At the 2026 Milan Cortina Winter Games, a small contingent of competitors will appear under the mysterious designation AIN—a code that has sparked widespread curiosity among viewers worldwide. These three letters, prominently displayed on uniforms and official materials, do not represent a nation, territory, or traditional Olympic delegation. Instead, they signify a unique and controversial category: Individual Neutral Athletes.
The acronym AIN derives from its French equivalent, "Athlètes Individuels Neutres," reflecting the International Olympic Committee's bilingual tradition. This classification allows athletes from specific countries to participate in the Games while stripped of any national identity—no flags, no anthems, and no official representation of their homeland. The neutral designation fundamentally alters the Olympic experience, transforming what is traditionally a celebration of national pride into a purely individual pursuit of athletic excellence.
For the Milan Cortina Olympics, twenty athletes have received approval to compete under this neutral banner. The group comprises thirteen Russians and seven Belarusians, all cleared to participate despite their countries' ongoing exclusion from official Olympic competition. This arrangement stems directly from the geopolitical crisis that began in 2022, when Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, with Belarus providing strategic support. The conflict has reshaped countless aspects of international relations, and Olympic sport has proven no exception.
The International Olympic Committee responded swiftly to the conflict, imposing a comprehensive ban on Russia and Belarus from officially entering the Olympic Games. However, the organization soon introduced a nuanced policy permitting individual athletes to seek neutral status, creating a pathway for participation that attempts to balance punitive measures against nations with the Olympic principle of athlete inclusion. This compromise position has generated intense debate within the global sports community about where to draw the line between political accountability and athletic opportunity.
Securing AIN status involves rigorous scrutiny that goes far beyond standard eligibility requirements. Eligible athletes must demonstrate they have not actively supported their country's military actions or expressed pro-war sentiments publicly or privately. Additionally, they cannot maintain contracts with military or state security agencies—a criterion that disqualifies numerous competitors from consideration, given the deep integration of athletic systems with state institutions in both Russia and Belarus. The vetting process examines public statements, social media activity, institutional affiliations, and even family connections to ensure compliance with IOC standards.
Despite this pathway, significant restrictions remain in place that fundamentally limit the scope of participation. Team sports remain entirely off-limits for neutral athletes, preventing Russian and Belarusian participation in events like ice hockey, figure skating team events, and bobsleigh team competitions. This rule ensures that no national collective representation can emerge through the back door of individual qualification, maintaining the isolation of the offending states' sport systems.
Furthermore, not all international sport federations cooperate with the neutral athlete framework, creating additional barriers. The International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation, for instance, has declined to establish qualification routes for AIN competitors, effectively blocking athletes in those disciplines regardless of their neutral status. Such decisions highlight the fragmented nature of Olympic governance, where continental and global federations wield considerable autonomy and may interpret IOC guidance differently based on their own political and practical considerations.
The medal achievements of AIN athletes carry a unique status in Olympic record-keeping that distinguishes them from all other competitors. While individual accomplishments are recognized and medals are awarded, their successes do not contribute to any national medal table. This creates an odd statistical anomaly where world-class performances exist in a sort of geopolitical limbo—celebrated personally but not counted officially toward their country's Olympic heritage or historical performance metrics.
This is not the first time Russian athletes have competed under neutral designations, revealing a complex history of sanctions and modified status. During the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, Russian competitors participated as ROC (Russian Olympic Committee), a neutral designation imposed due to the country's state-sponsored doping scandal rather than military aggression. Under this banner, they captured an impressive 32 medals, including five golds, demonstrating that even without national symbols, Russian athletes remained highly competitive.
The ROC label also appeared at the 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympics—held in 2021 due to the pandemic—marking the second consecutive Games affected by doping-related sanctions. However, the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics featured a different neutral identity: OAR (Olympic Athletes from Russia). This designation emerged from the most severe punishment to date, following revelations of a systematic, state-sponsored doping program that corrupted multiple Olympic cycles and led to the most comprehensive sanctions in Olympic history.
The evolution from OAR to ROC to AIN reflects shifting rationales for Russia's modified Olympic status and progressively stricter limitations. The doping scandal triggered the initial neutral designations, while the Ukraine invasion prompted the current, more restrictive AIN framework. Each iteration has carried progressively stricter limitations on national expression and team participation, suggesting a ratcheting effect in how the IOC responds to repeated violations.
For the athletes themselves, competing as AIN presents profound psychological and emotional challenges that extend beyond the competitive arena. They must navigate the paradox of reaching sport's highest stage while being officially disconnected from their national identity. The absence of their flag and anthem during victory ceremonies creates a hollow moment—even for those who genuinely oppose their government's actions and have cleared the stringent neutrality requirements. Many report feeling isolated from both their home country, which may view them as traitors, and the broader Olympic community, which still associates them with an aggressor state.
The Milan Cortina Games represent a testing ground for this policy's long-term viability and may set precedents for future conflicts. With only twenty athletes approved from populations that traditionally field much larger delegations, the AIN program operates at a minimal scale. This limited participation suggests the IOC has implemented the policy cautiously, perhaps anticipating criticism from both pro-inclusion and pro-exclusion camps while monitoring how the arrangement functions in practice.
Critics argue the neutral athlete compromise fails on both humanitarian and political levels, satisfying no one completely. Ukrainian officials and supporters contend any Russian or Belarusian participation legitimizes aggressor nations and disrespects Ukraine's suffering, arguing that true solidarity requires complete isolation. Conversely, some international observers claim the policy unfairly punishes athletes for political circumstances beyond their control, violating the Olympic Charter's anti-discrimination principles and creating guilt by association.
The IOC maintains its position represents the only viable middle ground—upholding sanctions against offending states while preserving athletes' rights to compete based on merit alone. The organization points to historical precedents where political disputes led to broader boycotts that ultimately harmed the global Olympic movement and individual athlete careers without achieving political objectives. They argue the AIN framework protects the Games' universality while still delivering consequences to national Olympic committees.
As the 2026 Games unfold, the AIN designation will likely generate continued discussion about sport's role in geopolitical conflicts and whether neutrality is truly possible. The sight of medal ceremonies without national symbols, the performance of neutral athletes competing for personal glory rather than patriotic pride, and the ongoing absence of Russian and Belarusian teams will serve as constant reminders of the war's far-reaching consequences. These athletes become unwitting symbols of a world where even the traditionally apolitical realm of sport cannot escape the shadow of international conflict.
Whether the AIN framework becomes a permanent feature of Olympic governance or a temporary measure tied to the current conflict remains uncertain. What is clear is that these individual neutral athletes represent more than competitors—they embody the complex intersection of politics, principle, and performance that defines the modern Olympic movement in an era of global instability. Their presence challenges long-held assumptions about national identity in sport and forces a re-examination of what it truly means to be an Olympic athlete when the world is watching not just for athletic achievement, but for political meaning.