HAVE EVENTS BECOME DIPLOMATIC WEAPONS FOR WORLD PEACE?
—LESSONS FROM DISCONNECTING PUTIN

Events have always shaped power; now they’re being weaponised to isolate autocratic aggressors.

Dr Mike Duignan (University of Paris 1: Pantheon-Sorbonne (France).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

·       Russia’s exclusion from global events reveals how sport and culture now function as strategic tools of isolation.

·       Events once seen as politically neutral are increasingly leveraged to deny legitimacy to autocratic regimes.

·       Exclusion carries measurable economic consequences, from lost tourism to damaged global reputations.

·       Inconsistencies and ethical dilemmas—especially around collective punishment—undermine the credibility of exclusion policies.

·       Leaders must apply exclusion consistently, transparently, and with clear safeguards to protect event legitimacy and global cooperation.

INTRODUCTION

When does a concert, football match, or global expo stop being just entertainment—and start becoming a tool of war or peace?

In early 2022, as Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, international condemnation came swiftly. But alongside economic sanctions and political outrage, another quieter yet equally symbolic battlefront emerged: the world of global events. Formula One cancelled its Russian Grand Prix. UEFA stripped St. Petersburg of the Champions League final. The Paralympic Games expelled Russian athletes. Even Russia’s grand pavilion at Expo 2020 in Dubai—designed to showcase innovation and cultural pride—became an ironic relic of a nation increasingly shunned.

This isn’t the first time events have carried political weight. From the boycotts of the 1980 and 1984 Olympics to recent human rights controversies surrounding Qatar 2022, global stages have always been more than neutral spaces. Yet Russia’s near-total exclusion marks something different: a coordinated, systemic use of cultural and sporting events to isolate an autocratic regime.

For event organisers, policymakers, and festival leaders, this raises critical questions. Can global events be consciously weaponised for diplomacy? Should they? And what happens when participation is no longer seen as a right—but as a privilege conditioned on global norms?

“Global stages have never been neutral—but Russia’s near-total exclusion marks a coordinated, systemic use of cultural and sporting events to isolate an autocratic regime.”

THE PROBLEM AND/OR OPPORTUNITY

The problem is clear: autocratic regimes have long exploited international events to legitimise their power, whitewash human rights abuses, and bolster domestic authority. Sporting spectacles, cultural showcases, and global festivals offer more than economic benefits—they provide global visibility, credibility, and a seat at the table of international influence.

But the coordinated exclusion of Russia from major events after its invasion of Ukraine signals a turning point. The international community is no longer treating global events as politically neutral.

Instead, participation is being leveraged as a form of soft power pressure—a tool to isolate regimes that defy international norms.

The opportunity? Events are emerging as powerful diplomatic assets capable of reinforcing shared values, deterring aggression, and holding autocratic governments accountable. Yet, this approach is not without risks: inconsistencies, ethical dilemmas, and questions of fairness remain unresolved.

This matters now because the global events landscape is at a crossroads. For decades, autocratic states have invested heavily in winning hosting rights, sponsoring teams, and curating cultural spectacles to project an image of modernity, stability, and global integration. Events have become central to how regimes like Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia shape their international identity.

But Russia’s exclusion marks a shift—events are no longer guaranteed platforms for every nation. In an era of geopolitical instability, human rights violations, and rising authoritarianism, the world is asking harder questions about who gets to participate, and under what conditions.

WHY DOES THIS MATTER NOW?

For event organisers, sponsors, and policymakers, this isn’t abstract diplomacy—it’s an immediate operational, ethical, and reputational challenge. Decisions made today about who to exclude or include will define the future role of global events as instruments of peace, platforms for propaganda, or both.

We’ve long understood that events are more than entertainment—they are stages for soft power, diplomacy, and image-making as nations, especially emerging or autocratic states, strategically use sports and cultural events to project influence and gain legitimacy.

What’s new is the deliberate, coordinated use of exclusion itself as a form of sanction. While boycotts have punctuated the history of mega-events, rarely have we seen such systemic action to remove a nation entirely from the global events ecosystem.

HOW DOES THIS ADD TO WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW?

This article challenges the lingering assumption that events should remain politically neutral. It adds to existing knowledge by demonstrating that inclusion—and exclusion—are fundamentally political acts, with tangible impacts on global legitimacy, economic outcomes, and geopolitical relationships. The Russian case forces us to reconsider the responsibilities, risks, and strategic potential of events in a divided world.

Key Arguments

  • For decades, organisers, governing bodies, and commercial sponsors have clung to the notion that sport and culture exist in a separate, apolitical sphere. “We don’t do politics,” has been the default defence whenever human rights abuses or authoritarian regimes host events.

    But the Russian invasion of Ukraine shattered that illusion. The international reaction—swift bans from UEFA competitions, the cancellation of Russia’s Formula One Grand Prix, exclusion from the Paralympics—demonstrates that global events have become active diplomatic arenas. Participation is now conditional, not automatic.

