Sport, Politics and International
Relations in the Twentieth Century

Relationship between Sport and Politics

Before a brief discussion about the relationship between sport and politics it might be
useful to mention some of the definitions that have been given to the terms ‘sport’
and ‘politics’, both of which are, however, difficult to define precisely. Allison defined
the term sport as ‘the institutionalization of skill and prowess’, [1] while Jay provided
a more comprehensive definition of sport being an ‘institutionalized competitive
activity that involves vigorous physical exertion or the use of relatively complex
physical skills by individuals whose participation is motivated by a combination of
intrinsic and extrinsic factors’. [2]

As for the term politics, Millar suggested that ‘politics is concerned with the use of

government to resolve conflict in the direction of change or in the prevention of
change’, [3] while Leftwich claimed that ‘politics is at the heart of all collective social
activity, formal and informal, public and private, in all human groups, institutions
and societies, not just some of them’. [4] One of the common cliche´s associated with
sport is that ‘sport and politics should not mix’, while the regularity with which
athletes, administrators and politicians express the preference for a clear distinction
between the two is evident from the widespread feeling that these involved in sport
should aspire to high ideals and not to the intrigues of politics. [5] A common-sense
view of politics and a broad knowledge of history, however, suggest that the ‘politics
of sport’ exists to a considerable degree. What needs explanation is the assertion by
sports representatives and politicians that sport is quite separate from politics and
does not raise political issues. Sport and politics cannot be isolated. Three interrelated
conceptions of politics need to be noted in order to expand upon this point. The first
is the idea that politics is simply a term for the matters involving governments. In this
sense, a matter becomes ‘political’ when the state is involved. The significant point is
that in some ways governments are inevitably involved with sport. Sport is subject to
the laws of the state, although it sometimes seeks special treatment. [6]

A second related view of politics is that it involves issues of power, control and

influence over people’s behaviour. The view of ‘politics as power’ is a reminder that
sport has its own internal political struggles even when governments are not directly
involved. Throughout the world sport is controlled by international and national
ruling bodies that are considered to have the same jurisdiction as the state in sports

The International Journal of the History of Sport
Vol. 25, No. 13, November 2008, 1689–1706

ISSN 0952-3367 (print)/ISSN 1743-9035 (online) Ó 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09523360802367281

matters, while the international bodies are non-governmental organizations. These
bodies have power over sport. They determine the rules, access to competition, the
structure and rewards of competitions, the acceptability of technology innovation
and so on. Sports federations and the International Olympic Committee (IOC)
operate on the basis that they recognize only one ruling body in every state. In the
second half of the twentieth century, the IOC took several years to decide how to
handle matters concerning the sports associations of China, North and South Korea
and those of East and West Germany. Recognition of any sports body inevitably
provided recognition of the regime within which that sports body operated. In the
case of South Africa, however, its social and economic system, which did not allow
sport to be practised in accordance with the IOC’s rules, was the official reason for
excluding it from the Olympic movement in 1970. [7]

Thirdly, there is no doubt that sport is capable of bringing together a large number

of people and that increasingly it has played an important role in trans-national
relations and has been recognized as a major social and cultural institution. [8]
Modern sport emerged from the efforts of individuals and private groups and in this
sense it is a social innovation that has its roots in the emergence of a new form of
sociability. [9] Sport is recognized as a social and political phenomenon. In the last
third of the nineteenth century its supporters could hardly have imagined that
sporting events would have a great impact on public opinion and would become an
instrument of international policy. Sport, sports associations and sports representa-
tives had not been recognized as potential actors in social and cultural life, economics
and politics. Moreover, in Europe, for historical reasons relating to the constitution
of the nation state, it was not sport but gymnastics, shooting and military instruction
that had priority. The gymnastic societies became the pedagogical and political
instruments for the formation of national identity. During the 1920s, however, sport
began to attract national and international interest, particularly in Europe. [10]

