Sport in Politics

[¡Punk!]

A couple of years ago there was some debate about Paulo di Canio. Paulo, y'see, gave, what some would call, a "fascist" salute to Lazio fans.

Lazio fans, and the club as a whole, had a reputation for being a bit right wing. His actions, no matter how innocent he claimed them to be, could have had huge repercussions. The real debate arose when it was pointed out Christiano Luccarelli often gave the clenched fist salute to Livorno fans in solidarity with his own, and that clubs, socialist beliefs.

One rule for them and one rule for the others was the cry from the Italian right. I wrote an article about this at the time. My own viewpoint being that, in an ideal world, sport and politics wouldn't mix but they always will. Luccarelli's clenched fist salute did not bring with it connotations of Mussolini's Italy, Nazism, racism, ethnic cleansing or social exclusion whereas di Canio's did so Luccarelli caused no harm and his was not as serious.

But that's what happens when sport meddles with politics. What about when the shoe is on the other foot and politics meddles with sport?

As we look back on the memories of the Beijing Olympics with fondness we've forgotten all about the trouble regarding Tibet, Taiwan, Iraq and China's glittering record in killing people for political crimes and are fixated with Chris Hoy, Usain Bolt and half man-half fish Michael Phelps and, as someone who contributes to left leaning or liberal causes whenever possible, it might surprise you to hear I'm glad. The Olympics should always be the pinnacle of sporting excellence. Forget the wonderful opening ceremony, the protesters climbing flag poles the day before the events kicked off and don't worry about that wee Irish guy who got beat in the boxing and came out and said it was a disgrace China was even awarded the event. The Olympic games are about sport and sport alone.

Not that the wee Irish guy wasn't right†. Not that we shouldn't forget the Tibet and Taiwan situations, or any nation struggling for freedom's struggle, but we should not mix them up with the Olympic games. We have no right to tarnish the achievements of sportsmen and women who spend almost their entire life aiming for nothing but Olympic gold by belittling the games they fought so hard to enter. However if we were to see Chu Mu-yen strut out to collect his bronze medal draped in Taiwan's old flag, refusing to acknowledge the Chinese Taipei Olympic Flag and, in no short terms, gave the finger to the Chinese who annexed his country in their own flagship event he would have had my full support; for it was his Olympic Games and if he felt so strongly about it that he would tarnish his sporting achievements to bring forth to the masses the plight some of his people feel then that would be up to him and him alone.*

Some people wanted nations to boycott these Olympics. Fat chance. Not only would it be grossly unfair to those who fought tooth and nail to qualify it would have achieved as little as a Gary Glitter comeback tour. Some people wanted Gordon Brown, George Bush, Bono and whomever else these idiots think actually holds any sway in the world to speak out. They did a bit. They paid a bit of lip service, told us how China was coming on and improving itself, how it's not the Stalinist regime it was once painted out to be but it still had a lot work left. Alright the pro-Tibet movement may have gained a bit of support in the run up to the Olympics but these "leaders" should be going on about Tibet, Taiwan, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transistia, Chechnya, Euskal Herria and Western Sahara and their struggle for the right to self rule every day. Not just when it suits them.

At no point, however, were any of these protests sickening. I was left a little disheartened to see the Olympic torch in the middle of a circle of bobbies and beefed up security but I knew there was a cause behind it. What was sickening was the political hangers on trying to squeeze all the power they could out of it. There was no need to take the torch to Everest but China wanted to flex a bit of muscle. There was no need for Gordon Brown to request an Olympic football team, or Alex Salmond to request a Scottish Olympic squad, but it benefits both for gathering support either side of the union.

Luckily we can see right through most politicians' attempts to curry favour through sport. Tony Blair's claims to have watched "Wor Jackie" on the terraces as a lad were mocked when pointed out he lived in Edinburgh when the legendary Mr. Milburn was still a Newcastle player. George Galloway was a lifelong Dundee United fan until he ran for a seat in Glasgow when he became a lifelong Celtic fan. He's now went back to being a lifelong Arab now he's in the constituency with the highest proportion of Muslim voters I can only assume.

Of course Gordon Brown's attempt to curry favour in England wont do him any favours in Scotland but I doubt it'll suddenly mean a lifelong Tory to support a Raith Rovers fan and every single person who actually wants a separate Scottish Olympic team will be voting for Mr. Salmond anyway surely? These minor intrusions into sport from political figures are ridiculous as they are harmless. It's hard to get really angry about them as disgusting and populist as they seem.

Then, as politicians dip their toe into the pool when it suits them, they quickly return to dry land when they actually need to do something with meaning. Leaving sportsmen hanging under the sword of Damocles.

