<p>Sports should be separate from politics, goes the official party line. It’s as convenient as it is hokum. As legendary French footballer, Lilian Thuram put it - ‘It cannot be outside politics because everything is politics’. </p>.<p>Sure he was talking about football but it’s reasonable to extrapolate this to sport in general. At the core, sport is a story that can be understood only within the confines of the social, political and historical moments.</p>.<p>Baron Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of modern Olympics, knew this. It was the Frenchman who revived an ancient competition that had ended in 393 AD and gave it global significance by adding nationalism, thus birthing the Olympic Games as we know it since Athens 1896.</p>.<p>Over the years, the idea of competition, not as individuals but as representatives of a country, was cemented. When an athlete is winning, he/she is a national sporting hero. The champion is a living, breathing advertisement for the country that gleams in the reflected glory. </p>.<p>So it only stands to reason that when the wind blows the other way, the nation feels slighted. Novak Djokovic’s ordeal in Australia and the angst felt in Serbia is a testament to it. Now with Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine, questions are being asked - of opinion, attitude, action - of the athletes. It’s the other side of the coin.</p>.<p>Many athletes have spoken against Russia’s invasive actions already across the globe. Even Russians - Alexander Rublev, Daniil Medvedev, Fedor Smolov to name a few - have also come out and spoken against the war. But many remain silent. Even some of those who spoke against war have not condemned the actions of their country. </p>.<p>“Individual players become part of the national pride,” says Dr Pete Watson, a historian and professor at the University of Sheffield. “A sportsperson’s success is part of national pride so there is a flipside as well. But fewer sportspersons have their political leanings as part of their brand these days. Player brand, their career and family can all be damaged.” </p>.<p>That said, there is some evidence that this might be changing with the outpouring of support and calls against Russia. There was another against China regarding the disappearance of tennis player Peng Shuai. Yes, the Women’s Tennis Association took a strong stand, but players were the catalyst. There have also been strong statements from athletes regarding institutional racism in the US and on-field protests regarding the human rights issues in Qatar ahead of the World Cup. </p>.<p>Away from the athletes, what has been interesting is the reaction of the parent federations. FIFA and the International Olympic Committee - gatekeepers to two of the biggest events in the world: the FIFA World Cup and the Olympics.</p>.<p>Initially, FIFA and IOC tried to dance around the issue - slapping wrists and talking tough - but they soon found steel in their spine to come up with bans against Russia and Belarus. This is rather unprecedented. </p>.<p>Over the years, there have been bans handed out by FIFA but they were mostly about government interference with the federation, corruption or monetary situation. There are also inconsistencies with FIFA choosing to remain quiet over other conflicts like Israel and Palestine, the United States’ invasion of Iraq, the situation in Yemen and Congo among others. </p>.<p>IOC’s stand is perhaps more surprising as they have shouted from the rooftops about keeping politics separate from the sport. Less than a month ago, IOC had made that clear when the issues of Uyghur Muslims in China were brought up ahead of the Winter Olympics. Peng Shuai’s controversy was overlooked as well. They have even gone as far as banning athletes from making any political statements at the podium.</p>.<p>Of course, stern action has to be taken. Sport has to take a stand against atrocities. But why not in previous circumstances? </p>.<p>Perhaps because these instances mentioned are less ‘interesting’ being smaller member nations. Or less global headlines. Maybe it could be that Asia and Africa are not very high up on the list of concerns for these institutions that are predominantly concerned with the Occident. It is conceivable that it’s the Cancel Culture, the defining characteristics of the time, bleeding into sports. Or it’s the geopolitical push and pulls.</p>.<p>Even the facade of neutrality that these federations try to maintain is ironic considering the history of their flagship events.</p>.<p>Nazi Germany used the 1936 Berlin Olympics as a propaganda tool to showcase their nation’s power and Aryan supremacy; the 1964 Games in Tokyo was a chance for Japan to show they had rebuilt after the devastation of the Second World War. The military regime ruling Argentina used the 1978 FIFA World Cup as a distraction, to steer the attention away from broader societal issues. The 1980 and 1984 Olympic Games, in Moscow and Los Angeles respectively, were steeped in the symbolism of communism and the Cold War. </p>.<p>The 2008 Games was an opportunity to welcome the world to the new China while the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil happened under the backdrop of protests against the government. Even the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia and the 2022 Winter Olympics in China showed the countries in a different light to get greater acceptance. </p>.<p>The next in line is the Qatar FIFA World Cup in November.</p>.<p>“Every event is inherently political. The difference is what story is being told. It’s a chance to tell a new story of a nation when billions are watching. It’s a political message of culture, society, facilities the country offers, the nation they are. It’s about attracting investments. Winning nations can show a historic triumph,” says Dr Watson. “Qatar World Cup is a chance for a small nation to show they are beyond just an oil-state.” </p>.