The upcoming Olympic Winter Games™ (6-22 February 2026) and Paralympic Winter Games™ (6-15 March 2026) will be spread across Milan, Cortina d’Ampezzo and the Alpine landscape of northern Italy (“Milan Cortina” or the “Winter Games”). Over 3,500 athletes from 93 countries will compete for 195 medals across 16 Olympic disciplines and six Paralympic sports.

It is the first Olympiad under the stewardship of new IOC President Kirsty Coventry, who has openly acknowledged the “added additional complexities“ of organising and delivering a Games across an area spanning 22,000 km². Aside from the logistics of hosting a multi-sport international event of this magnitude, the IOC, Fondazione Milano Cortina 2026 (the Organising Committee for the Winter Games) and competing International Federations must contend with the geo-political climate, environmental pressures and integrity issues associated with elite-level competition.

In this article, I examine some of the legal talking points and challenges in the lead up to the Winter Games, as well as some of the flashpoints that could arise once the competition gets underway in earnest.

AIN designation: Russian & Belarusian participation 

Russian and Belarusian athletes will only be able to participate as Individual Neutral Athletes (“AINs”) – without flags, anthems or team uniforms – if they meet strict eligibility criteria. The AIN quotas, which do not apply to team events, are determined “through the existing qualification competitions and the specific eligibility requirements of the International Federations”. Moreover, athletes must accept/sign the Conditions of Participation, containing a commitment to respect the Olympic Charter, including “the peace mission of the Olympic Movement”.

In December 2025, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) partially upheld two appeals by Russian and Belarussian skiers, overturning a blanket ban by Fédération Internationale de Ski et de Snowboard (“FIS”). The decision permitted them to compete as AINs in qualification events for the 2026 Olympics, provided they meet the prescribed neutrality conditions. The AIN framework is a continuation of that used for Paris 2024™, where 15 Russian and 17 Belarusian athletes competed as neutrals. Russia and Belarus were initially banned by the IOC in February 2022, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for violating the Olympic Charter and international law.

In March 2025, ahead of Coventry’s election, she expressed an objection to “banning countries over wars”, which had seemed to open the door to Russia and Belarus being readmitted. Whilst this expressed the ideals of inclusivity and apolitical sport it remains a divisive issue. On 10 January 2026, at a European Cup event in Austria, skeleton athletes from Ukraine, Latvia and Sweden staged a protest against Russians competing in any guise or capacity, highlighting the perceived incompatibility of Russian athletes linked to state institutions competing on the international stage.[1]  

  “Olympic sport is always politics, and Russian sport is one of the key instruments of Russian propaganda.”
(Vladyslav Heraskevych, Ukrainian skeleton team leader, January 2026)  

Integrity Issues

Anti-doping

The most high-profile absentee from Milan Cortina due to an anti-doping rule violation (“ADRV”) will be Austrian luger Madeleine Egle. The former World Champion and Olympic medallist was banned for 20 months (retroactive from 1 March 2025) for missing three out-of-competition doping control tests due to incorrect whereabouts information. An Article 2.4 (‘Whereabouts Failures by an Athlete’) violation occurs where there is “any combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures… within a twelve-month period by an Athlete in a Registered Testing Pool.”[2]

The lead-up to any Winter or Summer Games brings a surge in testing.[3] In October 2025, the International Testing Agency (“ITA”), the specialist independent authority who will oversee the anti-doping programme for Milan Cortina[4], launched its pre-Games programme. Much of the fight against doping is data-driven (e.g. targeted testing of “high risk” athletes, monitoring the Athlete Biological Passport for physiological variables over time, and using AI to track “performance passports“), but it will also include more rudimentary measures, such as baggage inspection at airports.  

WADA has come under intense scrutiny in recent years for its handling of the Chinese swimmers case[5] (as discussed in a previous article), and few will forget the anti-doping controversy around Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva, who was one of the stories of the Beijing 2022™ – on and off the ice. If anti-doping disputes arise that impact Olympic participation, the CAS Anti-Doping Division will be on the ground in Milan Cortina to operate as a first-instance decision-making authority.

Incidentally, the Milan Cortina will be the last Olympics under the ambit of the 2021 WADA Code, before the new 2027 Code (approved by the WADA Foundation Board in December 2026) comes into effect on 1 January 2027. Ahead of that, WADA has published a 2027 Code and Standards Implementation Guide, which summarises, amongst other things, the key changes.

