World War Soccer
Some say sports and politics don’t mix. However, as the American Olympian turned historian Andrew Strenk argued, “The idea of unpolitical sports is, and always has been, a myth.” Sports are political at their very core. The earliest sports played by humans seem to have had the purpose of keeping individuals prepared for hunting and combat. Later, sports evolved as a tool to entertain or distract populations. International sports are the most political iteration of all. These serve as what the British politicians and sports scholars Philip Goodhart and Christopher Chataway called “wars without weapons” in a 1968 book of the same name. These three scholars and many others have highlighted how international sporting events are really competitions of ideologies and political systems. Winners gain very real soft power on the world stage in the form of sports-like bragging rights that allow them to boast of the superiority of the way they do things both politically and culturally. Rivalries between countries that stretch back hundreds of years and include multiple wars find an outlet in the realm of sport. The works of Canadian sociologist Donald Ball further demonstrated that victories in the realm of international sports translate into economic, cultural, and political benefits for the countries that secure them. Ball maintained that the Olympics constituted “a relatively benign alternative to several more lethal forms of international conflict.” Therefore, those who argue for politics to be kept out of international sports have failed to understand the purpose of them in the first place. This article will serve as the first in a new DS series on the politics of international sport. The 2022 World Cup is a continuation of a long history of warfare via athletes and boasts several potential marquee matchups of significant importance for the regions and countries involved.
A Brief History of International Sports as Weaponless Wars
The most commented political aspect of international sports at the moment is sportswashing. Sportswashing refers to countries with authoritarian governments and or records of human rights abuses that host popular international sporting events to clean and improve their global image.
Qatar, the 2022 World Cup host has been lambasted by critics on this front. The tiny Middle Eastern country secured its position as host via now infamous networks of corruption and bribery within FIFA, the global governing body of soccer. Qatar is an authoritarian nation and has a poor human rights record. The preparation for the World Cup included several abuses of the rights of those called upon to construct the massive infrastructure the country lacked at the time its bid was selected by FIFA’s corrupt bosses.
Before Qatar, the World Cup host was another dictatorship, Russia. President Vladimir Putin too attempted to rescue his countries image by hosting the tournament and basking in the praise of FIFA. However, the event was plagued with multiple problems and was not well received by many participants.
In 1978, the military dictatorship in Argentina also hosted the World Cup in an attempt to legitimize itself. Controversy surrounded that tournament, as the new military regime was murdering and torturing its political opponents. This repression would eventually claim the lives of approximately 30 thousand people. Argentina went on to win the World Cup for the first time ever in that year’s tournament.
The most famous case of sportswashing is the 1936 Olympic Games hosted by Adolf Hitler’s Germany. The Nazi state wanted to announce itself as a global power and distract from its growing reputation for violence, repression, and antisemitism. Protests and debate defined the games. The most famous moments would be the gold medals of black American track and field athlete Jesse Owens which served to undermine the white supremacist views the Nazi’s advocated.
In this article, however, we are more concerned with the sports themselves not the hosting of the events. In his work, Strenk highlighted multiple cases where success in the sporting arena led directly to real world results, most notably during the Cold War.
One case of particular interest to Strenk is that of East Germany. The communist state carved out of Germany by the Soviet Union following World War II dedicated an enormous amount of resources to international sports. The country’s successes on this front, Strenk demonstrated, allowed it to secure important diplomatic recognition from many countries and made it an unavoidable presence on the world stage.
However, the greatest sporting battles fought during this period were between the Soviet Union and the United States. In nearly every sport the countries struggled to outduel each other. The ideological competition between capitalism and communism was front and center as each country hoped to use sporting success as evidence of their own ideological superiority. The Soviet Union saw perhaps its greatest success at the 1972 Olympics when it defeated the United States in a controversial basketball final and became the first country besides the US to win gold in that event. Even more famous, however, was the 1980 “Miracle on Ice” hockey game. In that contest, the United States claimed gold by defeating a heavily favored Soviet Union team led by high level professional players despite the fact that Olympic rules mandated that players be amateurs. The victory was interpreted by many Americans as the US winning the “right way.”
More contemporary sporting events have continued to demonstrate the political nature of sports. In our article about the emerging Second Cold War, we discussed the Chinese Olympian Eileen Gu and her participation in the 2022 Olympics. US born and raised; Gu had access to Chinese citizenship via her mother. A prolific winter athlete she chose to compete for China despite having competed with the United States growing up. Gu’s decision brought her several opportunities for fortune and fame as the Chinese government poured resources towards making her a celebrity and holding up her decision as evidence of the ideological and political superiority of China over the United States. Gu went on to secure gold medals in two of her three events.
Even more recently, the United States soccer team made headlines when the US Soccer Federation made a series of social media posts using Iran’s national flag but without the emblem of the Islamic Republic. The federation later explained that it did so with the intention of support for the women protesters in Iran opposing the regime (check out our piece on this here). This was a clear ideological appeal by a US sports entity to the people of Iran. The Iranian government immediately protested and even requested that the US team be expelled from the tournament. However, within their own country the Iranian-American journalist and activist Masih Alinejad reported that the US team’s efforts were well received by some.
World Cup Battlefields
The highest level of global politics is largely unaffected by this World Cup and soccer in general. This is because China and Russia are not relevant soccer powers for the most part and the United States is still very much a middle of the road team and has already been eliminated. There is, however, potential for some epic clashes between historic rivals that epitomize the war without weapons aspect of international sports.
Let us start with Portugal and Spain, as of this writing, both teams must still win their matches today (December 6th) to secure a matchup with each other. Spain and Portugal emerged as separate kingdoms sharing the Iberian Peninsula during the Reconquista period (718–1492) when Christian European powers forced out the Muslim forces that had conquered Hispania over the course of centuries of warfare. The two countries have often found themselves at odds. One of their most intense contests took place as they raced to establish colonial empires in the Americas. They took their feud to the Pope who issued the Inter Caetera papal bull in 1493 which drew a dividing line that over time evolved into the border between Brazil and Spanish America. Portugal and Spain usually came down on opposing sides of the varying European power struggles. As a result, Portugal is one party to the oldest active alliance in the world together with England after the two countries formalized a military partnership in 1373. Portugal benefitted from the protection of a powerful backer and England enjoyed having a thorn in the side of one its fiercest rivals for dominance in Europe. From 1581 to 1640 Spain managed to secure control of the Portuguese throne but the union didn’t last. Portugal has yet to win a World Cup while Spain captured its first and only title in 2010. The two countries met in the 2018 World Cup where they tied 3–3 in a group stage match. They have played each other 40 times, Spain has won 17, 17 have been draws, and Portugal has won six matches.
The next rivalry is born of the previous one. Two of the most powerful and prestigious nations to emerge from the ashes of the Spanish and Portuguese empires are Argentina and Brazil. Again, both countries must first beat their next opponents if they wish to face each other. The rivalry between Argentina and Brazil is firmly fixed in their two century old competition to be the dominant power and leader of South America. The largest direct conflict between the two was the Cisplatine War (1825–1828) when Argentina successfully aided Uruguay in a war of independence against the then Empire of Brazil. The Brazilians would repay the favor in 1844 by officially recognizing Paraguayan independence from Argentina. The Second World War proved to be another major contest between the two. Brazil aided the United States in rallying most of the countries of the Wester Hemisphere around the idea of breaking ties with the Axis powers. Later, Brazil joined the war on the side of the Allies and participated in the invasion of Italy. In so doing, the Brazilians thwarted the aims of the Argentine government which favored a pro-Axis neutrality stance. For several years before and during the war it seemed like armed conflict might break out between the two once more. In 2005, political tensions flared when Argentina opposed Brazil’s efforts to become a permanent member of the United Nations’ Security Council. An Argentine official claimed Brazil’s attempt was “elitist and not very democratic” as Argentina found Brazil to be a deeply flawed representative of Latin America. More recently, the current President of Argentina, Alberto Fernandez, caused a diplomatic row and race debate when he tried to impress upon a Spanish dignitary the close ties Argentina has with Europe by arguing that Argentines “came from the ships” while Brazilians “came from the jungles.” The two countries have met 109 times on the soccer pitch, Brazil has prevailed 43 times, Argentina 40, with 26 draws. Their last meeting was this previous year when Argentina defeated Brazil 1–0 in the Copa América final. Brazil is the global leader in World Cup championships with five while Argentina has two to its name.
The one historic meeting that is guaranteed to happen is that of England and France. Their quarter-final match is set for December 10th. The English-French rivalry is the oldest here. Like Argentina and Brazil, this rivalry is based on a contest for dominance in Europe and regional leadership. Despite their positions as adversaries, English and French history is incredibly intertwined in ways that are too complex for an explanation here. But their conflict in many ways is similar to a sibling rivalry. Two historic wars stand out from the rest. First is the Hundred Years War. As you might have guessed, this war lasted a while. From 1337 to 1453 the two countries fought each other in what was actually a series of inter-connected conflicts that amounted to an English attempt to conquer France. The war gave birth to national legends like Joan of Arc and the Battle of Agincourt. Later, when the two countries had become global powers with colonial empires they engaged in the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815). Despite conquering much of mainland Europe, Napoleon Bonaparte could never subdue his British rivals and they eventually orchestrated his defeat. The British Royal Navy successfully rebuffed Napoleon’s invasion of their island at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. So proud are the British of that accomplishment that the monument commemorating the battle, Trafalgar Square, occupies a prestigious place in London between the Houses of Parliament and Buckingham Palace. Now following the events of Brexit, France has increasingly played the role it believes itself best suited to, the leader of mainland Europe. Meanwhile, England and the United Kingdom continue a centuries old tradition of self-proclaimed exceptionalism charting a different course from the continent. England and France have faced each other 31 times with England winning 17 of the contests. But the most relevant recent history is France’s victory in the 2018 World Cup which gives France two world titles to England’s one. As someone who spent the last four years living in England, I can assure my readers that there is no minimizing the anguish felt by English fans watching France win the World Cup.
Though these sides are now partners and allies in many respects and no longer wish death on their opponent, make no mistake their populations still harbor strong desires to be perceived as the senior partner. The results of these contests are sure to reverberate far beyond the soccer pitch and mean more to many of those watching at home than any simple sporting contest possibly could. Why? Because it’s not just sports, it’s a war without weapons!
Please follow and for more check out our full publication here:
