Author: Pasha Kahn

Click here to read part 1 of this series, which takes a look at international news surrounding the Russian athlete ban through the spring. For how these bans have impacted a broader cross-section of the sporting world and analysis of the complex questions surrounding whether Russian athletes should be able to compete, check out this recent Sports Illustrated article by Michael Rosenberg.

Concerns over both fair play and propaganda have been tied to the necessity of the ban on Russian athletes. Yet ultimately the reason given by FIS for the ban was to “ensure the safety and security of all athletes”. This wording removed any political connotations, and was criticized for its weak stance that failed to condemn the war in Ukraine. 

Still, there were real concerns over the safety of the Russian athletes at European races. On March 1st, due to threats, the organizer of the World Junior Championships for jumping moved the Russian contingent out of their hotel in downtown Zakopane, Poland with the aid of 200 police officers. In Norway, Neprayeva reported being threatened in the team’s hotel in Oslo, and the Norwegian Ski Association was flooded with messages insinuating that if the Russian athletes started a race they would not finish.

“[The] FIS followed the IOC decision and based [the ban] on security,” Ulvang said in a call in March with FasterSkier reporter Nat Herz. “This has also become a legal case because Russia has taken this to CAS [The Court of Arbitration for Sport].”

While the FIS cited athlete security for the ban, the Federation took their cue from the IOC which recommended banning Russia due to the violation of the Olympic truce. This historical agreement, presented at the UN prior to the start of the Games, calls for the “cessation of hostilities” surrounding the Games, incorporating the Olympic values of sportsmanship and unity “with a view to protecting, as far as possible, the interests of the athletes and sport in general, and to harness the power of sport to promote peace, dialogue and reconciliation more broadly.” 

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24th, 2022 violated the agreement, co-sponsored by the Russian Olympic Federation, to abide by the truce from February 4th through March 20th, surrounding both the Olympic and Paralympic Games in China.

“We will see,” continued Ulvang, “whether this is within the overall statutes of sport or FIS actually, because our rules are not made for such special things. This is a very, very special circumstance. I have spoken to many lawyers who think this is an interesting question.”

Russia has pursued aggressive appeals of bans in a variety of sports, though with exception of Luge, largely without success. On May 21st, Vyalbe conceded that after consultations with lawyers, the Russian Ski Federation would not appeal the ban in CAS, saying, “We won’t win.”

An anonymous Russian blogger examined the legal considerations of banning Russia, and found that while the IOC had operated outside of its normal boundaries to call for a blanket ban, it had done so out of the special circumstances. Previously, it was the UN that called for athletic exclusions, such as that of Serbia during the siege of Sarajevo.

In this case, with Russia being a permanent member of the UN Security Council, any resolution could be unilaterally vetoed by the country, so in turn the burden fell to the 

IOC to take an action that was theoretically beyond its scope—though roughly in keeping with previous cases.  

For Russia, there is no easy recourse for dealing with sporting sanctions. Unlike economic ones, they do not inflict mutual pain and any victories achieved in the sport courts could easily be undermined by canceled visas or boycotts. 

Yet a sustained ban on Russian athletes is likely to reshape skiing in a number of ways, beginning with the sport’s media position. Russia now comprises the largest audience for cross country skiing, averaging 1.5 million per World Cup race and accounting for at least a third of the sport’s total audience. 

After Russia was banned this spring, Match!TV—a large Russian public broadcaster— pulled coverage of all international ski races and redirected its energies toward covering domestic competitions where it is likely to remain focused until Russian athletes return to the World Cup. 

Compounding the difficulties of that loss will be the continued transfer of ski racing from public TV in Norway, Sweden, and Finland to streaming service Viaplay, which charges a hefty subscription fee—as much as €40/month in Finland. 

Traditionally, public broadcasts in the Nordic countries accounted for half of skiing’s total audience. In 2020/21 that share fell to a third, in part because of Covid restrictions that kept their teams at home. Norway especially tuned out, with a 55% reduction in viewers, and numbers in Sweden, Finland, and Germany also declined. 

