European Commission maps EU funding for sports bodies after dispute over the return of Russia and Belarus
The European Commission will examine through which programmes and intermediary structures international and European sports organisations can use money from the European Union budget, after nine Member States called for support to be suspended for bodies that are paving the way for Russian and Belarusian athletes to return to international competitions. Brussels emphasises that the International Olympic Committee, the IOC, currently receives no direct funding from the Commission, which means that the political request cannot be implemented through a simple administrative decision to abolish a single existing budget line. According to Commission spokesperson Anna-Kaisa Itkonen, the European services will therefore first determine which sports associations and federations have access to Union programmes, under what conditions and whether they are beneficiaries directly or through partners in joint projects. At the same time, the Commission reiterated that it views with serious concern decisions that create room for the normalisation of Russian and Belarusian participation while the war in Ukraine continues. The dispute is thus increasingly shifting from the field of sporting rules to the question of political criteria for the use of EU public money.
The request was sent on 14 July 2026 to European Commissioner for Intergenerational Fairness, Youth, Culture and Sport Glenn Micallef. The initiative was supported by Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania and Sweden, according to the Estonian Ministry of Culture. The signatories are asking for sports organisations that allow Russia and Belarus to return to international competitions to be excluded from Erasmus+ and other relevant funding sources. The letter explicitly names the IOC, the International Fencing Federation and World Aquatics, while the explanation also mentions other bodies that have relaxed previous restrictions. The countries also propose limiting the prominent role of such organisations at European sports forums and in discussions on the development of sports policy.
The Commission has no simple mechanism for "cutting off IOC funding"
Brussels' initial assessment shows why the political request is more complex than its shortest formulation suggests. The Commission stated that the IOC is not a direct beneficiary of its funds, so there is currently no support that the EU executive could simply halt and thereby immediately respond to the request of the nine governments. However, sports organisations may participate in consortia, partnership projects, expert networks or programmes implemented by other institutions, national bodies and executive agencies. The examination will therefore focus on the entire funding chain, and only after the mapping has been completed will it be possible to assess whether there is a legal and budgetary basis for restrictions.
According to information from the European Commission, the main source of support for sports projects at Union level is Erasmus+, particularly its sports component intended for cooperation between organisations, citizen participation, education, sports integrity and the development of activities at local level. As a rule, these funds are not designed to finance commercial elite sport or the regular operations of major global federations, but to support specific projects with European added value. The legal assessment must therefore distinguish between a governing body and affiliated organisations, national committees and project partners. The Commission will also have to determine whether criteria linked to EU values can be applied to future calls without interfering with already signed contracts, while respecting equal treatment, proportionality and legal certainty.
Nine countries seek financial and political consequences
The joint letter from the nine countries argues that organisations that do not align their decisions with the fundamental values of the European Union should not benefit from financial support or the status arising from cooperation with EU institutions. The signatories particularly emphasise human rights, the rule of law and peaceful relations between countries as principles on which, in their view, international sport and the Olympic movement should also be based. They state that the claim of a complete separation between sport and politics is difficult to sustain while Ukrainian athletes train in wartime conditions, lose infrastructure, leave their homes or serve in the defence of their country. The document describes Russia as a state waging a war of aggression and the Belarusian authorities as those that enabled that war. The proposed measures are therefore intended not only as a financial sanction but also as a message about who should have influence over the European debate on the future of sport.
The request also concerns the participation of the disputed organisations in formats such as the EU Sport Forum, an annual gathering of institutions, federations, athletes, coaches, volunteers and other stakeholders. The signatories want the Commission to consider reducing their visibility and role until they once again demonstrate commitment to the principles promoted by the EU. Such a measure would be politically significant even with a limited financial effect, because it would influence access to decision-makers. Its implementation would nevertheless require clear criteria to prevent it from turning into the ad hoc exclusion of organisations. The balance between political pressure and the autonomy of sport will therefore remain a central issue.
IOC decisions changed direction towards Russian and Belarusian athletes
The immediate trigger for the reaction of European governments was the decision of the IOC Executive Board on 7 July 2026 to provisionally lift the suspension of the Russian Olympic Committee, which had been in force since October 2023. The IOC also announced that its previous recommendations to international federations on restricting the participation of Russian athletes were no longer applicable. According to the IOC's explanation reported by Reuters, the Russian committee removed regional sports bodies from the occupied Ukrainian territories from its membership, and their inclusion had been the reason for the suspension. The Olympic organisation stressed that the restoration of status was provisional and that decisions on competitions outside the Games continued to be made by individual international federations.
On 7 May 2026, the IOC had already lifted its recommended restrictions on the participation of Belarusian athletes, including teams, in competitions under the authority of international federations and organisers. The IOC stated at the time that the National Olympic Committee of Belarus was in good standing and complied with the Olympic Charter, unlike the Russian Olympic Committee, which was still suspended at that point. The explanation highlighted the start of qualification periods for the Los Angeles 2028 Olympic Games and the Dolomiti Valtellina 2028 Winter Youth Olympic Games, as well as the principle that athletes should not face restrictions solely because of the actions of their governments. The IOC also referred to the experience with neutral athletes, arguing that their participation had caused no incidents. In European political circles, these decisions were interpreted as a gradual opening of the door to a fuller return of the two countries.