It is believed that sporting victories by a national team improve and reinforce the

image of the competing state and display the superiority of its political regime.
During the 1930s a small portion of the French public were fascinated by
authoritarian regimes due to the fact that Italian and German athletes achieved
success and in doing so enhanced national prestige and pride as well as that of their
respective political regimes. More importantly, the freezing or banning of sports
events between national teams exemplifies the political usage of sport as a means of
reprisal and/or disapproval. [11] For instance, in September 1919, the French football
team, following the injunction of British sports federations, refused to meet the Swiss
team since it had played a match against the Germans. The aim was to influence
public opinion and consequently to change the foreign policy of the government.
There were however cases where a crisis in sport did not result from political tension
between competing states. In 1910, for example, the Union of French Societies of
Athletic Sports (USFSA) broke off relations with the International Football
Association (FIFA) and banned its members from playing against any teams that
were affiliated to FIFA. In addition, the conflict that was generated by rugby early in

1690

P. Kissoudi

the 1930s separated France and Britain and led to cool relations in matches played in
the Five Nations Tournament. A football match in 1936 between Holland and
Germany was cancelled a few days before the marriage of Princess Juliana, successor
to the Netherlands throne, to the German Prince Bernard de Lippe, for fear of anti-
German demonstrations. This fact motivated the Reich to break off sports relations
with the Netherlands. In the same way, the French government banned its national
football team from meeting Italy and Portugal in 1937 and Germany in 1938 for fear
of provoking popular protest – even though the Germans stated that the French
footballers would be protected against any nationalistic and aggressive action. [12]

Since sport can be easily integrated into government projects, such policies are

commonly inspired and put into action by ministers. A government may give
instructions to its representatives, such as the minister of sport or even the presidents
of the national sports federations. This therefore poses the problem of the
independence of national sports bodies from governmental policy or that of the
meddling of politics in sports affairs. [13] One characteristic example of government
use of sport to promote its own political ideology was Hitler’s use (or abuse) of the
1936 Olympics. Hitler was especially interested in using the games to promote the
Nazi ideology of Aryan supremacy. The 1936 Olympics, with its magnificent new
sports facilities, were intended to glorify the Nazi regime and divert the attention of
the world from the political situation in Germany. Only a year before, Hitler had
passed a number of laws that took away many of the rights of Jews in Germany.
Thousands of Jews had already been beaten, tortured and killed in concentration
camps. Anyone who criticized the Nazis was imprisoned or executed. [14] Hitler’s
government devoted considerable resources to the training of German athletes, who
won 89 medals – that is, 23 medals more than the athletes of the United States of
America and over four times as many as any other state. This is why the performance
of Jesse Owens, an African-American athlete, was so important in the 1936 games.
Owens’s four gold medals and world records challenged Hitler’s ideology of Nordic
supremacy. [15]

Nazism represented an extreme right-wing form of government, organized to

advance an aggressive nationalism. Among its manifestations was a commitment to
rid Germany of any Jewish presence and an attempt to propagandize the supremacy
of the race. The anti-Semitism that characterized Nazism also affected sport. In 1933,
when the boycott of Jewish business came into effect, the organizing bodies of sport
were also required to exclude Jewish performers and officials. Two years later there
was a complete segregation in German sport, something that contradicted the
Olympic ideals. In the United States of America, an abortive boycott campaign
targeting the proposed 1936 Olympics failed to gain support. Nevertheless, the
Germans headed the medal table in 1936 and demonstrated that they were
administratively capable, generous, and peace-loving people. [16]

After the Second World War, athletes from the Soviet Union were involved in

increasingly frequent international sports events, which provided an even more
effective means for broadcasting the achievements of the Soviet Union and its satellite

Sport, Politics and International Relations

1691

nations. It was no secret that the Soviet Union used its Olympic successes as a
propaganda instrument for the Communist sports ideology. States such as Hungary,
Poland and Czechoslovakia also showed similar intentions. In the Soviet bloc
countries, participation in international events was exclusively a matter for their
respective governments, which not only planned the nature and level of involvement
but also ensured that the teams were well prepared for a positive outcome. National
prestige had priority. [17] In addition, the Soviet government also used sport to
emphasize the importance of teamwork, collectivism, comradeship, hard work and
progress. On the other hand, in the states of Western Europe, sport was used to
display the association between success and hard work and instead of emphasizing
collectivism and common prosperity stress was laid on individualism and the
achievement of excellence through competition. [18] Regardless of political system,
sport was often utilized to provide people with a sense of purpose and real-life
examples were used to reaffirm and strengthen the dominant political ideology of the
country.

