).png)
Sporting events have typically been used to unite people from all around the world. The 1995 Rugby World Cup is a great example of the power of sport being used to unify different people. The tournament was played in Johannesburg, South Africa, shortly after the end of the Apartheid era - a time of significant segregation and oppression, and rugby had typically been viewed as an 'all-white' sport. The country's first black president, Nelson Mandela, donned the gear of the team and joined the captain, Francois Pienaar, on the field. Both men embraced and celebrated the team's victory in a moment that would be solidified in South Africa's history. Rugby had been used to unify the nation. A sporting event was used to bring people together, despite the tumultuous political and social history of segregation and separation.
However, a variety of sporting events supported by countries with questionable levels of ethics and morality have led to blurred lines with regard to supporting these events. Events such as the Winter Olympics in Beijing, the LIV golf tournament, certain boxing matches (such as Anthony Joshua vs Oleksandr Usyk in Saudi Arabia), and the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar have all attracted large viewership across the globe. However, this viewership has not been shrouded in glory. Several people have criticized the hosting governments of these events of using high-profile sporting events to distract people from the glaring injustices that exist within the country by using a concept dubbed "sportswashing". The Cambridge Dictionary defines sportswashing [n] as "the practice of an organization, a government, a country, etc. supporting sport or organizing sports events as a way to improve its reputation."
“The secondary purpose of sport is to distract people from reality, it is the new drug of our generation.”
- Mwanandeke Kindembo
There is a concept explained in the movie Lucky Number Slevin as a 'Kansas City Shuffle' that is based on a 1926 Jazz song with the same title. The character Goodkat explains that "a Kansas City shuffle is when everybody looks right, you go left." Sportswashing is, in essence, a Kansas City shuffle. A way in which countries, as Kindembo put it, "distract people from reality" by making everyone look right while they go left. And, although the concept of sportswashing is being spoken about much more frequently, it is a phenomenon that has been happening throughout history. In fact, this concept can be traced all the way back to the Roman Empire, during which time the emperors would divert the attention of the public by hosting various games, races, and festivals to distract people from their wrongdoings. A more recent historic example of sportswashing would be the 1936 Summer Olympics hosted by Nazi Germany. Adolf Hitler used the Olympics to (1) rally political support, and (2) as a form of sportswashing, with an example of this being the removal of anti-sematic signs from public spaces in an attempt to make the Nazi Party seem more welcoming and inclusive.
Fast forward to 2023, and there are a number of different sporting events that have been hosted/supported by countries and organizations that do not have the best track record when it comes to human rights and equality. But, as previously mentioned, this is not new. So why the sudden attention to sportswashing? Well, one reason could be the growing awareness of the role of politics and ethics within sport. Two examples of this could be Colin Kaepernick taking the knee in 2016 and the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar. Kaepernick famously took a knee during the singing of the US anthem before a match, believing that it is his duty to express discontent with police brutality and social injustice. The 2022 FIFA World Cup had participants and spectators commenting on human rights (or the lack thereof) in host country Qatar.
But people have argued that simply speaking about it is not enough. Since Kaepernick took the knee back in 2016, we have seen various sportspeople following suit. In the Premier League, for example, there was a phase during which all players, coaching staff, and officials would take the knee at the beginning of every match during the 'No Room for Racism' campaign. However, some players shortly stopped participating during this ritual, saying that there was no true value in taking this action when systematic racism and social injustice are still very evident. Now, although this particular argument does not exactly align with sportswashing, the point is that social injustices and human rights are being spoken about by certain role-players and how this, in some cases, just doesn't feel like quite enough.
So where to now? Sportswashing is evident. And, although the positive side of these events can be seen as a way of bringing human rights issues to light, there is an argument to say that the purpose of these sportswashing events is not to hide human rights issues faced in these countries, but rather to create more beneficial narratives as opposed to negative publicity. Essentially, 5 positive stories outweigh 2 negative stories. The question then becomes one of responsibility.
The first place people would look to would be the organizations that co-ordinate these events. It has been said, for example, that FIFA should never have entertained the notion of Qatar bidding to host the World Cup. This is somewhat naïve as FIFA has a questionable history when it comes to selecting host nations. The 1978 FIFA World Cup in Argentina was met with backlash as the country was, at the time, under a strict militant dictatorship led by General Jorge Rafael Videla. The 2010 FIFA World Cup was covered in conspiracy as evidence arose of significant levels of bribery taking place to ensure that South Africa would be selected for that particular tournament. 2018 saw Russia hosting the World Cup, under controversial leader Vladimir Putin. And even when organizations do take a stand, these sportswashing countries find ways around it. The LIV golf tournament backed by Saudi Arabia is a great example of this. As soon as the tournament was announced, the PGA board retaliated by threating participants with a ban from the PGA altogether. In this case, however, money spoke louder than threats. The PGA Tour is a non-profit organization and there is no guarantee of payment. Golfers in this tournament are, essentially, paid based on their success in the tournament (or sponsorship). The LIV tournament, on the other hand, has offered players very lucrative deals by simply participating. Golfers such as Phil Mickelson, Dustin Johnson, Lee Westwood, Sergio Garcia, Cameron Smith and Ian Poulter have been criticized for participating in a tournament like this backed by a country with such an atrocious track record when it comes to human rights. Having said that, the PGA taking a stance could certainly be seen as a proactive step in preventing sportswashing. But is it enough?
The question then shifts to individuals and their sporting organizations taking responsibility of ensuring that their services are dedicated to the right people. But that seems a bit extreme, doesn't it? Newcastle United's recent purchase by Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, can certainly be seen as sportswashing. Would it then be fair to ask all the football players under contract at Newcastle to boycott the club? Perhaps not. Similarly, there were some fans that were calling for their countries to boycott the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar. Once again, this seems somewhat overkill. It would not be fair to ask players that have dedicated their whole lives' to give up this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity of representing their country in the most coveted sporting tournament in the world. But what about some of the golfers that have signed up for the controversial LIV tournament? Surely professionals like this should take their chances and back their skills in the PGA tournament rather than taking 'dirty' money in tournaments like LIV? Again, this is a difficult ask. Sportspeople have a limited window at their peak so accepting big payouts when they come around is often the most advisable course of action.
This is where the idea of Washing Sports comes in. We need to go back to basics and clean up what is happening in and around sports. We need to return to accountability. People that are hoping to get involved in sports need to be vetted and screened before they are allowed to buy their way into influential positions. Any potential ownership or hosting bids should go through rigorous questioning before they are allowed to proceed with the bid. Perhaps it should even be a case of 'guilty until proven innocent', meaning that anyone that is hoping to influence any team/event has to prove that they are, at least, on par with certain standards that are set around ethics and morality. If they are not quite up to this standard, they would then need to prove that they are implementing actions to remedy their current position. Doing this would ensure accountability. Imagine, for instance, if the Football Association in England conducted a thorough vetting before the purchase of Newcastle United. If the FA then allowed the purchase to proceed, they would then be held accountable by the rest of the world for making the decision to sell, despite evidence implying that it may not have been the most ethical course of action. Similarly, if FIFA required bidding countries to submit evidence of their human rights records and what they are doing to improve in this regard, onlookers would be given the transparency they have been craving. Beyond that, the governing organizations that make these decisions would gain respect and esteem from the rest of the world rather than simply looking like money-grabbing opportunists.
Sportswashing a phenomena that needs to be dealt with. Morality and sports go hand-in-hand, despite certain arguments and protests in this regard. It is time for people to unite and combat the weaponizing of the sports that we love. It is vital that we take a step back and start asking questions about how we can wash our sports.
Comments