When politics and football mix

It took only four days after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine for FIFA to announce that all Russian clubs and national teams would be banned until further notice from every FIFA competition. Seven months later, UEFA announced that they too had disqualified Russia from competing in Euro 2024. Despite Russia’s appeals, it was unable to reverse the World Cup ban and, barring a successful appeal of the Euro 2024 ban, will be prohibited from playing this summer.

Opponents of Russia’s ban likely would accuse FIFA of being ‘trigger happy’ in banning Russia. This is because FIFA, an organization already under hot water from the bloody foundations of the 2022 World Cup, where hundreds of workers died building the stadiums, would have been eager not to be involved in further controversy. 

One the one hand, you may think that these opponents have a point; why would organizations like FIFA and UEFA feel the need to punish apolitical organizations like a national team, even though they have no connection to the actions of a country? 

Or do they?

It’s more complicated than it seems. While football appears to have very little say in influencing a nation’s politics, it actually does. We fans may want to think of football as being in a vacuum, an enjoyment distant from political ambition, but it isn’t. Politicians of football-obsessed countries see their national teams as their country’s most important ambassador, and even as an extension of their government. To them, it’s a platform to push their political agenda in a way that can be digested by the majority.

Macron, the president of France, uses football to glorify France as a country, earning him brownie points from the press and public.

In most cases, this tactic is harmless, with a touch of annoying. Think of French president Emmanuel Macron at the 2022 World Cup. There was more than football on his mind during his impassioned post-game talks and participation in the medal ceremony. Macron intended to be seen just as much he wanted to see, and it paid off. Macron’s approval ratings had a noticeable increase during the latter stages of the tournament. 

The real issue begins when leaders of totalitarian states use the glory of sport to push their own agendas, or to strengthen the image of their country. These repressive regimes intertwine football with propaganda to quell any rebellious behavior among their own people, essentially weaponizing the sport.

Take North Korea at the 2010 FIFA World Cup for example. Despite finishing bottom of their group, having lost all three group stage games, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un declared that Portugal, the team which had beaten North Korea 7–0, had actually won the World Cup—when Spain had in fact won—and that their humiliating loss was due to the excellence of Portugal, not because of North Korea's ineptitude. This likely boosted national pride, turning an athletic defeat into a propagandist victory. 

Kim Jong-Un facilitates nationalistic pride via success from the North Korean football team, allowing him to whitewash his crimes.

It may seem surface level and hilarious to those of us who have access to an internet connection, but one must realize that this kind of propaganda—especially in countries like North Korea—has huge ramifications on the global stage. The legitimization of North Korea’s football team as a force to be reckoned with, as a team which can compete with the very best, ropes the population into a false sense of superiority over other nations, creating an environment where the public allows themselves to be subjected to tyrannical injustice.

Now let’s take a second look at Russia. It’s not that the players of the national teams themselves have anything to do with global conflicts. Russian players have done nothing to endorse Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In fact, Russian player Fedor Smolov was quick to condemn the invasion, and showed outright support for Ukraine in a social media post. 

Still, despite the anti-war sentiments brought out by Russian players, in the eyes of many football fans, allowing Russia to play in the World Cup would be yielding to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s will. 

Ask yourself this: Had Russia competed at the 2022 World Cup and played well, how would that have affected Russia’s national pride and their unity? Would it have galvanized Putin in the war effort? How many more soldiers and innocent civilians would have died because of one fragile ego?

The inactions of organizations when lives are in danger, has dire consequences.

There is an upside to this. We have become used to politicians using football as a platform to better their public relations, but what about when footballers do it? Footballers are their country’s greatest ambassadors; Whether Putin likes it or not, he’s not the one scoring the goals or garnering likes on instagram. 

Sometimes the actions of footballers create positive change. Look no further than Didier Drogba and the Ivory Coast’s heroics to reach the 2006 World Cup, an achievement which subsequently halted the first Ivorian Civil War, a five-year struggle for equitable political representation after prior unethical elections. The Ivory Coast’s success helped persuade the Ivorian government to conduct peace negotiations, showing that football can have positive, tangible effects on a nation’s politics.

There’s no doubt that footballers have the power to join together and push for a common cause, but there’s also no doubt that politicians are still the ones who take the most advantage of football’s wide viewership. We as a community must be on the lookout for when politicians use gimmicks to reel us in. We must be ready to denounce and boycott organizations which operate to better the political standing of totalitarian governments. We cannot be bystanders while our sport is perverted into a weapon of suppression.