Many people believe that the Olympic Games foster and promote the ideals of

sport. However, in 1956 six national teams withdrew from the Melbourne Olympics.
Some did so in protest against the Russian invasion of Hungary and others in protest
against the Anglo-French invasion of Suez. This action prompted Avery Brundage,
former IOC president, to comment that ‘these countries show that they are unaware
of one of our most important principles, namely that sport is completely free of
politics’. [19] On the other hand, there are many people involved in sport who
recognize that seeking to insulate sport from politics is a pious hope. McIntosh has
observed that ‘if sport was to influence politics it would be hardly conceivable that
the interaction should be in one direction only and that politics should have no
bearing at all upon sport’. [20]

The interweaving of sport and politics is evident at international, national and

regional levels. History shows that governments have used international sports
events, especially the Olympic Games, to pursue their own interests rather than
understanding, friendship and peace. Statements made by politicians substantiate this
pursuit of national interests rather than unity. In 1964, Bobby Kennedy, Attorney
General of the United States of America, said that ‘it is in our national interest that
we regain our Olympic superiority, that we once again give the world visible proof of
our inner strength and vitality’. [21] Some of the emerging industrial states have also
recognized that hosting the Olympics was a good opportunity to make known
worldwide their readiness and ability to participate in international sports and trade
activities. Tokyo spent millions of dollars to host the 1964 summer games and Seoul
spent much more to host the 1988 summer games. The Olympics have been widely
used as an international stage on which states can gain international recognition and
display power and resources. [22]

Sport and politics impinge on one another. Sport creates politically usable

resources, while in modern times governments have seen sport as an important agent
of political socialization. Association with success in sport can be an important

1692

P. Kissoudi

political resource. President John F. Kennedy began the practice of American
presidents telephoning to congratulate victorious athletic teams. Prime Minister
Harold Wilson of Britain was probably the first prime minister to associate his
government with sporting success. The holding of government receptions in
honour of winning teams, attendance at sporting events and the bestowing of
honours on athletes were all evident during the tenure of his 1964–70 government.
Even Margaret Thatcher could not resist being photographed with the British
football team or taking part in the draw for the Scottish FA Cup. [23] In his
electoral address in 1968, the Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau, combined
sport with culture in order to promote the cause of Canada’s unity; an issue of
great importance at that time. [24]

Richard Nixon promoted sport for personal political ends during his presidency

from 1969 to 1974, [25] while Gerald Ford, his successor, wondered in 1974: ‘Do we
realize how important it is to compete successfully with other nations? Not just the
Russians, but many nations are growing and challenging. . . . A sporting triumph can
be as uplifting to a nation’s spirit as a battlefield victory.’ [26] These statements
illustrate how sport was clearly connected with national and international politics,
especially in the cold war era following the Second World War. In 1978 and 1982,
when Argentina and Italy respectively won football’s World Cup competition,
General Vileda of Argentina and Italy’s President Sandro Pertini were both keen to
associate themselves with their country’s success. [27] The connection between sport
and politics was so widely recognized that Peter Ueberroth, president of the Los
Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee, concluded in 1984 that ‘we now have to
face the reality that the Olympics constitutes not only an athletic event but a political
event’. [28]

