Double Standards In Global Sport Entities By Mohammed Ibrahim

        Iran’s local television station, AI Mayadeen, recently reported that the United States launched an air strike targeting a gym in the city of Lamerd, in Fars province in Southern Iran. The report said the attack killed 20 women volleyball players, amid escalating military conflict involving Iran, Israel and the United States.

The International Volleyball Federation (FIVB) issued a statement saying it was shocked and deeply concerned by reports of the deaths of youth volleyball athletes as unrest in the Middle East intensifies. And expressed its “deepest condolences to the victims’ families and to all those affected. The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) affirmed that children were inside the building when it was hit.

Tasnim News Agency reported that the strikes also hit four other sites in the city. Separately, Iran said the US-Israel air strikes have killed more than 200 people and injured nearly 750 nationwide, adding that 220 rescue teams had been deployed to assist those affected in impacted areas.

Earlier, the Iranian media had reported at least 153 deaths, including children, after a strike hit a school in Southern Iran, blaming the US and Israel. This all-girls school is located in Minab, near a military base belonging to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which had reportedly been targeted before.

Since then, at least 201 people have been killed and 747 injured in air strikes across Iran, according to the Iranian Red Crescent Society (IRCS). The US-Israel strikes in Iran has put global sports entities under heat, showcasing their double standards, especially in how they respond to political conflicts and human rights issues involving different countries.

The perception is that these sports organizations apply rules and sanctions unevenly, often influenced by geopolitical considerations rather than consistent principles. Many commentators note that international sports bodies like FIFA, UEFA, and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) acted swiftly to impose sanctions and exclude Russian athletes following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

However, similar measures have not been taken regarding Israel’s military operations in Gaza, despite calls for sanctions or condemnations. This disparity fuels claims of unequal treatment and double standards in international sport governance.

The case of FIFA supporting a joint 2030 World Cup bid by Israel and the United Arab Emirate (UAE), despite political tensions involved, highlights the contradiction in the claim that sport is autonomous and separate from politics. This ‘’myth of autonomy’’ is challenged by the reality that sport organizations often engage in political decisions selectively.

The IOC has accused governments of double standards when opposing the return of Russian and Belarusian athletes as neutrals, arguing that political decisions should not dictate athlete participation. This stance itself is controversial. International sport organizations often enjoy legal protections and operate with a sense of exceptionalism, making them resistant to external scrutiny or governance reforms.

This contributes to inconsistent application of rules and accountability. Western sports organizations have been quicker to show solidarity with some conflict (e.g. Ukraine) than others (e.g., Gaza), reflecting geopolitical biases and media attention disparities.

Really the double standards in international sport organizations manifest in uneven responses to political conflict, selective enforcement of sanctions, and inconsistent attention to human rights issues. These inconsistencies undermine the claim that sport is politically neutral and highlight the need for greater transparency, accountability, and consistent governance in international sport.

*Ibrahim writes from Sokoto