the stand, not someone else. If a Russian athlete wants to boycott in protest of his own government, awesome! (But secure your family.....). But to be excluded because a bunch of old dudes (and some dudettes) want to say "Putin bad"?

Third, a corollary to the two points above is that the tournament suffers for it, so do the other players and the fans. That's because neither the Olympics nor the juniors are competitions of the best hockey countries. I think this is particularly bad for the juniors format because it seems to me that there is a tier (or two) that includes Canada, USA, Russia, Sweden, Finland, and Czechia, and then there's everyone else. Oh sure, some years Slovakia or Switzerland might approach that tier, but generally not. And what that means is the draw plays very heavily into a team's success -- if you are in the group with 3 good teams, you aren't punished for finishing second. And the team in the other group who finished second is going to face a 3rd place team that's had stiffer competition for the knock out round, and will likely be in a slightly better place. Those problems are eliminated when you add the 6th routinely quality team -- only group winners get an easier knock-out round path.

Fourth, where do you draw the line? People in the other thread mentioned American military interventions. Maybe in a different universe the world is concerned about "emergency powers" willy nilly exercised in Canada (and the cancelling of parliament). International diplomacy/foreign affairs is complex -- e.g., I am not a huge fan of America's post WW-2 military interventions, but I also understand that *some* nation will be muscular, and so serious question is what happens to the world if the USA pulls out of "policing" the world? Point is, as good as IIHF would be (theoretically) at running hockey tournaments, they aren't all that skilled at assessing complex international relations. Even if Russia falls among the "easy" cases (it was wrong to invade Ukraine), what to do about it once it happened is enormously difficult and lots of well-meaning people disagree.

Fifth, to the extent international sporting events have a small influence on world politics, there is more good that comes from participation than bad. Some of that is the fact that we are human, and we war, and sports are the greatest simulation of war -- and to some degree, it is war's substitute. We get to cheer our boys, wave our flags, be patriotic, and don't need to kill to enjoy those tribal psychic rewards. Some of it is that it is exposure to the world. Think of those defectors from the USSR -- do they get the idea to defect in a world in which international competition didn't expose them to a world they had only known through state propaganda? Think of Jesse Owens in Berlin in 1936 -- better or worse for Owens to own the krauts on their soil? (Not that USA was going to boycott those games, but had USA had a more modern perspective on race, there would have been that impulse).

[Megaterio Llamas]

I have always hated sports boycotts; ugly, hypocritical politics needs to keep its nose out of it, imho.

[donlever]

Per won't be but I am in basic agreement UW.

Sports should not be impacted by politics and vice versa.

Don't have the tournament in Leningrad?

Fine, I get that, but let the kids play.

Are we afraid that if Russia wins the WJC or grabs a few gold at the 5 Ring Circus it somehow validates their foreign policies or acts of war?

Is non participation supposed to be like a sanction where it economically damages the political branches of a foreign nation.

They may care (a little) or be hurt (a little)
but not enough to amend their decided upon processes.

We could take this discussion so many different ways from here.

Great post.

[Meds]

Same page.

Without Russia it isn't best vs best.

In this case, what do 18 year old kids have to do with the politics of their government?

What do athletes have to do with it? Other than being from the country they were born (or hold citizenship) in.....

I'm on the same page for the Olympics. If athletes, or nations, don't want to compete against Russia, then let them feel free to withdraw. Nations can withdraw their support from athletes who want to go against their nation's stance. I suppose, at least the Olympics don't ban the competitors, just the flag and anthem.

[BoS]

Perhaps it’s easy for us Canadians to wanna scrap the Russian/Belarusian boycott, but how do the Fins feel about the subject, given the increased threat that Russia poses to Europes largest land border? What does Sweden think, or Czechia ?

Fact is, Russia is not an immediate threat to the US, or (arguably) Canada, the only two non-European countries
within the IIHF. But with headquarters in Switzerland, the threat is real.

[dangler]

I think it's ridiculous that athletes should be punished for their countries politics.

[5thhorseman]

You could say the same thing about any sanctions. It's the citizens that always suffer. Should we abandon all sanctions?

[donlever]

5th...so you are saying you agree with the playing bans?

[5thhorseman]

No I am undecided on this one but it seems like many of the same arguments could just as easily be applied to other types of sanctions.

Blades makes a very good point as well.

[BoS]

Blades makes a very good point as well.

Just trying to contribute to the board. Hoping to one day be promoted to the top 18.

[5thhorseman]

Blades makes a very good point as well.

Just trying to contribute to the board. Hoping to one day be promoted to the top 18.

I hear two spots recently opened up

[donlever]

That's cold.

And yes...I agree...BoS does make a solid argument to the contrary.

[Megaterio Llamas]

You could say the same thing about any sanctions. It's the citizens that always suffer. Should we abandon all sanctions?

Yes, you could. I dislike economic sanctions even more than sports bans. It's pure cruelty to innocent civilians. Barbaric.

[UWSaint]

You could say the same thing about any sanctions. It's the citizens that always suffer. Should we abandon all sanctions?

While citizens suffer from sanctions, I don't think you can equate an NGO excluding a disfavored nation and sanctions. Two primary reasons: (1) Economic sanctions have some potential to influence the targeted nation's behavior directly (or other's indirectly); virtue signaling at sporting events doesn't; (2) economic sanctions are adopted by duly elected governments who have among their responsibility foreign affairs, international trade. Put differently, there is legitimacy in the act (even if it may be a bad decision). But no one elected the Olympic Committee or the IIHF to run sporting events and conduct international trade policy, you know?

[JelloPuddingPop]

But no one elected the Olympic Committee or the IIHF to run sporting events and conduct international trade policy, you know?

One would think this gives them even more right to decide who participates and who doesn't.

Any private/non-profit org. that isn't tied to a Government, surely has the right to decide how to run their business no? Even if we disagree with it.

Much like Lululemon. No fat people allowed. IOC can say no Russians, as they make their tights stretch too much?

Wait.. lost the metaphor somewhere there, but you get my point I hope.