Ban Russia, Ban USA, Blame Canada
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2026 11:59 am
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).
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).
but I am in basic agreement UW.