When a government promotes sports activities that people enjoy and value, it

improves its image in the eyes of its citizens. That’s why many politicians present
themselves as sports enthusiasts. They publicize sports events and associate
themselves with high-profile athletes and teams that have been successful in
international competition. For instance, in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan, former
president of the United States of America, used sport to his political advantage. Prior
to the 1984 election, his campaign staff hinted at a connection between his first four
years in the White House and the United States’ success at the 1984 Olympic Games
in Los Angeles. The claim was that he had restored American pride and position in
the international political arena. Reagan tried to enhance his reputation as well as
that of the American political system by implying a connection between his
presidency and the gold medals won by the American athletes. He also invited
national champions to the White House for press conferences and photographs; thus
attracting extensive national media coverage. [29]

Although there have always been politicians who have seen the political benefit of

associating themselves with winners, there have also been those who have asserted
faith in the capability of sport of ‘bringing people together’ and ‘of creating unity
which transcends differences in religion, class, race and nationality’. [30] The

Sport, Politics and International Relations

1693

Olympic movement draws on this ideal. However, governments have been involved
in a number of sports issues that have arisen at international level. When in 1979 the
Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, the USA and other Western states responded by
suggesting a boycott of the forthcoming Olympic Games, which were scheduled to be
held in Moscow in 1980. The British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, announced
her government’s support of the American initiative. Strong opposition came from
politicians and governing bodies of sport, who argued that although sport and
politics could not be separated, sport should not however be utilized as a political
weapon. In 1988, cancellation of the winter tour of India by the British cricket team
was the consequence of the Indian government’s dissatisfaction with the policy of
both the Test and County Cricket Board and the British government towards
apartheid in South Africa and towards those cricket players who insisted on playing
there. This issue also threatened to disrupt the 1990 Commonwealth Games in New
Zealand. [31]

In a foreign policy context, sport has been used in specific situations for a certain

purpose. China and Cuba initiated sports meetings as a means of revealing the desire
for relations with the West while, as already noted, many states expressed
disagreement with the apartheid policy by discouraging sporting ties with South
Africa. Several countries showed their disapproval of the invasion of Afghanistan by
pressuring their Olympic Committees not to send teams to the Moscow Olympics.
East Germany used sport and international matches to secure recognition from
peoples, if not directly from governments. To make friends with the Third World, the
Soviet Union and other Communist states sent coaches and other sports assistance as
part of their foreign policy. [32]

The involvement of governments in sport reflects in part an ideological view of the

role of the state in society. In the developed West, sport is considered to have a role in
character-building and the instilling of virtues of self-control, discipline and fair play.
It is increasingly recognized as a means of promoting good health. In the former
Soviet Union and other Communist states sport was seen as having many roles. It was
seen as a vital means of maintaining people’s health and preparing them for military
service but, perhaps more significantly, it was seen as a tool for foreign policy. [33] In
truth, such states have seldom put understanding and good fellowship ahead of their
own interests. The demonstration of superiority through sport has been given
priority. Powerful industrial countries are not the only ones that have used sport to
promote national interests. For instance, many nations lacking international political
and economic recognition at international level have used participation in the
Olympics as part of their quest for international recognition. They have used
international athletic meetings as a stage to show that their athletes and teams can be
involved and sometimes even defeat athletes from states economically superior to
their own. [34] Furthermore, the place of sport in people’s consciousness
demonstrates that a sense of national dignity, in which the governments have an
interest, is enhanced by national sporting success such as that of Italy in the 1982
football World Cup.

1694

P. Kissoudi

One of the roles of sport in countries of the Third World is to promote a sense of

national identity in these states, which are often troubled by tribal or religious
divisions. In 1984, the West Indian cricket team’s defeat of England was seen as an
event that contributed greatly to West Indian prestige in the international arena. The
conflict with the Tamils in Sri Lanka stopped (at least for a short time) when in 1984
the Sri Lanka cricket team played and put up good performances against England.
For a small state, the success of a prominent sports team is a way of reminding the
world of its existence. For many governments, sport is too important to be ignored.
In consequence, they want to oversee every sports group that represents the country
at international level. The national anthem is played and flags are prominent at the
opening and closing ceremonies of Olympic and other major sporting events as well
as at medal presentations. [35]