<p>How and why does this keep happening? First and foremost sport is a business, and as such the cash flow calls a lot of the shots. There is corruption as well as we have seen in the recent past with FIFA. These institutions are also global conglomerates with member nations all with different agendas and political requirements. This forms voting blocks with everyone keen to push their agenda and exchange favours. It’s a tough balance to strike. These global entities are co-opted time and time again as pawns in the geopolitical game. And not to mention, marketing.</p>.<p>“Every major championship is a chance for nation branding. In the old days, football was used as a smokescreen and an opioid for the masses. Hosting an event to capture the attention of the masses and press to distract from social issues going on. Marketing of such events has now become better” says Dr Watson.</p>.<p>It has and so has the flipside. In the past, there were not enough channels for opposition voices to be heard. Now, in the modern world, it is a lot easier for counter-narrative to come out and that brings us to sportswashing. Fundamentally, it’s the counter argument to nation branding. </p>.<p>It’s a hot topic, especially with countries like Saudi Arabia (Newcastle United), Qatar (PSG), Abu Dhabi (Manchester City) making inroads in the western market and winning soft power. Russia, the big bad wolf from the East, also invests heavily in sport. Questions are being raised, ever louder, on the ethics of this action and the human rights situation prevalent in these countries. But it remains a difficult topic.</p>.<p>The reason why countries try this can be easily explained. To gain soft power, prestige and support in the west. </p>.<p>Fans of football clubs want success and a lot of people are ready to look the other way because, to them, the political backdrop is not as important as what happens on the weekend. This is not to say that the ownership benefits only the club, Abu Dhabi - by all accounts - has done a lot for the city of Manchester. As has Roman Abramovich, currently facing sanctions in the UK due to his links with President Vladimir Putin, for Chelsea.</p>.<p>These nations get reflective glory and acceptance from their teams’ success. The chances of Saudi Arabia or Qatar winning a World Cup or a global event is small. So political and cultural success is to win global leagues, with clubs that have global fan bases. </p>.<p>Success in the sporting world is important for nations. It’s a victory that can be celebrated as one. It mirrors the glory in the triumph of war from yesteryear before it was rightfully condemned.</p>.<p>There are mounting noises against sports washing and nation branding. There is a clamour for athletes to speak up and take a stand, to retake the mantle of the activists. To play their part in writing the story of the world. To unite or divide, to rally or pacify. The sport will play its part. The history of the world is mirrored in sport and none of these actions is mentioned here to pass judgement. It is to illustrate how big a role sport plays in society.</p>.<p><strong>Watch the latest DH Videos here:</strong></p>
<p>Sports should be separate from politics, goes the official party line. It’s as convenient as it is hokum. As legendary French footballer, Lilian Thuram put it - ‘It cannot be outside politics because everything is politics’. </p>.<p>Sure he was talking about football but it’s reasonable to extrapolate this to sport in general. At the core, sport is a story that can be understood only within the confines of the social, political and historical moments.</p>.<p>Baron Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of modern Olympics, knew this. It was the Frenchman who revived an ancient competition that had ended in 393 AD and gave it global significance by adding nationalism, thus birthing the Olympic Games as we know it since Athens 1896.</p>.<p>Over the years, the idea of competition, not as individuals but as representatives of a country, was cemented. When an athlete is winning, he/she is a national sporting hero. The champion is a living, breathing advertisement for the country that gleams in the reflected glory. </p>.<p>So it only stands to reason that when the wind blows the other way, the nation feels slighted. Novak Djokovic’s ordeal in Australia and the angst felt in Serbia is a testament to it. Now with Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine, questions are being asked - of opinion, attitude, action - of the athletes. It’s the other side of the coin.</p>.<p>Many athletes have spoken against Russia’s invasive actions already across the globe. Even Russians - Alexander Rublev, Daniil Medvedev, Fedor Smolov to name a few - have also come out and spoken against the war. But many remain silent. Even some of those who spoke against war have not condemned the actions of their country. </p>.<p>“Individual players become part of the national pride,” says Dr Pete Watson, a historian and professor at the University of Sheffield. “A sportsperson’s success is part of national pride so there is a flipside as well. But fewer sportspersons have their political leanings as part of their brand these days. Player brand, their career and family can all be damaged.” </p>.<p>That said, there is some evidence that this might be changing with the outpouring of support and calls against Russia. There was another against China regarding the disappearance of tennis player Peng Shuai. Yes, the Women’s Tennis Association took a strong stand, but players were the catalyst. There have also been strong statements from athletes regarding institutional racism in the US and on-field protests regarding the human rights issues in Qatar ahead of the World Cup. </p>.<p>Away from the athletes, what has been interesting is the reaction of the parent federations. FIFA and the International Olympic Committee - gatekeepers to two of the biggest events in the world: the FIFA World Cup and the Olympics.</p>.<p>Initially, FIFA and IOC tried to dance around the issue - slapping wrists and talking tough - but they soon found steel in their spine to come up with bans against Russia and Belarus. This is rather unprecedented. </p>.