Live

Introduction

As the Winter Olympic Games began in Milano Cortina and the annual Eurovision Song Contest approaches (Vienna is the place to host the event), both events are facing once again a much too familiar question: can culture ever truly be separated from politics?

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Eurovision’s organizer, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), both claim for their competitions to be apolitical spaces, created to unite people across borders and beyond political divisions (Nugent, 2026; World Federation of Tourist Guide Associations, 2025). However, the ongoing wars, the public protests happening in Milan, and the number of countries boycotting the song contest have shown that this is a difficult statement to uphold (Savage, 2025; The New Arab Staff, 2026). As countries and audiences argue who is allowed to participate and under what conditions, such conflicts raise a broader question: can events that rely on national representation ever separate culture from politics — and should they?

Context of the two events

The Olympic Games

The ancient Olympic Games originated in 776 BCE in Olympia, Greece, making them one of the oldest recorded organized sporting traditions. In its roots, the Games were a religious festival honoring Zeus as well as celebrating the humans’ ability to challenge their physical limits in the pursuit of honor, glory, and fame.

Although the modern Olympic Games no longer are related to religion, they still aim to celebrate individual excellence and physicality. At the same time, they have also become an important tool to instill pride through national representation, as athletes compete under national flags, victories are celebrated with national anthems, and medal counts are a showoff of national success. Thus, whether a country is allowed to participate in the Games is a strong sign of not only athletic inclusion, but international acceptance of the country and its actions.

Eurovision

The Eurovision Song Contest was created in 1956 by the European Broadcasting Union, which was heavily inspired by Italy’s Sanremo Music Festival. As the main goal in mind was to test the technicality behind live international broadcasting and promote unity across nations through music, the event is shown to be strongly related to international relations but these relations are also connected to the participating national broadcasters.

Therefore, even though neutrality has been stated, the event can still be seen as a so-called “soft power” tool, which could be used to reinforce national identities and empower countries and their representatives as the audience’s voting reflects the geopolitical scene and the alliances between countries. The most evident recent example of such support is Ukraine’s 2022 win, which showed the European citizens’ compassion towards the country.

As a result, although both organizers try to argue the claim of neutrality, both events carry political weight and significance, and the participating countries could take a massive advantage of their representation in them.

The current situation of the two competitions

The Winter Olympic Games in Milano Cortina

The Olympic values are clear: peace, unity, and respect for human life. At the same time, it has been shown throughout this and the last century that these values are not strictly enforced through the Games’ own rules.

However, an evident attempt to enforce these values is the Olympic Truce, which promotes peace in principle, as it requires a cease-fire from seven days before the Olympics to seven days after the Paralympics, ensuring the athletes’ wellbeing and safety. As Russia attacked Ukraine during this period of time during the 2022 Olympic Beijing Games, the country has been prohibited from participating until the consequences of the war are considered by the IOC as resolved.

This situation demonstrates how conditional Olympic prohibitions can be. In the case of Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine, these measures provide a form of justice for Ukraine (Schubert, 2024). However, punishments and exclusions being dependent on highly specific circumstances rather than written principles could lead to the organization applying them only selectively, rather than being universally fair.

An evident example of such inconsistency is Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. Although one could argue that the conflict did not begin in the specific timeframe specified in the Olympic Treaty, the violence in the area continues, as strikes are reported only days before the Milano Cortina Olympic Games. Despite this, Israel still participates in the Games.

These two situations show the Olympics’ inability to claim neutrality: in the end, their situational decisions and specific exclusions ultimately create a political stance, as they show which violence for them is unacceptable, and which could be tolerated.

The Eurovision Song Contest 2026

As the contest is clearly connected to the broadcast channels that help the artist to represent the country, the conditions for participating are tightly connected to the broadcasting channels as they must be an EBU member, be capable of broadcasting the show live, and act as companies that are government-independent.

By having these conditions in mind, Israel hasn’t been banned from the competition as their public broadcaster, KAN, has been stated to be politically distanced from the ongoing military campaign of Israel’s government.

At the same time, misalignment with that condition has been evident in Russia’s situation as EBU’s first claim to ban Russia from entering the contest in 2022 has been explicitly related to Ukraine’s invasion. Only in the years after, they have adjusted their claim for the prohibition, clarifying that they are suspending Russia as their broadcaster is heavily influenced by the government, violating the freedom of speech obligations that members should follow.

Another not as clearly stated reason for Israel’s continuous participation is related to strictly the financial aspect of the competition – as Russia is banned, the remaining cost for the rest of the members has already been raised, making it harder for nations like Bulgaria, Montenegro and North Macedonia to participate. Another ban could only make the cost higher, making it more likely for other countries to refuse to be part of the competition.

Taken together, both cases show that while EBU formally bases its decisions around the freedom of speech’s protection and broadcaster independence, it has shown conditional application of its principles, shaped by political context and practical difficulties rather than enforcement of international agreement and unity. 

Discussion

In the end, the neutral stances of the two events’ organizers attempt to provide justification of permitting and prohibiting countries from participating, but in the end, they both fail as they provide ambiguous decisions based on the specific cases, rather than written regulations.

Such lack of consistency leads to the current situation of audiences and countries protesting the rather distasteful participation of Israel in both events, even though it is clear from their recent actions that the current government does not value human life in contradiction to the principles of both events, which have the goal of showcasing individuals’ talent and skills, either in sports or music.

At the same time, responsibility should not be placed on individual athletes who have trained their whole lives for this chance to compete. For this reason, neutral participation remains a vital policy that protects individuals’ rights from the actions of their governments. Thus, if applied consistency, it could offer a fair opportunity for athletes to compete by publicly distancing themselves from the government, if the state engages in a war or military campaigns.

However, such neutrality cannot be applied to Eurovision due to the contest being explicitly created for national representation and a sign of international agreement and unity. As artists are selected to perform on behalf of the whole country, such apolitical participation of specific singers would be rather meaningless. Thus, the organization should apply stricter criteria related to the eligibility of a nation participating, and should refine its position of political neutrality.

Thus, culture and politics could get heavily interconnected on a global level, as culture shapes and influences people’s perception of the current situation. As organisers continue to claim neutrality, while making selective decisions, controversy will remain and audiences will protest.

Ultimately, the discussion should remain open to younger audiences as the institutions have the opportunity to listen, reassess their rules and reestablish their core values beyond symbolic claims they’ve had until now.

Written by

Shape the conversation

Do you have anything to add to this story? Any ideas for interviews or angles we should explore? Let us know if you’d like to write a follow-up, a counterpoint, or share a similar story.

Write a counterargument article Write a related article