    Real-world example? Consider the 2022 UEFA Champions League final. Initially awarded to St. Petersburg, it was relocated to Paris within days of the invasion. This wasn’t a symbolic move—it represented the growing consensus that hosting rights are a privilege tied to international norms.

    This shift extends beyond Russia. After global scrutiny over Qatar 2022 and ongoing debates about events in China or Saudi Arabia, organisers are being forced to confront a new reality: events can no longer operate under the false comfort of political neutrality. They are instruments of influence—and responsibility.

  • Autocratic regimes have long recognised the strategic value of global events in reinforcing their legitimacy—both at home and abroad. Hosting a World Cup, securing Olympic bids, or staging major expos provides more than tourism revenue; it signals modernity, global acceptance, and national strength.

    Vladimir Putin understood this perfectly. His personal involvement in bringing the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics and the 2018 FIFA World Cup to Russia was no accident. These events were designed to rebrand Russia as a global power, deflect criticism, and consolidate domestic support.

    But exclusion flips this logic on its head. When Russia was stripped of its Formula One Grand Prix and expelled from major sporting competitions, the state lost a key tool of legitimacy. Suddenly, the image of Russia as an integrated, respected member of the global community crumbled.

    This isn’t unique to Russia. Across the world, autocratic leaders rely on events to construct favourable narratives. Denying them access undermines those narratives, erodes their international credibility, and limits their ability to showcase strength.

    In short, exclusion doesn’t just isolate regimes—it punctures their propaganda machines.

  • While the symbolic impact of exclusion captures headlines, the financial fallout is equally significant—and impossible for regimes to ignore. Major events drive investment, tourism, and infrastructure development. Russia’s exclusion from global events has triggered a sharp economic contraction in these sectors. With the cancellation of future events, flight bans on Aeroflot, and plummeting inbound tourism, the financial cost is compounding. This financial isolation extends beyond immediate revenue loss. Without international events, countries lose opportunities for foreign investment, job creation, and soft power-driven trade deals.

  • Russia’s exclusion from global events set a bold precedent: participation is now explicitly linked to political behaviour. But with that precedent comes scrutiny, and the uncomfortable reality is clear—enforcement remains inconsistent.

    While Russia faces blanket bans, other authoritarian regimes continue to enjoy the prestige of hosting and participating in major events. Saudi Arabia, for instance, has secured high-profile sporting deals, from boxing and Formula E to its controversial acquisition of Newcastle United. China, despite widespread human rights concerns, hosted the 2022 Winter Olympics and remains deeply embedded in global sporting structures.

    This selective application risks undermining the credibility of exclusion as a diplomatic tool. If participation depends on politics, who decides where the line is drawn? And what happens when commercial interests clash with ethical standards?

    For event organisers, this inconsistency fuels reputational risk and stakeholder distrust. Audiences, athletes, and sponsors increasingly expect coherent, values-driven decision-making. Failure to apply exclusion policies consistently exposes events to criticism, protests, and declining public trust.

    The Russian case demonstrates the power of exclusion—but also highlights the urgent need for clearer, universally applied criteria.

  • While the strategic use of exclusion can isolate autocratic regimes, it also introduces complex ethical dilemmas—chief among them, the question of collective punishment.

    When Russian athletes were banned from the Paralympic Games or national teams suspended from FIFA competitions, thousands of individuals—many with no direct role in political decisions—were penalised. Cultural performers, sportspeople, and ordinary citizens often become collateral damage in a diplomatic strategy far beyond their control.

    This tension is not hypothetical. Consider Russian tennis players permitted to compete at Wimbledon in 2023—but only under neutral flags, stripped of national identity. The compromise reflects growing discomfort with blanket exclusions but underscores the absence of clear, ethical frameworks.

    Moreover, inconsistency deepens these dilemmas. While Russia faces exclusion, other nations with contested human rights records—China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia—continue to participate fully in global events, raising questions about fairness and political selectivity.

    For event leaders and policymakers, the challenge is to balance legitimate diplomatic pressure with safeguarding individual rights, upholding event integrity, and avoiding hypocrisy. Without careful, consistent application, exclusion risks becoming a blunt instrument that undermines the very values it seeks to defend.

CONCLUSIONS

Russia’s systematic exclusion from global sporting and cultural events is more than a diplomatic gesture—it represents a fundamental shift in how the world uses events as instruments of influence, accountability, and isolation. Once seen as neutral spaces for competition and cultural exchange, major events are now deeply entangled with global politics.

For autocratic regimes, the implications are stark. Events that once offered legitimacy, economic opportunity, and international prestige can now be withdrawn, weaponised as sanctions to expose aggression, erode soft power, and limit global standing.

But this evolving reality is complex. The Russian case demonstrates the strategic potential of exclusion, yet it also reveals inconsistencies and unresolved ethical dilemmas. Selective enforcement, unclear criteria, and the risk of penalising individuals for state-level actions create significant tensions.

The events sector—and the global community—faces a critical inflection point. Decisions about who can host, compete, and participate will define not only the credibility of events themselves but also their role in shaping international norms.