Equipment Manipulation

It was recently announced that three Norwegian ski jumping coaches – Head coach Magnus Brevik, assistant coach Thomas Lobben and staff member Adrian Livelten – have been banned for 18 months for the manipulation and restitching of suits worn by two of their athletes at the World Championships in Trondheim in March 2025. In its Decision dated 8 January 2026, the FIS Ethics Committee agreed with and endorsed the appropriateness of the sanctions sought by the FIS, noting (at para. 38) that “starting point is that cheating of any kind is inherently antithetical to sport and its values”.

Jumping suits must be compliant with the FIS Specifications for Competition Equipment, including the location and distance of the seams from the body at specified points. A looser fitted suit can give an aerodynamic advantage by generating extra lift during flight, enabling the athlete to travel further.[6] In this case, extra material had been sewn into the crotch of suits worn by Olympic gold medallists Johann André Forfang and Marius Lindvik to stiffen and add surface area.[7] The alterations, which only came to light after secret filming by a whistleblower, were not detected by eye and only apparent on examination of the seams after the competition.

“This is doping… just with a different needle.”
(Jens Weissflog, former German ski jumper and Olympic Gold medallist)  

The ramifications of the incident, which Sandro Pertile (FIS race director for men’s ski jumping) described as “extremely high-level manipulation“, have been significant from both a reputational and regulatory perspective. The FIS has modified its rules and brought in a coordinator to oversee screening of equipment:

• Before events, two FIS controllers and a doctor will use improved 3D measurements to evaluate athletes in their uniforms.
• The shape of the suits will make them harder to tamper with (especially arm/leg cuffs and the crotch).
• Once the suits pass the control checkpoint, tamper-proof microchips are affixed throughout the suit (and then monitored) to prevent manipulation.

Qualification Tampering

On 12 January 2026, it was reported that the International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation (“IBSF”) was investigating a complaint by US skeleton athlete Katie Uhlaender about alleged manipulation/undercutting of the Olympic qualification system. Uhlaender, a former double World Champion, claimed that Canada’s decision to withdraw four athletes from the women’s North American Cup (“NAC”) in Lake Placid on 11 January 2026 was made to deliberately reduce the field to fewer than 21 competitors. In doing so, it reduced the number of qualification points available, which effectively ended Uhlaender’s chances of competing in Milan Cortina. 

Athletes from Denmark, Israel and Malta were also impacted by the field being reduced below the 21-person threshold, with Caston Wulf (President of the Danish Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation) describing the actions of Bobsleigh Canada Skeleton (“BCS”) as “in direct conflict with the Olympic spirit and is the opposite of fair play”. BCS acknowledged the “unintended” impact on the number of qualification points allocated but maintains that the decision was based on sporting and health considerations.

On 23 January 2026, an IBSF Appeal Tribunal dismissed Uhlaender’s petition against BCS and Joe Cecchini (BCS Head Coach) on the basis that it did “not have authority to modify results”, but there have been simultaneous reports of an independent panel upholding Uhlaender’s claims of “unethical” tactics.[8] It was unlikely to be the end of the matter and, after a hearing before the CAS Ad Hoc Division on 1 February 2026, the CAS Panel ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear Uhlaender’s application.[9]

Environmental pressures

The impact of global warming, which is shrinking the world’s snow belt, has caused a strain across the winter-sports ecosystem. There had been concerns about the lack of snow at key Olympic skiing venues (Cortina d’Ampezzo, Livigno, Bormio and Val di Fiemme), but colder weather in January 2026 has helped alleviate these fears. Beyond Milan Cortina, FIS President Johan Eliasch has advocated that future Winter Olympics should prioritise higher-altitude, snow-secure venues and rely on a limited rotation of established sites to reduce costs and improve sustainability. 

An IOC-commissioned report[10] into the impact of climate change on snow sports, published in December 2025, also makes for sobering reading. Based on existing environmental policies, of the 93 potential host locations with winter infrastructure already in place, only 52 would be “climate-reliable” for the Olympics (and 22 for the Paralympics) by the 2050s. The study, led by the University of Waterloo, examined a range of climate adaptation strategies (e.g. shifting the Olympics and Paralympics to earlier dates) and emphasised the importance of reliable artificial snowmaking.

Once the competition starts…

Most the focus will hopefully be on the festival of world-class performance when the action gets underway but, based on past Olympiads and events of this magnitude, legal proceedings will be inevitable. The CAS has opened two temporary offices for Milan Cortina – the CAS Ad Hoc Division and the CAS Anti-Doping Division (both mentioned above) – to resolve legal disputes in an expedited manner during compressed competition schedules (i.e. within 24 hours of the case being heard). In recent Olympic Games, the CAS Ad Hoc Division has rendered decisions in relation to issues such as qualification and selection[11], field of play[12], national eligibility, athlete misconduct, conduct detrimental to sponsors, and even spying[13].