In fact, sport is a key instrument in the domestic and foreign policies of many

governments and is also a factor in the promotion of the state’s image both regionally
and internationally. The utilization of sport as a means for the improvement of
international relations began to interest the international academic community in the
early 1980s. In 1981, a research paper entitled ‘Approaches to the Study of Sport in
International Relations’ was published by H. Kyrolainen and T. Varis at the Research
Institute for Peace in Finland. This research paved the way for a close investigation
into the relationship between culture, sport and foreign policy. [36] This relationship
concerned sports historians, sociologists, anthropologists and many other scholars.
According to Shaw and Shaw, sport is part of politics. [37] They substantiated their
position by arguing that in both politics and in sport all those involved aspire to
improve their social prestige and for this reason they endeavour to secure resources.
The significant role sport can play in transnational relations motivated all those
involved in it to participate in international congresses and seminars and to publish
papers in scientific/academic journals. [38]

On the other hand, it has often been suggested that sport does not contribute to

the promotion and consolidation of peace and that it in fact reinforces nationalism.
[39] The idea that sport both transcends and integrates local, regional and national
communities is an argument that has appeared in many forms. The notion that sport
has some intrinsic property that rises above and displaces whatever major or minor
social divisions there may be has often been perceived as one of the major reason for
staging international sports events. In the late 1970s, Sylvanus Williams, Nigeria’s
Minister of Sport, stated that sporting achievements not only united the people but
were also a measure of a nation’s greatness. The winners are seen not only to
legitimate the nation within the international arena but also to create a positive image
of the nation. [40]

Outlining the Positive and Negative Roles of Sport in Transnational Relations

The establishment of unity and understanding between peoples should be among the
main goals of sport. That sport should bring nations of the world together has been

Sport, Politics and International Relations

1695

emphasized since the revival of modern Olympics. More importantly, the potential
impact of sport upon transnational relations has never been summarized more
clearly than in the statement by Alan Reich, former official of the State Department
of the USA. In 1974 Reich pointed out that ‘sport opens doors to societies and
paves the way for contact, cultural, economic and political’; and that ‘sport
provides an example of friendly competition and two-way interchange which
characterizes and leads to other types of friendly relations between nations’. [41]
Nevertheless, many examples of the mesh between politics and sport suggest that
when sport and politics intertwine it is sport that has its values undermined and
exploited.

There are some examples, however, of a mutually beneficial relationship where

sport has been a positive force for improving international relations. Sports meetings
that are politically well-intentioned can help communication and cooperation
between states. In October 1927 the Hellenic Amateur Athletic Association organized
competitions between athletic teams from Bulgaria and Greece, two traditionally
antagonistic states. That sports meeting was the first peaceful contact between the two
states since the Great War and the 1925 frontier incident. The meeting was first
proposed by Petko Zlatev, a representative of the Bulgarian Sports Association. Zlatev
stated with optimism that ‘Greece and Bulgaria, neighbouring countries, which aspire
to create friendly relations in the future, should make every effort to establish
sporting relations that are capable of creating and promoting good fellowship
between peoples’. [42] Clearly, sport was recognized as a source of goodwill and
cooperation and was promoted by both the Greek and Bulgarian sports associations.
It was hoped that the sports meeting might play a positive role in the improvement of
trans-national relations.

The common reality, of course, is that when an athletic meeting is staged, political

friendship seldom receives priority as the demonstration of national superiority is the
main priority of the competing parties. [43] Notwithstanding this, in the 1930s the
Balkan Games did provide a rare example of how an athletic event was used to bring
together antagonistic nations. The games increasingly became a source of goodwill
and did help to minimize tension between the participating states. The athletes were
encouraged to perform with an emphasis on individual participation. Spectators,
sports representatives and journalists focused on the achievements of the athletes as
individual rather than national successes and on symbols emphasizing conciliation,
friendship and collaboration. Time and again, statesmen such as Eleftherios
Venizelos, the Greek Premier (1928–32), as well as Bulgarian, Rumanian, Yugoslav
and Turkish politicians and diplomats stated that the greatest service the games
rendered to peace in the region was that they brought athletes, diplomats and
government representatives together to seek and advance channels of communica-
tion, conciliation and cooperation. [44] In addition, the Balkan sports representatives
who represented their country at the games acted as diplomatic representatives, both
formal and informal, in the effort to improve relations between nations. The mere
fact that sport was capable of bringing together the Balkan peoples in an amicable

1696

P. Kissoudi

atmosphere was an achievement in itself. The games increasingly became a means of
cultural exchange and a stimulus to the improvement of regional performances by
which means the Balkan nations raised their self-esteem.