Offsetting this loss has been Russia, whose star skiers have propelled coverage of the World Cup from subscription channels to public TV in their country, boosting domestic viewership in 2020/21 by 600%.

While last season’s viewership numbers have not yet been published by FIS, during Period 1 of the World Cup last season, VG found that the races shown on Viaplay averaged far fewer viewers than would be typical for an NRK broadcast. 

Should broadcasting continue to sustain a loss of 40% of its audience in the Nordic countries while also losing the majority of Russian viewers, the sport may find itself in crisis, as sponsors balk at paying for low return advertising. Still, it may be too soon to write Viaplay off completely—the service recorded more than a million Swedish viewers tuning in to the World Cup weekend in Lillehammer. 

As a whole, FIS cross country skiing has struggled to hold its audience, and losses in some regions have been more than offset by the recent tide of Russian viewers.

While Russian viewership is huge, most sponsors of the FIS World Cup are not particularly oriented toward Russia. Coop—the title sponsor of the Cross Country World Cup—is a Norwegian grocery chain. Coop early on sided with the Norwegian Ski Association in calling for the exclusion of Russian skiers. Many other sponsors have no business in Russia, and some, like Audi, have halted operations there. 

Despite the €29 million that Russian viewership is estimated to be worth to sponsors, the audience may hold little allure, perhaps because of the average Russian’s low purchasing power. In 2021 the average Russian made around 40,000 rubles annually, or about $6,400. Now, with many western businesses pulling out of Russia, there is even less value placed on reaching Russian fans. 

For sponsors, the Russian exclusion may ultimately be beneficial. Germany, and Central Europe in general, are a core market for skiing—a market which has been drying up in an era of poor performances by the region’s skiers. 

With the German women winning gold at the Olympics and the retirement of the dominant force in distance racing, Norway’s Therese Johaug, the opportunities for success of sidelined countries could become plentiful on the women’s side with the additional absence of Russia.

On the men’s side of skiing, though Norway remains poised to dominate, a potential lack of a Russian team would create significant podium opportunities for up-and-coming American, Canadian, French, German, and Czech athletes. In recent seasons the rivalry between Norway and Russia has consumed almost three quarters of the World Cup podiums. The long term absence of Russia could allow the podium of men’s skiing to once again take on a broader flavor. 

Chris Grover, U.S. Ski & Snowboard Cross Country Program Director, clarified that a continued ban on Russian athletes wouldn’t change the quota system, writing, “We’ll have the same number of athletes starting each race. Obviously, Russia has a lot of the top performers, so there will be more opportunities for many other nations to secure podiums, gather World Cup prize money and points, and improve Red Group standing.”

All told, the changes that skiing will endure if Russia remains banned through next season may not be as dire as Russian sporting officials have suggested. 

“The tired rhetoric that world sport will not be able to fully develop without Russia does not seem to inspire the speakers themselves anymore,” wrote the anonymous blogger. “It is no coincidence that you can already hear talk about alternative tournaments, leagues, and other ways of self-reliant development.” 

The alternative for Russian skiing is to try to create its own circuit among friendly nations. To date, Russian skiing has only managed to solidify a sporting partnership with Belarus, via a cooperative agreement signed in May.

Stay tuned for Part 3, which considers historic athlete bans, and barriers the Russian program face to keep their program operating in the interim.

With Russian athletes banned from all FIS competitions, and no end in sight for the war in Ukraine, there is a growing belief that Russian skiers are unlikely to rejoin the World Cup next season. 

Some commentators have gone further, proclaiming that we have seen the last of Bolshunov, Neprayeva, and the rest of the Russian team on the international stage. The pessimism is rooted in the history of similar bans—which tend to be long lived—and the uncertainty over what circumstances would allow for the Russians to rejoin. 