Athlete Expression

For those competing in Milan Cortina, they will want to ensure they are familiar with Guidelines on Athlete Expression produced by the IOC’s Athletes’ Commission regarding commercialisation of image and protest, to ensure they are fully compliant with the Olympic Charter.

• Rule 40.2 of the Olympic Charter states: “All competitors, team officials or other team personnel in the Olympic Games shall enjoy freedom of expression in keeping with the Olympic values and the Fundamental Principles of Olympism, and in accordance with the Guidelines determined by the IOC Executive Board.” Individuals may use personal sponsors provided it is “in accordance with principles determined by the IOC Executive Board”[14] – however, the use of an athlete’s image (which encompasses any reference to their appearance, image, name or performance) is strictly regulated to protect the exclusivity and financial investment of official Olympic sponsors/partners. It is a rather grey area and the risk of having sanctions imposed (by either the IOC or National Olympic Committees) for breaching Rule 40 is a real one, particularly in an age of social media.[15]

• Rule 50.2 of the Olympic Charter prohibits any “kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda…in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas”. Athletes do have some freedom to express political views (e.g. in mixed zones, during interviews, at team meetings, etc), but it remains prohibited during official ceremonies, competition on the field or play and in the Olympic Village. The Guidelines reiterate that it is “a fundamental principle that sport at the Olympic Games is neutral and must be separate from political, religious or any other type of interference” but, given the complexities and divisiveness of the current geo-political landscape, it would be surprising if Milan Cortina was not used as a platform for protests to be made in some shape or form.

Ambush Marketing

The stature and global coverage of the Olympics and Paralympics make them a marketing goldmine. For example, Beijing 2022™ had an estimated global broadcast audience of 2.01 billion viewers across linear television and digital platforms).  The corollary of this is that it will almost certainly be the target of ambush or “parasitic” marketing activities. These are essentially attempts by an unauthorised party, through the marketing of its name, brand, products or services, to associate itself with the Games and benefit from the inherent goodwill in the event, without paying any rights fee for the privilege.[16] Ambush marketing can take various forms, scales and guises but the two principal types of “ambush” are by:

• Association: where there is an intentional strategy by a third party to align itself with an event without authorisation, aiming to create the perception that is connected with the event – e.g. brands using Olympic athletes in their advertisements (potentially in breach of Rule 40 too) and having “Olympic” promotions.

• Intrusion: where an “intruder” directly targets official events to gain brand exposure, often aimed at gaining “live” exposure in the stadia/venue and through broadcast media – e.g. erecting highly visible signage in strategic locations[17], distributing free branded merchandise and performing eye-catching stunts.

On 11 April 2025, in a case relating to Zalando’s advertising campaign during UEFA Euro 2020, the Italian Council of State Court issued a significant judgment regarding the application of rules on ambush marketing introduced by Law Decree No. 16/2020.[18]  The decision demonstrates that, without prior authorization, a seemingly neutral campaign can be considered unlawful if there is explicit reference to the event or an indirect connection can be made (i.e. the context makes it misleading to the public). Any brand wishing to carry out promotional activities in the vicinity of competition venues during the Winter Games will need to be conscious of the choice of colours/images, slogans and the geographical proximity to an official area, or it could be at risk of a significant fine from the Italian Competition and Market Authority.[19]

Betting & Competition Manipulation

In anticipation of potential competition manipulation and betting-related breaches, in December 2025 the IOC announced the establishment of a Joint Integrity Unit.  The newly established unit will operate during the Winter Games to ensure collaboration and quick exchange of information between sports disciplinary bodies and Italian law enforcement agencies. Part of this effort includes using an advanced betting intelligence system to measure irregular betting patterns as evidence of potential match-fixing. Whilst “cheating to win” might be more associated with the pinnacle of international sport than “cheating to lose”, both aspects remain major integrity threats.

The Olympic motto – “Faster, Higher, Stronger – Together” – has become a symbol of solidarity and excellence in sport. Olympiads are meant to celebrate human achievement, unity and fair competition. Indeed, one hopes the lasting legacy of Milan Cortina will be athletic brilliance on the snow and ice of northern Italy; not off-field controversies or events in the court room.

[1][1] Russian skeleton athlete Vladislav Semyonov, granted neutral athlete status by the International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation (“IBSF”), is on Ukraine’s sanctions list due to his affiliation with the Russian Army Sports Club.

[2] Article 2.4 of the WADA Code

[3] Ahead of the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics, the ITA reportedly issued over 5,400 testing recommendations, 80% of which were implemented.

[4] In 2019, the IOC delegated responsibility for organising and managing doping control at future Olympic Games to the ITA.