In 2003 England were due to play the cricket world cup in South Africa but part of the deal at the time was to let Zimbabwe play some of their games over the border in Harare. There was similar talk of North Korea holding a couple of matches at 2002 World Cup for football. These reasons smack sports governing bodies in the face as far as their attempts to weed out political strife are concerned as both propositions felt that by letting these black listed nations hold sporting events it would open them up to the world. Others felt allowing these countries exposure would give these nations a stamp of approval, so to speak, that was not merited. The very discussions meant that these bodies were discussing politics; the two faced pricks. FIFA threw out their idea but the ICC went along with it and it can be easily supported as, if these organisations are not political as they claim, then what difference does it make about the ruler of a host nation? However if it wasn't for the dictatorships in these countries the idea would not even be broached. It's a chicken and the egg argument but all governing bodies like to paint their sport as a world sport and the ICC decided that the people of Zimbabwe had the right to see their nation at the highest level. It's a fair point and one we could debate for days, weeks, months....

That is what happened. Australia, India and The Netherlands had qualms about facing Zimbabwe in Harare. It was pointed out that South Africa's policy of only picking whites, and refusing the play against other races, during apartheid forced the ICC to ban them and now Zimbabwe were in a similar position. The cricketers of India, Australia and The Netherlands were informed, after lots of discussion, by their national cricketing authorities to go ahead and play. The sport was what was paramount. Zimbabwe's politics had not interfered with their cricket, yet, and there were black, white and Asian players in their squad. Mugabe was of no importance in the world of sport.

But in England things get awfully complicated very quickly. The ECB looked to their government for advice. Safety concerns, the concerns expressed above and a number of other issues were brought forward in Whitehall, at Lords and even in parliament itself. Other nations had informed their sporting bodies to make their own minds up but in England the debate raged. Fat politicians, who probably had not a care in the world for the wonderful sport of cricket, seized on the opportunity to demonize Mugabe, others tried to curry favour with The Barmy Army by supporting their right to go. The messy world of politics and sport joined together for another orgy of stupidity. Not that the ECB were blameless themselves but if they had decided to go they would have been met with scorn from a number of places and, stuck between a rock and harder rock, any sly wink or nod from the government would have helped their decision.

The final solution? Let the players decide. Politicians are not sportsmen (apart from Tommy Sheridan) and sportsmen are not politicians (apart from Seb Coe) and so to basically ask Nasser Hussain, Andrew Flintoff and co. to decide on Britain's policy to Zimbabwe was as baffling as it was unfair on men who had been searching for a chance to prove themselves on a world stage. The final decision, to play all their games but not the one v Zimbabwe, was, in retrospect, as good as an idea as the cricketers could have came up with and their efforts in coming to a consensus should be praised. They did, however, have to forfeit their match against Zimbabwe, which they would have won, are were eliminated in the first round. Pipped to the second stage by Zimbabwe. That's not to say that politicians can't make an arse of sport even with just the tiniest adjustment...

Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland's geographical lines have been in place for centuries. Rivers, creeks, burns, hills, valleys and other geographical landmarks litter the Irish countryside and Leinster, Munster, Ulster and the other provinces have marked these lines using them since the days of the Celtic chiefs. The political lines are based on these ancient territories and, with the creation of the Irish Free State, and cessation from the United Kingdom the uneasy pact of letting the loyalist north remain part of the union was born. The personal lines for the citizens on both sides of the border, on both sides of the religious divide or the political divide are harder to pin down. The line for the sporting divide is now equally skewed.

I don't, I really don't, want to get into the debate about Northern Ireland. I think the political parties there should be praised for their efforts over the last decade and more for setting up this ceasefire and the parliament at Stormont I do however have one bone to pick with Gerry Adams because his party's little endeavour into the sporting world just sounds plain petty.

Part of the Good Friday agreement states that anyone born in Ireland can choose to represent either Ireland or Britain (or in the case of football: Northern Ireland) regardless of where they, their parents or grandparents were born. There are people in Northern Ireland who feel an affiliation with the Republic and do not feel British so, theoretically, they have a right to play for their mother country. I feel this works well in most sports (if you remember that Irish guy who disagreed with the Beijing Olympics it is interesting to note that he represented Ireland despite being a born and bred Belfast man and represents Northern Ireland in home nation boxing events). The truth is, it's unlikely the Republic will produce many sportsmen who would improve a British side and the odd "switch" to the south, even from a quality player, is a rarity and it would not be for anyone to begrudge their desire to represent a nation they love rather than loathe. Then Darron Gibson fucked the whole thing up.

Darron Gibson is from Northern Ireland. Darron Gibson's mother, father, paternal grandparents and fraternal grandparents were all born and raised in Ulster and, I'm sure, raised the boy well. Their own republican stance would have been rooted in generations of intolerance and degradation from the loyalists who ran their homeland and were passed on to their son who was so good at football he signed for Manchester United. As he rose through the ranks at Old Trafford, Northern Ireland decided to call him up only to receive notice that the Republic of Ireland had done the same thing. Gibson, naturally, did not turn up to the Northern Irish training camp and, instead, went to Dublin. The Northern Irish were furious. They demanded help from FIFA. They, quite rightly, pointed out that although anyone from the South could play for them it, quite simply, was not going to happen. There may well be one or two families left in Dublin who still feel an allegiance to the throne but I doubt it and for them to bring to through an international class player is slim. Just under half the population of Northern Ireland would rather play under the Tricolour than the Union flag and this rule was, quite simply, cutting their potential players in half.