Following criticism, the IOC argued that it must manage complex geopolitical circumstances while preserving a global sports platform founded on values. The organisation told Reuters that events would still not be held in Russia and that Russian state officials would not be invited to its events. According to the IOC, no decision has yet been made on the use of the Russian flag, colours and anthem at future Olympic Games. The Olympic body also emphasised that the selection of athletes must take into account their ability to serve as role models and promote a peaceful society through sport, rather than only their competitive results. Critics, however, believe that such safeguards do not eliminate the political effect of renewed institutional legitimisation of Russian and Belarusian structures.
Brussels supports opposition to "normalisation"
On 9 July, before the joint letter from the nine countries, the European Commission had already publicly expressed serious concern about the direction of the IOC's decisions. Spokesperson Anna-Kaisa Itkonen recalled the European Council's position of 18 June that, until a just and lasting peace is achieved in Ukraine, there should be no normalisation of Russian participation in international sporting and cultural events. The Commission stated that it fully supported that political message. Brussels thereby made it clear that it disagreed with an accelerated return, although it had not yet proposed a legislative or budgetary measure to implement that position. The current phase therefore remains a combination of political pressure, administrative scrutiny and discussions with sports federations.
The distinction between a political position and legal competence is particularly important in the field of sport. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union gives the EU a role in supporting, coordinating and supplementing the actions of Member States, but not a general power to take over the management of the sports system. At the same time, the European sports model recognises the autonomy of federations to regulate their competitions independently, subject to compliance with EU law and the principles of good governance. The Commission therefore cannot order the IOC or a world federation whom they must exclude, but it can set conditions for its own programmes, select partners for dialogue and verify whether beneficiaries comply with budgetary rules.
Possible impact on federations, projects and European sports forums
If the mapping shows that individual international federations or affiliated organisations are beneficiaries of European programmes, the Commission could consider stricter conditions for future calls, additional declarations of compliance with EU values or the targeted exclusion of entities that fail to meet predetermined criteria. Such an approach would be more legally sustainable than a politically formulated general ban, but it would require a precise definition of the conduct constituting a breach of the conditions. It is not yet clear whether the criterion would apply only to the return of national teams and national symbols or also to the participation of individuals under neutral status. Nor has it been officially confirmed whether any measures would apply equally to all sports organisations or only to those actively participating in projects financed from the EU budget. The Commission has not yet announced a deadline for completing the examination or a list of the organisations it will cover.
The financial significance of the measures would vary from one organisation to another. The IOC earns most of its revenue from media and marketing rights and says that it redistributes 90 percent of its income to the organisation of the Games, sports development and support for athletes. The EU's direct budgetary leverage over it is therefore limited. Smaller federations, non-governmental organisations and project consortia may be more dependent on European grants, meaning that the consequences for the largest bodies could be primarily symbolic, while those for smaller partners could be more financially tangible.
The issue also arises of how to protect useful projects from the consequences of a political dispute with their umbrella organisations. Erasmus+ Sport finances initiatives that are often implemented at local level and involve clubs, schools, volunteers, coaches and vulnerable groups that have no influence over the decisions of world federations. A general exclusion of an entire network could affect activities connected with social inclusion, combating discrimination or encouraging physical activity, even though their direct implementers took no part in the decision concerning Russian and Belarusian athletes. Any future measure would therefore have to distinguish the responsibility of the governing body from the work of individual members and partners. The Commission's mapping should show whether such a distinction can be implemented in practice through existing contracts and tender procedures.
A dispute that goes beyond sports administration
The debate over funding demonstrates that the return of Russia and Belarus is no longer merely a matter of qualification rules, flags or neutral status. For some Member States, it concerns the credibility of the broader European policy towards the war in Ukraine and the prevention of symbolic normalisation while the conflict continues. For the IOC, by contrast, the central principle is access to sport without political pressure being placed on individual athletes, as well as the preservation of the universality of the Olympic movement. These two approaches are difficult to reconcile completely: one emphasises the institutional responsibility of states and sports bodies, while the other stresses the individual rights of competitors and the autonomy of sport. Funding from the EU budget is now becoming the arena in which an attempt will be made to translate that conflict into measurable and legally enforceable rules.
The next steps will depend on the results of the Commission's examination and discussions with Member States and sports organisations. Brussels has so far announced neither the immediate suspension of a particular programme nor a formal procedure against the IOC, World Aquatics or the International Fencing Federation. Instead, the focus is on identifying actual financial links, existing contractual obligations and possible criteria for future funding and institutional cooperation. The Commission is thereby attempting to maintain a politically clear position against the normalisation of Russian participation while avoiding a decision that would be unenforceable or legally vulnerable. The outcome could establish a broader precedent for the way the European Union links public funding for sport with foreign-policy objectives, human rights and rules of good governance.
Sources:
- Estonian Ministry of Culture - official announcement of the request by nine countries, the list of signatories and the full content of the joint letter (link)
- European Commission, Sport - overview of funding opportunities for sports projects, including the Erasmus+ programme (link)
- International Olympic Committee - decision of 7 July 2026 to provisionally lift the suspension of the Russian Olympic Committee (link)
- International Olympic Committee - decision of 7 May 2026 to lift the recommended restrictions on Belarusian athletes (link)
- Reuters / The Star - the IOC's response to the request by EU countries and details of the explanation for the provisional reintegration of the Russian committee (link)
- European Pravda - European Commission statement expressing serious concern and opposing the normalisation of Russian participation (link)
- Demócrata - Commission statement on mapping the funding channels of sports organisations and the absence of direct funding for the IOC (link)
- EUR-Lex - Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on the EU's role in the field of sport (link)
- European Commission, European Sport Model - principles of the autonomy of sports federations and good governance (link)
- International Olympic Committee - overview of the revenue structure and distribution of funds within the Olympic movement (link)