Will the ban end when Ukrainian athletes can return fully to competition? That may not be possible until long after the end of the conflict. Perhaps a negotiated peace settlement? That possibility could still create discontent with athletes such as Bolshunov being used to fuel propaganda at home. Does the ban require the Putin regime to end? That could be a distant future. 

“I expect that this situation will last as long as the conflict is unsolved,” said Vegard  Ulvang, the outgoing chairman of the FIS Cross Country Committee, “but that’s of course up to the FIS Council or IOC.” 

Ulvang was outspoken in calling for the Russian exclusion from the Norwegian hosted World Cup events this spring. Ulvang said in a call, “We have a fairness rule in FIS that there should be equal opportunities. When one nation cannot compete because they have to go home to defend their country, and the attacking country is racing, that’s not nice.”

Ulvang’s point is underscored by the Ukrainian athletes now fighting on the front lines, with many called up just days after returning from the Beijing Olympics. Among the Olympians taking up arms was Dmytro Pidruchnyi, a biathlete who has won gold in the World Championships. The danger faced by the athletes defending their country was made clear early on in the conflict with the tragic loss of nineteen year old biathlete Yevhen Malyshev, who was killed defending Kharkiv on February 26th. 

Another explanation for the ban was that it would help send a message to everyday Russians and deprive the state of a propaganda tool. 

The charge that athletes were being used for propaganda purposes was confirmed during Russian President Vladimir Putin’s March 16th pro-war rally in Moscow. The event, titled “For a World Without Nazism” was MC’d by longtime biathlon TV commentator Dmitry Guberniev. Stars of the Beijing Olympics—including Alexander Bolshunov—were trotted out in front of the (reportedly) 100,000 strong audience in the Luzhniki stadium. 

Questions remain about whether the athletes attended of their own accord, and there has been speculation about whether Bolshunov’s decision not to wear a letter Z pin on the stage—a pro-war symbol—reflected an ambivalent attitude to the conflict now raging near his home. 

On April 26th, a host of Olympic heroes were called to receive state awards by Vladimir Putin in a ceremony that required the athletes to quarantine prior to the visit. Putin congratulated the skiers, saying “First of all, I would like to note the long-awaited victories in the relay race…We have not had a simultaneous victory of both the women’s and men’s teams for exactly half a century. This is a big result.”

A few notable Russian stars missed the Kremlin occasion: Bolshunov for dental surgery, Neprayeva because she arrived to quarantine sick, and Ustiugov because his wife had recently given birth. 

Bolshunov’s absence at the event stirred further speculation that he had intentionally scheduled the surgery to avoid the ceremony, and with it the possibility of a personal ban set against him by FIS, much as FINA – the International Swimming Federation – did by banning Yevgeny Rylov for nine months after he stood next to Bolshunov at the March 16th rally.

Elena Vyalbe, who heads the Russian Ski Federation, manages the national team, and sits on the FIS council, dismissed this speculation, saying, “Who wrote that Alexander [Bolshunov] refused? I already spoke about this…He was scheduled for surgery on the 24th [of April].”

However, during the Olympics Bolshunov made it clear he dreaded the idea of the quarantine required to meet Putin, saying, “If they put me in jail forcibly, I’ll run away in two hours. I can’t just take it and throw 10-14 days out of my life. It’s unrealistic.”

During the Kremlin ceremony, Putin singled out the missing Bolshunov for special praise: “I note that Alexander Bolshunov has collected a solid collection of awards in Beijing,” Putin said. “Everyone knows this well. He has three gold, silver and bronze medals. And the absolutely well-deserved symbolic title of king of skis.”

The political significance of the event, which was delayed due to the war in Ukraine, was not lost on anyone. Veronika Stepanova, the upcoming ski star from Kamchatka seized the moment to make a splash.

