L8

The Geopolitics of Sport: An Overview

International sport, despite its supposed apolitical nature, is deeply intertwined with international politics. This relationship highlights sport as a complex domain with its own rules and hierarchies, often reflecting or even distorting global political realities. States historically and currently utilize sport as a tool for various geopolitical objectives.

I. Sports and Geopolitics Throughout History: The Cold War Example

The instrumentalization of sport by states has a long history, not limited to authoritarian regimes. Both authoritarian states (e.g., 1936 Berlin Olympic Games) and democracies (e.g., 1920 Antwerp Olympic Games after WWI) have politicized sporting events.

A. Demonstrating Superiority and Discrediting Adversaries (1950s-1970s)

The Cold War marked a significant period in the politicization of sport, becoming a multi-dimensional conflict arena between the US and the USSR.

• USSR's Integration into International Sport: After WWII, the USSR joined major international sporting bodies like FIFA (1946) and the IOC (1951), turning these organizations into arenas for both cooperation and rivalry.

• Sport as a Battleground:

  • Public Diplomacy: Athletes served as ambassadors.

  • Medal Race: The US and USSR fiercely competed to top the Olympic medal tables from 1952 onwards.

  • Direct Confrontations: Intense rivalries were seen in popular sports such as basketball and ice hockey.

• Ideological Projection through Sport:

  • US Model Promotion: The US used sport to promote its social model, criticizing the USSR's "Big Red Sports Machine" and state amateurism.

  • Sports Diplomacy: Goodwill tours by athletes (e.g., the Harlem Globetrotters) were used to project American values.

  • Athlete Defections: The US encouraged defections of Soviet and Eastern European athletes, notably 45 Hungarian athletes at the 1956 Olympics.

• Limits of Instrumentalization: Athletes could also exert their own political agency, as seen with Tommie Smith and John Carlos's protest at the 1968 Mexico Olympics.

B. The Era of Boycotts and Commercialization of Olympic Sport (1970s-1980s)

The latter half of the Cold War was characterized by significant boycotts and a shift towards commercialization in international sport.

• Emergence of New Sporting Powers: Countries like East Germany (GDR) and Cuba pursued proactive sports policies, establishing themselves as new sporting forces.

• Increased Global Participation: The IOC and other sporting institutions became more global, leading to events like the boycott of the 1976 Montreal Games by African nations.

• Olympic Boycotts:

  • 1980 Moscow Olympics: Initiated by the US (President Carter) following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, this was the largest boycott in Olympic history.

  • 1984 Los Angeles Olympics: In retaliation, the USSR, its allies, and some US adversaries (e.g., Libya, Iran) boycotted these Games.

• Commercialization Shift: The IOC, under Antonio Samaranch (1980-2001), embraced a more commercial model, symbolized by the launch of the TOP (The Olympic Partners) program in 1985. This move reflected a victory for the US economic model.

II. States, Sport, and Soft Power in the 21st Century

In the contemporary era, sport continues to be a tool for states to exert influence, although with evolving methods and challenges.

A. Soft Power, Nation Branding, and Sportswashing

• Soft Power: The ability to influence through attraction and persuasion rather than coercion.

• Nation Building: The use of sport for domestic purposes, fostering national consensus.

• Nation Branding: Deliberately constructing and projecting a specific national image internationally through sport.

• Sportswashing: The use of sport by states with damaged reputations to improve their global image and redirect public opinion. This concept inherently carries a critical perspective.

• Sports Diplomacy: Using sport and sporting events as a diplomatic channel (e.g., "ping-pong diplomacy").

B. Sport as a Tool for Global South Countries to Assert Themselves

While not exclusive to them, many Global South countries have leveraged sport for soft power, particularly the BRICS nations (excluding India) since the turn of the 21st century.

• BRICS Examples:

  • China: Hosted Summer (2008) and Winter (2022) Olympics.

  • Russia: Hosted Winter Olympics (2014) and FIFA World Cup (2018).

  • Brazil: Hosted FIFA World Cup (2014) and Olympics (2016).