Exclusion works—but only if applied fairly, consistently, and with a clear understanding of both its power and its limitations.

The world must now confront an unavoidable question: If participation is a privilege linked to global values, who gets to decide when that privilege is revoked—and on what terms?

“Exclusion works—but only if applied fairly, consistently, and with a clear understanding of both its power and its limitations.”

PRACTICAL ACTIONS

Event organisers, cultural institutions, and policymakers must recognise that events no longer exist in a political vacuum. The exclusion of Russia has demonstrated how global events can be used to isolate regimes—but also exposed inconsistencies and reputational risks. To navigate this new reality effectively, several practical actions are essential:

1. Establish Clear, Transparent Participation Criteria

Participation in international events must be underpinned by consistent, transparent criteria aligned with global norms—particularly regarding human rights, international law, and peaceful diplomacy. Governing bodies should develop published frameworks outlining when exclusion is triggered, reducing accusations of hypocrisy or political selectivity. This protects both event integrity and organisational reputation.

2. Differentiate Between State and Individual Sanctions

While state-level exclusion can serve as diplomatic leverage, care must be taken to avoid unjustly penalising individual athletes, artists, or participants. Hybrid models—such as allowing individual participation under neutral flags or without national symbols—can preserve opportunities for individuals while still applying pressure at the state level.

3. Implement Independent Oversight Mechanisms

Decision-making on exclusions should not rest solely with event organisers or political stakeholders. Independent advisory bodies, incorporating human rights experts, ethicists, and legal advisors, can ensure decisions are made impartially, transparently, and consistently, safeguarding the credibility of events.

4. Anticipate Economic and Political Implications

Exclusion decisions have wide-ranging economic impacts—for host cities, participants, and the global events economy. Policymakers must conduct impact assessments to weigh the consequences, considering both immediate effects and long-term implications for tourism, investment, and cultural exchange.

5. Communicate Decisions with Clarity and Purpose

Public trust depends on coherent, principled communication. Event leaders must articulate not only the decision to exclude but the values underpinning that choice. Transparent messaging reinforces the legitimacy of events, demonstrates alignment with international norms, and fosters public understanding.

6. Prepare for Increased Geopolitical Complexity

The use of events as diplomatic tools is likely to intensify. Organisers must prepare for greater scrutiny, more complex stakeholder landscapes, and the need to navigate competing political interests. Building internal capacity in political risk assessment, ethics, and stakeholder management is now essential.

7. Lead by Example in Promoting Global Values

Events have the power to promote dialogue, understanding, and peace—but only if their governance reflects these values. Leaders should champion diversity, inclusion, and human rights within their own organisations, reinforcing credibility when applying exclusion policies externally.

In sum, exclusion can be a powerful tool—but only when applied with consistency, fairness, and strategic foresight. For events to retain their legitimacy, the sector must lead decisively, ensuring global platforms reflect not just entertainment and spectacle—but responsibility, accountability, and shared values.

IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES

While exclusion from global events can be an effective diplomatic tool, its application comes with significant limitations.

First, selective enforcement risks undermining legitimacy. If powerful nations with questionable human rights records—such as China or Saudi Arabia—continue to host and participate freely, exclusion loses moral authority and is seen as politically inconsistent.

Second, collective punishment remains contentious. Banning athletes, artists, or cultural groups for the actions of their governments raises ethical questions, particularly in societies where dissent is suppressed.

Third, exclusion may drive regimes further into isolation, limiting avenues for dialogue, people-to-people exchange, and cultural diplomacy that could otherwise foster understanding or incremental reform.

Finally, the commercial realities of global events—dependent on sponsors, broadcasters, and tourism—create pressure to prioritise profit over principle, complicating consistent policy enforcement.

Exclusion works, but without universal application, ethical safeguards, and clear long-term strategy, it risks becoming a blunt instrument—effective in the short term, but damaging to global cooperation and event credibility in the long run.

AUTHOR(S)

Dr Mike Duignan, Professeur des Universities, University of Paris 1: Pantheon-Sorbonne (France).

Mike is the Founder and CEO of the Centre for Events and Festivals (CEF); Professeur at the University of Paris 1: Pantheon-Sorbonne; and the Editor-in-Chief of Event Management Journal - the leading academic journal for the study and analysis of events and festivals, founded in 1993, and based in New York (USA). He is also the Editor of Routledge’s book series: ‘How Events Transform Society’. Previously, Mike has been Director of Research, Intelligence and Education at Trivandi; Associate Professor at the University of Central Florida (USA) and Head of Department and Reader at the University of Surrey, where he was also the Director of the UK Olympic Studies Centre - the #1 UK, European and USA universities for the study of events and festivals. For the past 15 years, Mike has been researching, analysing, commentating, writing, publishing, and teaching on the economics and social impacts of staging major events, with the view to improve delivery and leave a sustainable legacy for the communities, people and places that play host. All Mike’s work is available at: www.MikeDuignan.com.

Disclaimer
The views and insights expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and reflect their research and professional expertise. They do not represent the views of the Centre for Events & Festivals CIC or its partners.