^[5] In April 2024, it emerged that 23 Chinese swimmers had tested positive for Trimetazidine (a banned heart medication) shortly before the Tokyo Olympics. They were, however, subsequently cleared to compete in Tokyo on the basis that WADA was “not in a position to disprove” an assertion from the China Anti-Doping Agency that they had unintentionally ingested the prohibited substance.

[6] According to a study on ‘Influence of suit size and air permeability on performance in ski jumping‘ (published in Frontiers in Sport Active Living in October 2025), adding 1cm (0.4 inches) of fabric to the circumference of the suit could increase a jump by 2.8m (9.2 feet).

[7] Johann André Forfang and Marius Lindvik, who insisted they had no knowledge of any wrongdoing at the time, accepted three-month bans in August 2025 – so they will be eligible to compete at Milan Cortina. The FIS said that Forfang and Lindvik were not without fault as they “should have checked and asked questions about the night-time adjustments.”

[8] The tribunal stated that: “substantial evidence supports Ms Uhlaender’s contention that the move was a deliberate effort by Canada to reduce the points available at the final Lake Placid NAC so as to protect its own Olympic quotas.”

[9] Uhlaender had requested that the CAS determine that (i) BCS’s actions were a violation of the Olympic Code on the Prevention of the Manipulation of Competitions, (ii) BCS coaches violated the ISBF Code of Conduct, and (iii) full ranking points be awarded for the Lake Placid event on 11 January 2026. The CAS Panel noted that the CAS Ad Hoc Division for Milan Cortina had been established to resolve disputes only insofar as they arise during the Winter Games or during a period of 10 days preceding the Opening Ceremony (on 6 February 2026). As a result, the dispute must have arisen by 27 January 2026 at the earliest in order to fall within its jurisdiction. The CAS Panel concluded that the latest date on which the dispute arose was 23 January 2026, on which date the IBSF Appeals Tribunal issued its decision. Consequently, the application fell outside the jurisdiction of the CAS Ad Hoc Division.

[10] Scott, D., Steiger, R., & Orr, M. (2026). Advancing climate change resilience of the Winter Olympic-Paralympic Games. Current Issues in Tourism, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2026.2617880

[11] Rule 44 of the Olympic Charter sets the requirements that must be met in order for an athlete to be accepted to attend the Games. Challenges relating to qualification and selection can sometimes still be active right up to the start, or during, the Games and will only succeed if the excluded athlete can demonstrate the decision was arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable.

[12] Participants may, in very limited circumstances, contest the application and interpretation of rules by referees, umpires or officials during a competition. However, so-called “field of play” decisions enjoy qualified immunity, meaning (i) the merits (e.g. whether the decision was irrational or made in error) will not be open to review, and (ii) the CAS Ad Hoc Division will only interfere in the event a decision is tainted by fraud, bias, bad faith, arbitrariness or corruption. The general proposition is that competition officials are better placed to decide on technical rules/standards than arbitral panels.

[13] For instance, the Canadian football case at the 2024 Paris Olympics, which involved allegations of spying on opponents through the use of drones. See CAS OG 24/09, Canadian Olympic Committee & Canada Soccer v Fédération Internationale de Football Association & New Zealand Football & New Zealand Olympic Committee Inc. & Fédération Française de Football & Comité National Olympique et Sportif Français & Federación Colombiana de Fútbol & Comité Olímpico Colombiano.

[14] Bylaw 3 to Rule 40 of the Olympic Charter.

[15] The IOC has published specific Social and Digital Media Guidelines for Milan Cortina, covering athletes and “accredited individuals” (e.g. coaches, technical staff, team officials, entourage, volunteers, etc). Amongst other things, they will not be permitted to share posts that are “commercial” in nature, which would include paid advertisements and marketing, or endorsing or promoting third parties or products/services.

[16] Adam Lewis KC & Jonathan Taylor KC, ’Sport: Law and Practice’ (Fourth Edition, Bloomsbury, 2021), at para H1.23

[17]At the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, Nike (who was not an official sponsor and had no marketing rights) famously rented billboard space near event venues and sponsored high-profile athletes, creating a strong association with the Olympics.

[18] Article 10 of Law Decree No. 16/2020 (“Urgent measures for the organization and execution of the Milan Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games and the ATP Finals in Turin 2021–2025, as well as provisions on parasitic advertising”) and subsequent amendments prohibits “parasitic, fraudulent, deceptive or misleading advertising and marketing activities carried out in connection with the organisation of sporting events or trade fairs of national or international importance that have not been authorised by the organisers and are aimed at gaining an economic or competitive advantage“.

[19] The Italian Competition and Market Authority is able to issue fines between EUR 100,000 and EUR 2.5 million for illicit ambush marketing.