  • South Africa: Hosted FIFA World Cup (2010).

• Qatar's Strategy: Hosting major events (e.g., FIFA World Cup 2022) serves to raise its international profile, associate it with positive experiences, and support its economic modernization and diversification strategy.

C. Limits and Risks of States' Use of International Sport

Utilizing sport for geopolitical gain is not without its challenges and risks.

• Public Support Issues: Megasporting events may not always garner widespread domestic popular support (e.g., protests in Brazil before the 2014 World Cup).

• Image Control Difficulty: Host countries struggle to control the narrative and image projected during events, often exposing negative aspects, especially true for authoritarian states (e.g., 2008 Beijing Olympics, 2022 Qatar World Cup).

• Soft Disempowerment: A concept describing "unintended negative consequences that can arise when efforts to build soft power fall short." The visibility gained through sport can also lead to the erosion of soft power if negative issues are highlighted.

• Evolving Boycott Dynamics: While 1980s-style state-led boycotts are rare, calls for boycotts now often come from civil society, leading to "half-boycotts" or partial withdrawals.

• Secondary Instrument: Sport generally remains a secondary instrument of power compared to other geopolitical tools.

III. The Geopolitics of Contemporary Sport: Actors, Hierarchies, and Challenges

The current landscape of sports geopolitics is complex, involving diverse actors and facing significant governance challenges.

A. Actors of Sports Geopolitics: The Decisive Weight of Non-State Actors

While states are important, non-state actors wield significant influence in global sport.

• International Sports Organizations: These non-state, non-governmental bodies (e.g., IOC, International Federations) hold monopolies over major competitions, requiring national entities to join to participate.

• Other Key Actors: National federations, leagues, media groups, sponsors, and NGOs also play crucial roles.

B. A Multipolar World: Mirror of Contemporary International Relations

The geography of contemporary world sport reflects a multipolar international system, with distinct power hubs and peripheries.

• Dominant Regions: Western Europe and North America remain central.

• Emerging Powers:

  • "Neo-communist Eurasia": Russia and China, characterized by significant state intervention and offering alternatives to Western sports models.

  • Gulf States: New major actors in world sport.

• Peripheries: Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia are generally considered peripheries, although Latin America has some distinct characteristics.

• Asymmetry: Olympic medal distribution demonstrates an asymmetry favorable to wealthy, Western countries. For instance, at the 2016 Olympics, Europeans constituted 50% of participants but only 1/10th of the world population, winning 52% of medals.

Examples of state-driven sports systems:

• China's "juguo tizhi": An elite sport system structured with a three-level pyramid focused on optimizing athletic development.

• Russia's "Sportocratura": A power triangle involving oligarchs, athletes, and politicians close to Vladimir Putin, illustrating how sport is integrated into political governance.

C. Challenges for Global Sports Governance in Troubled Geopolitical Times: The Example of Doping

Global sport faces significant challenges, including doping, which demands robust governance responses.

• Anti-Doping Institutions: New bodies like the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS, 1984) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA, 1999) were established to combat doping.

• Russian Doping Scandal: A state-organized doping system in Russia led to its exclusion from international competitions for two years (2020) following WADA reports in 2015.

• Rodchenkov Act (2020): A US law with extraterritorial scope, targeting international doping fraud.

Key Takeaways

• Sport's supposed "apoliticism" is a paradox, as it frequently intersects with international politics.

• Historically, the Cold War exemplified how sport became an arena for ideological competition, propaganda, and state-sponsored rivalries, impacting both individual athletes and the Olympic movement.

• In the 21st century, sport is a critical tool for states to exercise soft power, engage in nation branding, and even "sportswashing," particularly for emerging economies and Gulf states.

• However, using sport for political ends involves risks like "soft disempowerment," where increased visibility can backfire, highlighting national flaws rather than strengths.

• The geopolitical landscape of contemporary sport is shaped by a diverse array of state and non-state actors, reflecting a multipolar world.

• Global sports governance faces challenges such as widespread doping, demonstrating the need for international cooperation and robust institutional frameworks.