<p>Over the years, there have been bans handed out by FIFA but they were mostly about government interference with the federation, corruption or monetary situation. There are also inconsistencies with FIFA choosing to remain quiet over other conflicts like Israel and Palestine, the United States’ invasion of Iraq, the situation in Yemen and Congo among others. </p>.<p>IOC’s stand is perhaps more surprising as they have shouted from the rooftops about keeping politics separate from the sport. Less than a month ago, IOC had made that clear when the issues of Uyghur Muslims in China were brought up ahead of the Winter Olympics. Peng Shuai’s controversy was overlooked as well. They have even gone as far as banning athletes from making any political statements at the podium.</p>.<p>Of course, stern action has to be taken. Sport has to take a stand against atrocities. But why not in previous circumstances? </p>.<p>Perhaps because these instances mentioned are less ‘interesting’ being smaller member nations. Or less global headlines. Maybe it could be that Asia and Africa are not very high up on the list of concerns for these institutions that are predominantly concerned with the Occident. It is conceivable that it’s the Cancel Culture, the defining characteristics of the time, bleeding into sports. Or it’s the geopolitical push and pulls.</p>.<p>Even the facade of neutrality that these federations try to maintain is ironic considering the history of their flagship events.</p>.<p>Nazi Germany used the 1936 Berlin Olympics as a propaganda tool to showcase their nation’s power and Aryan supremacy; the 1964 Games in Tokyo was a chance for Japan to show they had rebuilt after the devastation of the Second World War. The military regime ruling Argentina used the 1978 FIFA World Cup as a distraction, to steer the attention away from broader societal issues. The 1980 and 1984 Olympic Games, in Moscow and Los Angeles respectively, were steeped in the symbolism of communism and the Cold War. </p>.<p>The 2008 Games was an opportunity to welcome the world to the new China while the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil happened under the backdrop of protests against the government. Even the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia and the 2022 Winter Olympics in China showed the countries in a different light to get greater acceptance. </p>.<p>The next in line is the Qatar FIFA World Cup in November.</p>.<p>“Every event is inherently political. The difference is what story is being told. It’s a chance to tell a new story of a nation when billions are watching. It’s a political message of culture, society, facilities the country offers, the nation they are. It’s about attracting investments. Winning nations can show a historic triumph,” says Dr Watson. “Qatar World Cup is a chance for a small nation to show they are beyond just an oil-state.” </p>.<p>How and why does this keep happening? First and foremost sport is a business, and as such the cash flow calls a lot of the shots. There is corruption as well as we have seen in the recent past with FIFA. These institutions are also global conglomerates with member nations all with different agendas and political requirements. This forms voting blocks with everyone keen to push their agenda and exchange favours. It’s a tough balance to strike. These global entities are co-opted time and time again as pawns in the geopolitical game. And not to mention, marketing.</p>.<p>“Every major championship is a chance for nation branding. In the old days, football was used as a smokescreen and an opioid for the masses. Hosting an event to capture the attention of the masses and press to distract from social issues going on. Marketing of such events has now become better” says Dr Watson.</p>.<p>It has and so has the flipside. In the past, there were not enough channels for opposition voices to be heard. Now, in the modern world, it is a lot easier for counter-narrative to come out and that brings us to sportswashing. Fundamentally, it’s the counter argument to nation branding. </p>.<p>It’s a hot topic, especially with countries like Saudi Arabia (Newcastle United), Qatar (PSG), Abu Dhabi (Manchester City) making inroads in the western market and winning soft power. Russia, the big bad wolf from the East, also invests heavily in sport. Questions are being raised, ever louder, on the ethics of this action and the human rights situation prevalent in these countries. But it remains a difficult topic.</p>.<p>The reason why countries try this can be easily explained. To gain soft power, prestige and support in the west. </p>.<p>Fans of football clubs want success and a lot of people are ready to look the other way because, to them, the political backdrop is not as important as what happens on the weekend. This is not to say that the ownership benefits only the club, Abu Dhabi - by all accounts - has done a lot for the city of Manchester. As has Roman Abramovich, currently facing sanctions in the UK due to his links with President Vladimir Putin, for Chelsea.</p>.<p>These nations get reflective glory and acceptance from their teams’ success. The chances of Saudi Arabia or Qatar winning a World Cup or a global event is small. So political and cultural success is to win global leagues, with clubs that have global fan bases. </p>.<p>Success in the sporting world is important for nations. It’s a victory that can be celebrated as one. It mirrors the glory in the triumph of war from yesteryear before it was rightfully condemned.</p>.<p>There are mounting noises against sports washing and nation branding. There is a clamour for athletes to speak up and take a stand, to retake the mantle of the activists. To play their part in writing the story of the world. To unite or divide, to rally or pacify. The sport will play its part. The history of the world is mirrored in sport and none of these actions is mentioned here to pass judgement. It is to illustrate how big a role sport plays in society.</p>.<p><strong>Watch the latest DH Videos here:</strong></p>
