Unpacking the politics-sport dichotomy

Thanks to the intervention of the malignant orange turd, when the Belgian soccer team took to the field in their World Cup match against the USA, they had virtually 100% global support. "Today we are all Belgian", was a popular comment across the social media platforms.

The whole unfortunate episode, however, raises some interesting points about political intervention in sport and when it is, and importantly, is not, appropriate.

To recap: in the USA's match against Bosnia and Herzegovina two days earlier, US striker, Folarin Balogun, received a one-match suspension after stomping dangerously on the ankle of BH defender Tarik Muharemovic. The referee deemed Balogun's action to be "dangerous foul play" and issued the red card.

Cartoon credit: Guy Venables

The suspension made Balogun, considered to be the best player in the American line-up, ineligible to play in the final 16 match against Belgium. 

Enter, uninvited, Donald Trump. A phone call was made to FIFA's chief marshmallow, Gianni Infantino and shortly thereafter, FIFA realised that a terrible miscarriage of justice had occurred and that the injury to Muharemovic's ankle was way overrated. In fact, Balogun was the real victim in the incident and of course the suspension would be overturned with the American free to play against Belgium and, moreover, much gratitude to the President for pointing out this glaring error by the on-field umpire, who, while he may have been standing only metres from the offending action, must have been looking the other way at the time and overreacted to the situation. Grovelling, sycophantic hypocrites.

The rest, of course, is now history. Riding a wave of righteous indignation, the Belgian team humbled the US 4-1, ending the host team's World Cup and allowing the rest of the world a hearty dose of schadenfreude.  

And so we come to external - specifically political - intervention in sport. This isn't a new thing, of course. Sport has always been intensely political. Every time a player dons his or her national colours they are representing more than just their country in whatever sport they play. They are representing their countries' values; those intangibles that comprise the building blocks of a national ethos and identity. Sport is a big factor in how we want our country to be regarded internationally. Is a spirit of fair play more important than winning at all costs? Is egalitarianism more important that hierarchy? Is losing with honour more important than winning with disgrace?

There have been some glaring examples of political influence and intervention in sport over the years, both good and bad, and the Olympic Games have always been an arena ripe for political statements. Faster, higher, stronger ... louder.

At the 1936 Berlin Olympics, Hitler, whose intention was to use the games to showcase his myth of the superiority of the Aryan race, refused to publicly acknowledge or even shake the hand of black American athlete, Jesse Owens, who dominated the track events, winning four gold medals. 

The 1972 Olympics in Munich turned not only political but tragic, when a group of Palestinian militants broke into the Olympic village, took a group of Israeli athletes hostage and following a botched rescue attempt, the nine athletes, five of the terrorists and one German police officer were killed. 

Aus flag-bearers, 1980

In 1976 the New Zealand rugby team toured South Africa. This was immediately before the 1976 Olympic Games in Montreal. South Africa was already banned from participation due to apartheid, but in protest at New Zealand's participation, 29 African nations boycotted the Games, calling for New Zealand to be banned by the IOC along with South Africa.

The Moscow Olympics in 1980 was another political flashpoint following immediately after the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Sixty-six countries, led by the US, boycotted the Games altogether. Australia allowed individual athletes to decide whether or not to compete with the condition that, if they chose to do so, it would be under the Olympic flag, not the Australian flag. One hundred and twenty-one Australian athletes competed under the neutral flag despite government and public pressure for them not to do so.

Australia was one of the first countries to end sporting contests against South African following massive anti-apartheid protests during the South African Springboks rugby tour of Australia in 1971. This was made official at government level in 1972 with the federal government officially cutting all sporting ties - a ban that remained in place until the apartheid regime was dismantled in 1994.

In 1977 the Commonwealth countries (including NZ, which had, by then, pulled the errant All Blacks into line with international sentiment) signed the Gleneagles Agreement: a formal statement affirming the Commonwealth nations' opposition to apartheid and effectively ostracising South Africa from all international sport with member states of the Commonwealth.  

Sometimes it's not the countries, but individual athletes who use sport as a platform for something bigger than themselves. At the 1994 Commonwealth Games in Victoria, Canada, Australian athlete (and National Living Treasure) Cathy Freeman, did her lap of honour following her 400 metre win carrying both the Aboriginal and Australian flags. Australian team boss, Arthur Tunstall, was highly critical, calling for her to make a public apology, be dumped from the team, thrown in the stocks .... She responded by repeating the dual flag lap of honour after winning gold in the the 200 metre event*. Six years later, after winning gold in the 400 metre event at the Sydney Olympics, Freeman again carried both flags to a rapturous ovation and glowing headlines. Point made.

Meanwhile, back at the World Cup and coming back to the question of national values, ethos and identity.

Trump's America is a vastly different place to the America (under Carter) who led the world in boycotting Moscow in 1980. So what, exactly, is the political point that Trump was trying to make by his unwarranted interference in the sporting process? That America can't win without cheating? That losing a game is a national disgrace? I don't believe for one minute that is how the vast majority of Americans want the world to regard their country. 

And yet. And yet ... the American soccer team itself danced to Trump's tune. Had the team management responded to Trump's intervention by voluntarily benching Balogun for the Belgian match after the ban was lifted they would have taken the field with a lot more international support and gained a lot more respect for both their own and their country's reputation.

Sport and politics are a heady mix and, at the highest level, inseparable. Handle with care. 

-----

*Some years later Cathy Freeman and Arthur Tunstall patched up their differences and featured together in a rather delightful ad for Bushell's Tea. Unfortunately the clip is no longer available on YouTube or I'd have put it up here.