It’s politics, stupid

 

Play the Game’s 2025 conference, ‘Driving Dialogue for Democracy in Sport,’ opened in Tampere, Finland, on October 5. One of its first panels focused on ‘Protest and play? The upcoming battles between sport and politics on US soil,’ with as speakers Professor Jules Boykoff, Human Rights Watch’s Minky Worden, Canadian-Egyptian journalist Karim Zidan, Danish National Olympic Committee President Hans Natorp, and myself.

My remarks follow below and at are at minute 46:57 – 57:05, minute 1:02.36 – 1:04:25, and 1:22:51 – 1:24:04 on the video of the full panel at https://jamesmdorsey.substack.com/p/its-politics-stupid

Transcription:

There’s a silver lining in being the last contributor in a panel of distinguished speakers who have eloquently essentially said what there is to be said. Nevertheless, I would like to add some critical notes as food for thought on various aspects of our discussion.

Let me start with the elephant in the room. Much of what we heard in the excellent presentations by Jules, Karim, Minky, and Hans discusses the fallout of the incestuous relationship between sports and politics: the assault on human rights, the politicisation and weaponisation of sports, and the double standards that are not unique to sports but are reflected in the policies of international, regional, and national sports associations.

What I miss in these legitimate and valuable discussions is a focused approach to handling and regulating the relationship between sports and politics. Let me be clear: I don’t have well-rounded solutions, but rather pointers that may help us think things through. What I do know is that unless we start thinking proactively about the relationship between sports and politics and make it a focal point of continuous discussion, we will continue to fight rearguard battles rather than tackling the underlying issues that enable some of the problems raised here.

To clarify, this is not intended to put human rights groups and activists on the defensive. On the contrary, it is to stimulate discussion.

Sports and politics are inseparable Siamese twins joined at the hip. They are a fact of life and necessary, as seen, for example, in the importance of sports in public health policies and the contribution of sports to various sectors of the economy, including tourism, hospitality, entertainment, and the leisure industry.

Sports are not unique in grappling with the relationship to politics. The same is true for finance, with regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States and the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority in the United Kingdom. Or the independence of central banks to safeguard monetary policies. Another example is Ofwat, the Water Services Regulation Authority in Britain, one of the few countries to have privatised water as an asset.

Sports may need more than just a regulator. I would argue that it requires a code of conduct that is supervised and managed by a regulator.

Without a supervisory and regulatory mechanism, sports executives have a free hand under the fictional mum that sports and politics are separate.,

Let me digress for a moment to place all of this in a broader context that underscores the urgency of discussions on sports and politics. That larger context is that we live in a world in which the number of leaders who are not simply authoritarian or autocratic, but, more importantly, think in civilisational terms, has reached critical mass. Just go down the list: Trump, Putin, Netanyahu, Orban, Narendra Modi, and Xi Jinping, just to name a few. In other words, regulating the relationship between sports and politics is not just about sports, it is also about the broader implications of this relationship.

This, coupled with the issue of double standards, has consequences for activists, particularly regarding the promotion of social and gender rights in the context of the culture wars being waged by civilisational leaders. This may require a more selective targeted approach to name and shame name-and-shame tactics..Moreover, the standards issue underscores the importance of grassroots and educational work, in addition to investigating and documenting abuse and violations, as well as efforts to influence policies at national, regional, and international levels.

Finally, allow me to address the concept of sportswashing. Too often, activists position sportswashing as the primary rationale of autocratic sports acquisitions and sponsorships. Reputation is undoubtedly a factor, but it is not the primary factor. In addition, the relative significance of reputational drivers is modified by the fact that Gulf states appear similar at first glance but, in reality, are significantly different. Those differences are reflected in the varying drivers of their sports investment policies.

The litmus test is whether countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates would invest in sports if reputational issues, such as human rights concerns, were not at stake. The answer is a resounding yes, which means that sportswashing is at best a secondary driver. For Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, it's about his economic diversification plan and sports contribution not only in its own right but also in terms of public health, tourism, and entertainment.

To be sure, reputation in terms of the ability to organise mega events, international standing, and nation branding are considerations, but they are not by definition sportswashing, which is at best a by-effect.

Moreover, if the 2018 killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi is anything to go by, it didn’t take long for Bin Salman to put the reputational damage behind him, aided by a world of civilisational leaders.

One lesson from the Qatar World Cup is the need for grassroots work not only in target countries, but equally crucial among fans globally. The fact of the matter is that only a minority of fans truly cares about human or labour rights. More important for fans in Qatar were the complexities of the haya system and the cost of attending the World Cup.

Finally, one last point: the discussion about a sports boycott of Israel. Again, let me be clear. I favour a boycott. But we need to be honest about the fact that boycotts involve one of the aspects of Israeli policy that we take Israel to task for, namely, collective punishment. What that means is that, to the degree possible, we have to tailor boycotts to ensure that those who stand on the right side of history or are, to whatever degree, victims of objectionable policies are exempted from punitive measures.

There is no debate about including Israeli West Bank settler teams or clubs like Beitar Jerusalem with racist policies. Beitar is the only Israeli club that refuses to hire Palestinian or Muslim players, or, in rare instances, when they did, allowed a racist fan base to force those players' departure.

There is a clear distinction in various calls for a sports boycott of Israel. In contrast to the Game Over Israel campaign, which demands a blanket boycott of Israeli football, including the national federation, the national team, clubs, and players, United Nations experts called exclusively for a boycott of Israel’s national team.

The Game Over blank boycott approach punishes Israeli Palestinian players who frequently encounter racist attacks. It also punishes teams like Bnei Sakhnin, Israel’s foremost Israeli Palestinian squad.

These are challenging and sensitive issues, and there may not always be clean solutions. Even so, these are issues one has to confront head-on rather than leaving them unspoken.

In summary, all of this is a collection of random notes intended as food for thought.

Thank you