Furthermore, sport has been used to bring about political transformation in a

state. Such a goal of course, cannot be achieved very often. Nevertheless, the long-
term boycott of sports competitions involving South African teams did make an
important contribution to the overall effort to break down the apartheid policy.
Racial apartheid in South Africa was established in 1948 and efforts to isolate that
country’s sports teams date back to the late 1950s. These efforts were increasingly
organized to the point that there was an effective global boycott in the 1960s. The
boycott was associated with bitter conflicts in several states. [45] However, it took on
an increasingly symbolic form throughout the world and reminded people of the
racial oppression in South Africa. It also put pressure on white South Africans to
consider their government’s policy of racial discrimination. Eventually, in the early
1990s, racial barriers started to be removed and the African National Congress, under
the leadership of Nelson Mandela, made sport an integral part of everyday life
through which he could promote the suppression of racial discrimination. Thus
changes in sport became a symbol of the need for changes in several parts of South
African social life. [46]

In the early 1970s, the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United

States of America and China, which had initially been attempted through table tennis
matches (later described as ‘ping-pong diplomacy’) is a classic case in point. The
matches were designed to emphasize involvement rather than the competitive success
of one nation over the other. They were organized to bring the countries together and
not to establish superiority or reaffirm national prestige, either in the eyes of the
international community or the people of the competing states. For this reason, the
symbols associated with the event and the media coverage focused on unity and the
skills of the athletes while the victories were attributed to the athletes themselves
rather than to the states in which they were born or trained. The result was that the
table tennis matches provided opportunities for contact and understanding between
the two countries. [47]

In addition, the later ‘Goodwill Games’ were founded after the boycotts of the 1980

and 1984 Olympic Games in an effort to bring elite athletes from all over the world
together in a forum that emphasized unity through sport. The games were designed
to reduce the increasing hostility between the sports communities of the United
States of America and the Soviet Union. They were initiated in Moscow in 1986 were
then held in Seattle in 1990 and were accompanied by art exhibitions, concerts and
conferences. This was a meritorious attempt on the one hand to allow people from
different countries to meet and discuss world issues in a conciliatory atmosphere,
while also encouraging proposals for effective solutions. Although there is no
information about the impact of these events on the political domain, they were
promoted and covered in a way that downplayed political differences and
nationalism. [48]

Sport, Politics and International Relations

1697

The following is one more example of the positive role of sport in transnational

relations. When Seoul was selected to host the 1988 Olympics serious political
obstacles emerged. The Korean peninsula had been divided since 1945; a consequence
of the cold war, with South Korea unrecognized by the Soviet bloc and firmly tied to
the West. North Korea was correspondingly close to the Soviet bloc and estranged
from the West. The absence of relations between South Korea and the Soviet bloc
gave rise to the fear that the Soviet Union and its allies might boycott the games. The
president of the IOC, Juan Antonio Samaranch, handled the difficult situation with
outstanding diplomatic skill. He showed the Soviet Union that the IOC had done all
it could do to satisfy its ally’s demands and so allowed the Soviet Union to participate
in the games without loss of face. This was what the Soviet leaders possibly wished to
do in any case, for by boycotting the Los Angeles Games of 1984 it had already
negatively affected some of its Eastern Europe friendships. To do so again might have
a further negative impact on them and also on some Third World allies. The
Olympics were an important catalyst for the improvement of relations with the Soviet
Union and Eastern Europe. [49] A more recent example of sport as a source of
goodwill and conciliation was the marathon race held in Berlin on New Year’s Day in
1990. The race followed a route that weaved its way through both east and west
Berlin, thus symbolizing the unification of East and West. [50]