Obviously the IFA can't ask the British and Irish governments to change their laws so they went to FIFA. Their demands were not harsh. They understood many in the provinces allegiance to the south, some in the organisation themselves had it, but it would seriously hinder them for decades to come as all the traffic would be one way. All they asked was that, in cases such as Gibson's where both the IFA and FAI called upon the same player their place of birth would be the trump card and not their own personal decision.

As with the Zimbabwe argument that debate will rage on. FIFA said no as they could not meddle with politics. Northern Ireland will lose some of it's most gifted players for years to come and another politician uses sport for political gain whilst slowly pissing on the embers of sportsmanship. Although I will say this in favour of the republicans who got that little line scribbled in somwhere: what they were doing they thought was right, it probably is in most cases, which is more than can be said for many politicians who squeeze the life out of sport and who am I, or anyone, to tell Gibson to play a country he, in all probability, hates?

These are just recent events from my own memory, however, the list goes on, and on...

Hitler used the Olympics to show Nazi power in 1938, The US banned its athletes from entering the Moscow Olympics in 1980 and Britain's team fought against their own government to enter and had to do so independently of their nation with no reference to the Union flag or God Save The Queen, four years later the Soviet withdrawal from Los Angeles 1984 was a petulant reply to 1980, Idi Amin used John Akii Bua to prove he held the Langi tribe in equal measure to his own Obote tribe while secretly carrying out ethnic cleansing, Russia and America's greatest tools in the Cold War were it's sportsmen and women at the Olympics and sport will always be misused by politicians. Politics appearing in sport is more romantic, it's less harmful, it's a bit annoying but will always be a part of it that will give us memories that often match the physical and mental brilliance of the athletes themselves. My memories of Andy Flower and Robbie Fowler as sportsmen dwindle compared with the political message they displayed while playing and the bravery and righteousness of their actions carry more sway than a century or a hat-trick ever will.

Individual sportsmen do not have a say in where events are held or whether their rulers will use them for their own gain but they are human beings and, in so, have the right to use themselves in any way they see fit depending on their conscience. Akii-Bua had to allow Amin to parade him as his conquering hero to live and Chu Mu-yen, perhaps, had to swallow his pride to compete in Beijing when all they wanted to do was compete, compete fairly and on a level playing field. Their lack of action did not say that what was going on around them was right and nor do those who do act prove what is going around them is wrong. Sport cannot be used as an arbiter of the goods and evils of the world but a sportsman can use his position to show his own beliefs if he wishes. It is, however, wrong to use other people for this purpose.

Politicians will always use people. Amin informed his people it was their right to take white and Asian owned farms and business away from their owners and lives were lost. With such a person issuing such decrees his elevation of Akii-Bua as a symbol of unity between tribes almost seems quaint. Jesse Owens was used by both the ruling classes in America that "equal but different" was working while also being used by black supremacists for their own gain. All he wanted to do was race horses for money. My friends I've met who grew up behind the iron curtain told me stories of laughing at the propaganda they have seen on tv or in the papers but still believe stories about their athletes being cheated in Olympics from the 50's onwards. The measure of sport as a tool is beyond what we can fathom when used correctly but sport is built on the people who play it and those who watch it. The misuse of their abilities, their love or their passion is sickening.

Whether it be Gordon Brown saying he wants Sir Alex to manage the 2012 Olympic team or 11 members of the Israeli Olympic squad being murdered neither action is particularly excusable as vastly differing as their seriousness may be and as Jean Baudrillard once said

Power is only to happy to make football bear a diabolical responsibility for stupefying the masses

and what sort of politician worth his salt wouldn't be all for stupefying the masses?

*I must point out I know nothing about Chu Mu-yen's political beliefs. He is the only man to compete under Chinese Taipei to win a gold medal however so seemed a good hypothetical modern day Juan Carlos.

†Theoretically he wasn't right. The IOC should not care one iota about the government in control of the city the games goes to and should only care about the facilities that city promises us. The IOC are a bunch of corporate, crooked wankers however and they will gladly put their own political views into their voting habits unless the price is right (allegedly).

[Semprini]

Excellent, excellent read.

Now write more!

[endless psych]

The idea that making a political statement tarnishes someones sporting achievment is somewhat odd. People can choose to be political animals or they can choose not to be - sports people also.

If any of the athletes that went to Bejing went with doubts about the rightness of holding the event there they shouldn't have gone. If they were fine with that, or ill informed, fair enough. But if someone tried to excuse their principles (I.E. they believed competing in Bejing was wrong but still went) by claiming they had no choice but to go. Well to my mind its a stretch calling those principles.

[Dario]

The only reason that sport gets the absurd level of reverence it has done in the first place is because the sportsmen are seen to be 'ambassadors' for the nation, symbolic of their strength and success, and all that nonsense. It seems inevitable that politics is going to come into it, in that respect.


Also, someone might want to fix the typo in the article title.

[AWESOMEUS MAXIMUS]

Luccarelli - Legend.
Di Canio - great player, but a grade A fash cunt.