Addressing Putin and the Kremlin audience, Stepanova said, “I am the same age as the century—I was born in January, 2001. Before my very eyes, Russia has again become strong, proud, and successful. Not everyone in the world likes it. It is obvious. But we are on the right track. And we will definitely win, as we won at the Olympics.”

The overt statement of support from Stepanova far exceeded expectations of decorum that called for perfunctory public speaking at most. That Stepanova would jeopardize a burgeoning ski career for a soundbite even shocked Russian commentators who speculated that the 21 year old was positioning herself for a transition to politics. For her part, Stepanova responded saying, “Negative consequences for my international career? They don’t scare [me].”

Far from distancing herself from the comments, Stepanova has brashly doubled down, saying, “Was I nervous when I spoke at the meeting with Putin? You have to believe in what you say. The presence of the president does not confuse or frighten, on the contrary, it energizes. You feel tremendous confidence next to him, you feel a special energy.”

Stepanova’s words have reverberated as she has gained a following in the west: outgoing and fluent in English, as well as adept at social media, many fans as well as fellow competitors felt they could relate easily to her. 

Helene Marie Fossesholm of Norway was one such skier that enjoyed a friendly rapport with Stepanova off the ski trails. In the wake of her Kremlin speech, Fossesholm told NRK she was uncertain of how the friendship would continue, saying, “I can not answer that until I have experienced it. But it is clear that it will not be forgotten, at all.”

Flooded with foreign media requests to explain herself, Stepanova responded via her Instagram page, writing “I have an answer to [Western journalists]: Did you expect anything else from me? Just because I smile, speak a little English and am almost always ready for some nonsense, does that make me ‘another type of Russian?’ The peak of naivety!”

Vyalbe has been among Stepanova’s detractors this spring, criticizing her by saying that she may be suffering from “star disease” and that “now she is not an athlete, but a patriotic blogger.” For the head of Russian skiing, Stepanova has become irksome. “My senior leaders ask me questions about her,” Vyalbe told Championat, “and I feel ashamed and unpleasant.”

For her part, Vyalbe faced pressure in her bid to remain on the FIS council, after the Ski Federations of Poland, Finland, and Sweden moved to bar her from running for reelection at the FIS Congress on May 26th. FIS, however, allowed Vyalbe’s candidacy.

In allowing Vyalbe to run, FIS may have looked at the difficulties endured by the International Luge Federation (FIL). In early March FIL had voted to ban Russia in much the same manner as FIS, though Luge went a step further—voting in favor of expelling elected officials from Russia. 

In April, Russia won their appeal in the FIL’s own Court of Arbitration, and saw the ban removed on the grounds that they were—according to the Russian Luge Federation—”dictated solely by political motives and had no legal grounds for adoption”.

For FIS, the Luge ruling was likely a reminder that barring Vyalbe from running could run afoul of their own laws against politically motivated rulings. 

Apart from from the symbolism of being Russia’s representative to FIS, Vyalbe had escalated tensions in the ski world by laying the blame for the ban squarely on the shoulders of Norway’s FIS representatives—Erik Røste, the head of the Norwegian Ski Federation and FIS councilor, and Vegard Ulvang, the outgoing chairman of the FIS cross country skiing committee. 

In response, Røste said, “Norway will not vote for Russia because of the terrible things happening in Ukraine.”

The Vyalbe election saga has proven to be a tender subject for Russian commentators. When Swedish skier Markus Grate commented that “There is no possibility that Vyalbe will remain on the council,” biathlon TV commentator Guberniev declared that if Grate was suggesting that Vyalbe be excluded on the basis of her nationality, then “he is a Nazi, these are the words of a Nazi.”

In any case, Vyalbe lost the election on May 26th at the FIS Congress—finishing last. “In this situation, it was expected,” Vyalbe said. “There was a letter from the Ukrainian Federation, which says that everything should be politicized.” 

With Vyalbe out of the FIS council, Russian skiing will likely recede further into seclusion. 

Stay tuned for parts 2 and 3 of this series, which will be released over the next week.