Should Russian Athletes Be Allowed to Play in Tournaments?

Introduction

One of the essential ethical questions is the question of rights, duties, and responsibilities. The situation that will be analyzed is the ban of Russian athletes from participating in sports events, for example, tennis tournaments such as Wimbledon. As the Russian Federation started a war with Ukraine in 2022, condemned by the world community, Russian athletes began to be seen as those representing an unfriendly country. The ethical consequences of those bans will be analyzed, and alternative options will be proposed.

Case Description

In February 2022, the Russian Federation started an offensive on Ukraine, and the war between nations began as the result of the long-lasting tensions in relationships. In response to the invasion, everything connected with Russia started to be banned worldwide to punish the country for the offensive (Funke et al. 9). Wimbledon, one of the most prestigious tennis tournaments in the world, forbids Russian tennis players to participate in 2022 based on the Russian aggression. This decision has significant ethical consequences, as it prevents Russians from participating in sports competitions, regardless of their sports skills and even personal positions. Deontology will be used to analyze those consequences, propose alternative options, and see whether they are more or less moral than the option to ban Russian athletes.

Possible Alternatives

1. Let Russian tennis players play in tournaments without restrictions, as only sports skills should determine whether they should play, not political views. They can express their opinions freely, like all other athletes from other countries.
2. Allow them to play, but prohibit them from expressing views that justify war in Ukraine. It is a compromise position: while only sports skills should determine whether they should play, they should not use international competitions to promote a warmonger position.
3. Do nothing: then, the current decision to ban Russian athletes from international competitions is considered the best. It means that they will not be able to participate in international sports competitions as long as there is a war or they are Russian citizens, regardless of their personal position.

Rights and Duties for Alternatives

According to deontology, each ethical decision has consequences that can be expressed as rights and duties. There is a list of rights and responsibilities imposed by each option.

1. If every Russian athlete can participate, they will have the right to express all their thoughts and views as they want. Their duties include following all international laws, as for any other people.
2. In case of the compromise option, Russian athletes will have the right to participate freely, and tournaments will have the right to restrict their freedom of speech if they promote violence. The duty of athletes from all countries is to follow those restrictions if they want to participate. In addition, tournaments must ensure that there will not be a promotion of war or violence of any kind.
3. If the status quo is applied, all international sports tournaments, not only Wimbledon and not only in the field of tennis, will have the right to ban Russian athletes during the war. Their duties include choosing the criteria and arguments for banning athletes from various countries: their choice should be based on objective and lawful principles and be clearly justified.

Moral Rights: Definition and Description

In a deontological sense, the right may be considered moral if it meets all next criteria: one should accept it, it should impose fair duties that are reversible, and it should be universal. All possible objections against this right should be considered and analyzed, whether this is moral to accept the right. The reversibility means that by accepting the right, one should accept all duties connected with this right. Lastly, the universality of the right means that everyone should be allowed to accept and possess it, along with all its responsibilities. Now, all three options may be examined, and the most moral one, which fits those three criteria best, may be accepted.

1. The first option grants rights to athletes to freely participate in sports competitions and, thus, express all opinions that do not directly contradict the law, even if they justify war. It cannot be a moral right as it opens possibilities to diminish other people’s rights by promoting war and violence.
2. The compromise option grants rights to athletes to participate but grants rights to sports tournaments to limit their freedom of speech when it may promote war or violence. It may be applied to all people and is reversible, as no one wants to be exposed to violence. In that way, it is the most moral choice from the provided options.
3. The status quo option grants rights to all sports tournaments to limit athletes’ participation based on their arguments. It means the possibility of limiting the participation of athletes based on their motifs, which may be a foundation for unjust discrimination and cannot be universal. Thus, those rights cannot be considered moral, and the status quo option is not the best moral one.

Conclusion

The second alternative, which proposes a compromise, is the most moral, as the rights and responsibilities imposed by it are universal and fair. Everyone may accept the right not to be limited in possibilities to perform at sports competitions and not limit others, including Russian athletes, as long as they do not express views that promote violence. Avoiding hate speeches and war justification are, thus, those duties that should be followed to be allowed for participation. Therefore, this option is more moral than the status quo, as the precedent of banning Russians from participating in sports tournaments creates a ground for denying people’s rights based only on their nationality.

Work Cited

Funke, Michael, et al. Regional Ethics Bowl Cases. 2022.