From the Winter Olympics and Paralympics in China to the FIFA World Cup in Qatar, 2022 has a heavy lineup in the sports landscape. These events usually attract millions of tourists and billions of viewers. However, outside the sports world, both nations’ governments have questionable human rights records.
In China, the Uyghur Muslims, victims of population control and forced labor, are held in detention camps. Qatar’s mistreatment of migrant workers building World Cup stadiums has sparked accusations of modern slavery. The political implications of the dichotomy between sports and politics at these global events have long been a topic of conversation, inviting a philosophical analysis of the circumstances.
According to Oxford Associate Professor of Philosophy Erin Tarver, “Sport is [a practice] that human beings use to make our world meaningful, to understand ourselves, and our place in it.”
Tarver likened it to the unifying role religion can play in a culture in that it provides specific rituals that shape the way people dress, the songs they chant, the way they mark time and the flags they wave. In the long term, sports create a sense of belonging and unify people despite their different backgrounds. As Dr. Cyril Wecht quips in “Concussion,” “The NFL owns a day of the week, the same day the Church used to own.”
The influence sports have on our identity is elevated when applied to the international arena. From my experience living in Mexico, the only two events that ever trigger an outward explosion of love for our country are Independence Day and the FIFA World Cup. Tarver explained that the stakes are higher for international sports than they are for local sports because “world history is full of examples of leaders making use of the successes of their teams to foster a sense of nationalism amongst their citizens.” Countries exemplify this to different extents, but one example that stands out is Argentina’s victory in the 1978 World Cup, used to distract from state violence.
What does all this have to do with hosting a major international sporting event? Doing so is a covert way for countries to assert or achieve cultural, political and economic global prominence. The numbers don’t lie: The only Olympic host city to turn a profit in the modern era was Los Angeles in 1984. Countries bid to host the Olympics knowing it will likely be a poor financial decision, and only doing so because they want to build soft power and the ability to sway international behavior through attraction and persuasion. The better reputation and recognizability a country has, the more it can influence other nations. Countries such as South Africa, Brazil, Qatar and Russia saw hosting the World Cup as an opportunity for branding and bolstering national pride.
The interesting duality of sports is that while they appear competitive, they require a lot of cooperation. Determining the rules and boundaries of a game and recognizing an opponent as a legitimate adversary require a certain level of respect among adversaries, which is the magic of global sporting events. Countries that typically argue over politics or economics compete side-by-side. As a result, athletic governing bodies organizations like the International Olympic Committee (IOC) are intent on remaining apolitical because they walk what Tarver called “a political tightrope, in being able to maintain a sense of cooperation amongst people and countries who have radically different views of what good politics look like.”
However, true apoliticaliticism is almost impossible. When organizations like the IOC take neutral stances, they are deciding to not challenge a status quo. Neutral decisions like banning political demonstrations during the Olympics have an effect and favor certain groups of people. In the National Football League, Colin Kaepernick’s protests were immediately regarded as political, but the act of singing an anthem, a ritual performed before every game, is also a political act.
Tarver argued that sports cannot be divorced from politics “because the human beings involved are fundamentally engaged in politics.” Even attending a sporting event takes a stance because doing so recognizes the opposition as worthy competition. Additionally, the Olympics have a history of countries and their athletes boycotting the games. In the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal, 26 African nations participated in a joint boycott because the IOC refused to ban New Zealand, which had participated in a South African rugby tournament during the apartheid era. United States allies boycotted the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow during the height of the Cold War, and the Soviet Union reciprocated in the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. This year, the U.S. led a diplomatic boycott of the Olympics. Along with Australia, Canada, Japan,the United Kingdom and others, the U.S. did not send government officials to the games.
With such a half-hearted protest, the United States is trying to have it both ways. They want to express their disapproval of the human rights situation in China without damaging the opportunities of the competing athletes. No matter how noble the intent, neither a diplomatic nor a full boycott will meaningfully change China’s conduct. In fact, French President Emmanuel Macron did not support the boycott, calling it an insignificant move. Countries’ future attempts to do the morally right thing, regardless of the consequences, must involve taking a resolute stand against injustice while not damaging innocent people.
British Olympic diver Tom Daley was on the right track when he said, “I think it should not be allowed for a sporting event to host in a country that criminalizes against basic human rights.” Morals are subjective, but when clear human rights violations are occurring, the nation committing such crimes should not be given the honor of hosting any international sporting event. Doing so will protect innocent civilians from danger and only damage the guilty government. Although different countries will have contrasting conepts of what qualifies as a human rights violation, committing genocide in China or making homosexuality punishable by death in Qatar supersede any possible debate.
Countries such as China and Qatar should suffer consequences for their actions rather than being rewarded with a propaganda boost. Reactions in the sporting world to Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine offer some hope: already, Russia has been stripped of hosting the Union of European Football Association Champions League Final and the Formula One Grand Prix. The president of the Polish Football Association refuses to play the Russian soccer team. If such sentiments could also be extended to governments that thrash human rights, the sporting world can be on the right side of history.
We, the fans, also have a responsibility to remain educated and rescind support for criminal governments, even though we do not have the power of an institution. Philosopher Michel Foucault’s maxim that “Not everything is bad, but everything is dangerous” applies in this situation. Tarver said that while it is not inherently unethical to support athletic events hosted by countries with dubious practices, “it's important for us to think about the way that we participate in these things and to recognize their political status, and where we can use it or to exploit it for the purposes of working against injustice.”
We can appreciate the amazing things the world’s athletes achieve, but also support athlete activism. Ask meaningful questions about the indirect effects these sporting events can have. Speak out against cruel governments. By working together, we fans, athletes and their countries can give sports a conscience.