Each of the above examples shows that with careful planning sport can be used to

promote good fellowship and peace between peoples. Furthermore, up to 1991, the
United States Information Agency funded the ‘Sports America Programme’ through
which coaches, trainers, administrative experts and sports equipment were sent to
states that lacked the resources to develop sports programmes on their own. In
addition, coaches from developing countries were invited to the USA so that they
could work with American coaches and learn from them. The participants in the
programme worked with other volunteer groups in the United States as well as with
national and international sports organizations in order to assist developing countries
to establish sports programmes for disabled elite athletes of both sexes. [51]

Turning to the negative role of sport in international relations, it could be said that

from their inception the modern Olympic Games have been marked by political
conflicts. In 1896, the Germans showed hostility to the games, since they were seen as
a riposte by the French for their defeat in the Franco-German war. [52] In early 1908
the national team of Finland, then part of Russia, refused to march in the opening
ceremony of the Olympics under the Russian flag and chose to march as a separate
group without a flag. The 1936 Olympics were exploited by Hitler and the Nazis to
promote the virtues of National Socialism and the supposed superiority of the Aryan
race. [53]

In addition to the Olympics, in the first half of the twentieth century other major

sporting events had been utilized for political confrontation. To mention merely two
examples from soccer, Germany was invited to Britain in 1935 to play a match at
Tottenham Hotspur’s White Hart Lane ground. Arrangements were finalized by late
August, but the British government did not become aware of the event until

1698

P. Kissoudi

September, when the Home Office received a request from a German steamship
company for permission to land supporters at Southampton. Media coverage focused
on the negative reactions of various anti-fascist, Jewish and left-wing groups towards
the idea of entertaining a team seen as representing a regime guilty of serious excesses
against the church, the Jews and the labour movement. [54]

The invitation resulted in protests from trade unions, who demanded that the

match should be cancelled because of the offence that might be given to the large
local Jewish population of north London. The forthcoming match raised policy issues
for the British government. The Home Office was alarmed by fears of unrest, even
riots, consequent upon the presence of some 10,000 German spectators. [55] Finally,
the fact that the match had already been arranged and publicized urged the British
government to assume that it would go ahead. [56] In a subsequent international
game in 1938, this time in Germany, the British team was instructed to give the Nazi
salute as the German national anthem was played before the match. After the 1936
Olympics, no summer Olympic Games escaped political incident. The defeated states
of the Second World War, such as Germany, Italy and Japan, were excluded from the
London games in 1948. [57]

The negative role sport could play in transnational relations was stressed by George

Orwell when in 1945 he commented on the visit of the Moscow Dynamo Football
Club to Britain. Orwell wrote that ‘sport is an unfailing cause of ill-will, and . . . if
such a visit as this has had any effect on Anglo-Soviet relations, it could only be to
make them slightly worse than before’. [58] Moreover, Holland, Egypt, Iraq and
Spain boycotted the 1956 Olympic Games in protest against the British and French
invasion of Suez. The Chinese stayed away because the Taiwanese had been allowed
to compete. Taiwan then claimed to be the true Republic of China, but the
Hungarians surprised everybody by deciding to go to Melbourne in 1956 despite the
fact that Soviet troops had invaded the country earlier that year. [59] As previously
noted, the statement ‘sport is completely free of politics’ was made by Avery
Brundage, president of the IOC, in the same year in response to the withdrawals
referred to above. The Melbourne protest was part of a general pattern established
long before 1956 and which has continued up to the present day. The absence of
countries from major international meetings, either as a demonstration of protest or
due to their exclusion, has been a usual feature in the history of the Olympics. In
addition, in 1964 South Africa was suspended and later expelled from the Olympic
movement (in 1970). [60] In 1966, during the football World Cup finals held in
Britain, NATO first opposed the presence of the North Korea national team in a
NATO country and then opposed the flying of the North Korea flag and the playing
of its national anthem. [61]

