https://arab.news/grhwc
It is a paradox of the highest order that politics is now far more evident on playing fields and running tracks than in the world of politics itself. Any form of competition inevitably creates winners, losers and competing loyalties, which in many cases can give way to conspiracy and violence.
Even without delving into the history of the ancient civilizations that gave rise to the philosophy of sport as we know it today, including the Olympic Games in ancient Greece, there has always been ample evidence of the close relationship between politics and sport. National flags and anthems are among the clearest examples, despite the hypocrisy often displayed by sports officials whenever the subject is raised.
Many of us have read about the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games, held during the rise of Nazism. The Games were opened by Adolf Hitler, who hoped they would present the world with an exceptional image of Germany’s greatness and the superiority of the Aryan race. Indeed, some of the young participants and visitors were impressed by the organization, facilities and overall spectacle, prompting them to replicate similar models in their own countries, even though the results on the track and the field did not entirely fulfill Hitler’s ambitions.
Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, during the closing years of the Cold War, the US, under President Jimmy Carter, led a campaign to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games. The campaign achieved partial success. Many countries joined the boycott, while others refused to and some left the decision to their national Olympic committees and individual athletes.
That American “victory,” however, did not go unanswered. Four years later, in the summer of 1984, Moscow led a retaliatory boycott of the Los Angeles Olympic Games. Thirteen Soviet allies joined it in refusing to participate. After these two episodes, the idealistic calls to separate politics from sport lost much of their credibility. One should also remember the decades-long Arab boycott of Israel, the Afro-Asian and later international boycott of apartheid South Africa, and the international isolation of Taiwan following America’s recognition of the People’s Republic of China.
Turning to football, whose intensity is once again reaching fever pitch, perhaps the best-known example is the “Disgrace of Gijon” during the 1982 FIFA World Cup. On that occasion, West Germany and Austria conspired against Algeria by staging what became known as the “match of shame” during the group stage, allowing both teams to advance while eliminating Algeria. In response to this unethical episode, FIFA adopted the rule that requires the final matches of each group to be played simultaneously, preventing similar manipulation in future tournaments.
Earlier still, in Central America, accumulated tensions between neighboring El Salvador and Honduras erupted into war in 1969 during their qualifying matches for the 1970 FIFA World Cup, before international mediation brought the conflict to an end a few days later.
The current FIFA World Cup in North America has been marked by sharp political divisions. From the outset, it was evident that political relations between US President Donald Trump and the leaderships of Mexico and Canada, the two countries co-hosting the tournament with the US, lacked harmony. Washington’s hard-line stance on immigration has also translated into tighter entry restrictions affecting visitors and even, in some cases, refereeing crews and the relatives of players from certain countries.
The slogans displayed in the stadiums testify to an atmosphere that is far removed from openness and goodwill. More troubling still are persistent complaints of poor officiating and apparent bias against particular national teams, along with allegations of official pressure from various quarters to influence results by clearing the way for favored teams while making life harder for others.
The denial of entry into the US of a Somali international referee was only the beginning. That incident was overshadowed after the White House reportedly asked FIFA to suspend the automatic ban preventing American player Folarin Balogun from playing in the last-16 against Belgium following the red card he received in the previous match.
It was not long before reports circulated alleging clear favoritism toward Argentina, reinforced by controversial refereeing during its match against Egypt. These reports eventually gave rise to claims that even tournament algorithms had been designed to ease Argentina’s path by steering it away from stronger opponents.
Against this backdrop, it was hardly surprising that polarization intensified, at times spilling into open hostility, after FIFA — whose President Gianni Infantino last year presented Trump with the “FIFA Peace Prize” — agreed to rescind Balogun’s suspension.
The current FIFA World Cup in North America has been marked by sharp political divisions.
Eyad Abu Shakra
Meanwhile, as political flags, slogans and rivalries continue to dominate stadiums across North America, genuine politics elsewhere is itself turning into little more than a game.
From Western Europe to the recent NATO Summit hosted by Turkiye, from tensions in the Strait of Hormuz and the tragedies of the Eastern Mediterranean to Israel’s growing influence over American political decision-making, both political analysis and political practice are steadily losing their seriousness.
The UK, often described as the cradle of Western democracy, is about to welcome its seventh prime minister in just 10 years. Meanwhile, the secretary-general of NATO stood silently smiling as Trump openly criticized fellow alliance member Spain in his presence.
Today, allies, no less than adversaries, find themselves confused and unsettled by policies that often appear to contradict their own stated objectives.
The line separating truth from incitement is becoming increasingly blurred, while political maneuvering and calculated evasions continue to multiply, fueling genuine fears of unintended slides toward catastrophe.
In short, the future ceases to appear clear when nearly everyone is aboard an aircraft flown by autopilot, buffeted by the fierce winds of competing interests.
- Eyad Abu Shakra is managing editor of Asharq Al-Awsat, where this article was originally published. X: @eyad1949