Global Politics, Dictators, and Sport: A Match Made in Heaven?

Global Politics, Dictators, and

Sport: A Match Made in Heaven?

Do governing bodies and influential figures within the sports world have a responsibility to speak out on matters of politics? Daniel Evans contends yes, they do, and raises concerns about numerous human rights violations being overlooked by the sporting industry as we speak.

Does sport have a role in global politics? The answer is certainly yes. FIFA, UEFA, the Olympic committee, the Formula One group and the International Tennis Federation have all played their part in legitimising autocratic and human rights abusing regimes.

In the case of FIFA, this role is played out through laughably blatant corruption. Complicity also comes in the form of wilful ignorance, the peddling of propaganda and hiding behind platitudes. Sport has a great power to bring people together, but this power can be easily corrupted. Hitler, Mussolini and Franco all recognised this. Putin, Mohammed bin Salman and Xi Jinping certainly understand it now.

Sport has always been corrupted and it is very unlikely that this will change. What can change is people’s tacit acceptance of the worst examples of its corruption. The recent action taken against Russian oligarchs has only highlighted the selective nature of outrage. The abuses of states like China and Saudi Arabia continue to be ignored while sporting bodies take action elsewhere. Although sporting bodies are a part of the global diplomatic game and have the power to act, this power is almost never exercised.

Out of all the major sports, football has perhaps been the most effective tool for autocratic regimes. This has been seen with the hosting of international tournaments, but also the ownership of individual clubs. The 2018 World Cup in Russia was obtained through bribery, and North Korean slave labour was reportedly used to build stadiums. The upcoming tournament in Qatar was similarly obtained through corruption and has been built off the back of egregious human rights abuses.

The Saudi state’s takeover of Newcastle United, Qatar’s ownership of PSG and the UAE’s ownership of Manchester City, to name but a few, have all served the purpose of legitimising human rights abuses. They do not gain ownership of the businesses alone, but also the loyalty of their fans. Fans that will happily ignore the abuses committed by their owners and even defend them tooth and nail so long as their club is successful.

The Saudi-led bombing campaign and blockade in Yemen has killed tens of thousands and put millions more at risk of starvation. There was no significant outcry from anyone of influence in English football when the Magpies became a Saudi tool, nor any sign of the Premier League and the FA intervening to uphold their professed ‘values’.

Arguments have been made that the hosting of tournaments can encourage reform. However, any and all changes that are seen are certainly hollow. Evidently, Russia was not reformed by its hosting of the World Cup in 2018; it only served to increase Vladimir Putin’s internal power and prestige. The invasion of Ukraine is proof that hosting tournaments encourages nothing meaningful and has very little (if any) effect on autocratic governments. Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler went to great pains to host the 1934 World Cup and the 1938 Olympics, and the years that followed were certainly not marked by harmony and tranquillity.

David Beckham, for all his charity work and moral encouragement, has hypocritically taken a 150-million-pound bribe to peddle propaganda for Qatar. If I was being kind, I could say he was extraordinarily naïve, but in reality, he is extraordinarily greedy, sacrificing his values for millions of pounds in blood money. The corruption of Beckham and many others like him is a part of the goal for such states. Reducing human rights campaigners to grovelling sycophants is undoubtedly amusing to autocrats, but it also greatly weakens the credibility of the cause that such campaigners had previously supported. Football is certainly the easiest target, in large part due to the astounding corruption of its governing bodies.

However, it is not just football that aids and abets such abuses. Numerous tennis tournaments and Formula 1 races are held in anti-democratic states. The Winter Olympics in both Russia and China have also been used to legitimise abuses. Ethnic cleansing in Xinjiang and the repeated murders of journalists and opposition leaders in China and Russia, respectively, seemingly had no bearing on each country’s bid to host large sporting events.

These governments do not spend billions hosting prestigious events because they want to promote sport. Rather, it is only done to increase their own power and control. It is true that the International Tennis Federation recently suspended tournaments in China for 2022, but this was due to the disappearance of the player Peng Shuai, not the ongoing ethnic cleansing. The treatment of Shuai by the Chinese Communist Party should come as no surprise, and the fact that tournaments had been hosted for years in China shows that tennis officials had no problem turning a blind eye when no pressure was being applied.

It might be easy to point to certain countries who should obviously not be allowed to host international sporting events. What is altogether more difficult, however, is deciding where this line should be drawn. For example, the 2012 Olympics was awarded to London just two years after the Invasion of Iraq that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and decades of regional instability. Was it right for the United Kingdom to showcase its best qualities in the wake of such a crime?

To be sure, there is not a single country on Earth that is pure, but we can perhaps agree on some kind of basic criteria. Representative government, press freedoms and a clear respect for human rights would have easily excluded Russia, China and Qatar from the Olympics and World Cup. Sadly, even these criteria would exclude many, many nations, so there would have to be a degree of pragmatism in the decision-making. Perhaps the additional criteria of the murder of activists, journalists and engagement or complicity in war crimes is a more realistic criteria for exclusion.

Sporting bodies have a responsibility to uphold basic levels of integrity. They should not allow themselves to become a tool of autocracy, and it is entirely within their means to prevent this from happening. It is also up to fans to question the events we love so much. There is power in collective demand, however unlikely it is for this to happen.

By Daniel Evans

Illuatration by Faaris Parker Page design by Ciara Lurshay