Soccer provides many examples of sport being used as forum for government

propaganda or as an arena for international politics. There is the example of the
defeat of Honduras by El Salvador in a World Cup qualifying match in 1969, being
the spark that turned the growing hostility between the two countries into open war.
[62] Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia, a country that adopted a system similar to

Sport, Politics and International Relations

1699

apartheid, was barred in 1972 having made a unilateral declaration of independence
from the Commonwealth. [63] New Zealand maintained sports links with South
Africa despite global opposition. Consequently, in 1976 more than 20 African nations
boycotted the Montreal Olympics in protest at the participation of New Zealand. [64]
Olympic boycotts have since proliferated. Taiwan also withdrew after it was refused
permission to compete as ‘China’. [65] The most tragic example of the Olympic
Games being used for political purposes occurred in 1972 in Munich when eight
Palestinian terrorists occupied the Israeli team’s quarters and demanded the release of
200 Palestinian prisoners in Israel. Negotiations proved fruitless and ten Israeli
athletes were killed. A day’s mourning followed before the competitions resumed.
Reasonably, there was considerable thought that the remaining events should be
cancelled but the outgoing president, Avery Brundage, decided that the games should
go on. Since then, matters of security have become a major preoccupation of the
Olympic Games’ organizing committees. [66]

In 1980, following the Russian invasion of Afghanistan (in late 1979) the British

government put considerable pressure on its athletes not to participate in the
Moscow Olympics. [67] The then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, exhorted
British athletes not to go but the British Olympic Association went ahead. [68]
President Carter’s proposal for a boycott of the Moscow games was also a
consequence of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The president seemed to have
decided that a boycott would be a way of showing disapproval of the Soviet action.
He and his advisers, however, were surprised when their suggestions, made only a few
months prior to the Olympics, that the games should be moved elsewhere or that an
alternative games should be held, received little support. There were of course
arguments on both sides. On the one hand, many sports representatives resented
American interference and thought it wrong to deprive athletes of the supreme
athletic event for which they had been training for so long. On the other hand, the
government of the United States thought it improper to back sporting collaboration
with a country that had invaded Afghanistan and believed that the athletes should not
shrink from bearing their part of the burden. [69] For political reasons, China sent a
limited delegation of 200 athletes and Yugoslavia did not send any at all to the same
games. [70] Speciously pleading anxiety over their athletes’ security, the Soviet Union
and its allies (except Romania) did not participate in the 1984 Los Angeles games,
[71] while in 1988 Cuba stayed away from the Seoul games after the South Korean
government had refused to share events with North Korea. Almost every Olympics
has been associated with some form of political issue that has prompted boycotts.
[72]

Sport is not invariably a source of international goodwill. Quite the reverse! Not

infrequently in the twentieth century, sport has pointed up political confrontation.
To take merely one example; a serious political problem arose in 1982 when Hu Na, a
Chinese tennis player from the People’s Republic of China, applied for political
asylum in the United States. Following the ‘ping-pong diplomacy’, sport had
promoted conciliation between the two countries. Nevertheless, during the period

1700

P. Kissoudi

when the Americans were considering the asylum application of Hu Na, China
cancelled bilateral cultural exchanges due to take place in 1983 and withdrew from
involvement in international meetings that were scheduled to be held in the United
States. [73]

Racial or ethnic prejudice has also been a source of international confrontation.

The offensive behaviour of Austrian supporters during the football match between
Algeria and Austria, which resulted in the elimination of the Algerian team from the
1982 World Cup, had a negative impact on Austrian-Algerian relations. After a
formal protest by the Algerian ambassador, some of the Austrian fans were compelled
to apologize to the Algerian embassy. An embarrassing situation was minimized. [74]
In a more recent case, catcalls by Greek supporters against the players of Southern
Serbia, who had won the Pan-European Basketball Championship held in Athens in
1995, raised tension between the competing states. To retrieve the situation, