Politicisation of sports — a new challenge.

Introduction

Sport is often celebrated as a universal language that unites people across borders, religions and politics. Yet stadiums have always been arenas of national pride and political messages. What is new is the scale and intensity with which states, governments and political movements now use sport — to project power, settle scores, whitewash reputations and mobilise nationalism. The politicisation of sports has become a serious challenge to its spirit of fair play and friendship.

Sport as a bridge

The modern Olympic movement was founded on the idea that sport can promote peace and understanding. The Olympic Charter calls for political neutrality. "Cricket diplomacy" between Pakistan and India, "ping-pong diplomacy" between the US and China in 1971, and joint Korean teams at international events show how sport can open doors that politics has closed.

Historical politicisation

Hitler used the 1936 Berlin Olympics as Nazi propaganda. The United States and dozens of countries boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Soviet bloc retaliated by boycotting the 1984 Los Angeles Games. The international sporting boycott of apartheid South Africa, however, is widely regarded as a legitimate and effective form of pressure.

Why it is a new challenge

Sportswashing: governments and wealthy owners use mega-events, clubs and leagues to improve their image and divert attention from human-rights criticism. Sanctions: after the invasion of Ukraine, Russian and Belarusian teams were excluded from many competitions, raising debates about punishing athletes for their governments' actions. Social media nationalism: players face abuse and pressure to take political positions, and matches become proxy battles. Commercial and administrative power: control of governing bodies and revenues allows powerful boards to shape schedules and venues according to political preferences.

Pakistan–India cricket

Bilateral cricket between Pakistan and India has largely been suspended for over a decade, with the teams meeting only in multilateral tournaments. Political tensions shape venues and arrangements: in the 2025 Champions Trophy, hosted by Pakistan, India played its matches in Dubai under a "hybrid model". During the 2025 Asia Cup, held after the May 2025 conflict, Indian players refused customary handshakes and the trophy presentation became a public dispute. Such episodes turn a shared passion into an extension of hostility and deny fans of both countries the joy of the game.

Counter-argument and evaluation

Some argue that sport cannot be separated from politics, and that athletes and states have the right to use it for protest against injustice, as with apartheid or athletes kneeling against racism. Principled protest that highlights universal values is legitimate. The danger arises when sport becomes a tool of state rivalry, propaganda or image-laundering, and when athletes are punished or abused for their nationality.

Consequences

Politicisation damages athletes' careers, deprives fans, weakens the authority of governing bodies, spreads hatred through social media, and destroys sport's potential as a bridge between nations.

Way forward

(i) Strengthen the independence and neutrality of international governing bodies such as the IOC, FIFA and ICC, with transparent rules on venues and participation; (ii) adopt clear human-rights criteria for hosting events; (iii) protect athletes from political pressure and online abuse; (iv) keep people-to-people sporting contacts open even during tensions; (v) promote sportsmanship through media and education; and (vi) for Pakistan, use sport as soft power — investing in grassroots sport, hosting international events and promoting cricket and hockey diplomacy.

Conclusion

Sport will never be entirely free of politics, but its spirit depends on keeping political rivalry out of the playing field. When stadiums become battlegrounds of nationalism and propaganda, everyone loses. Protecting the integrity of sport is essential if it is to remain what it should be: a celebration of human excellence and a bridge between peoples.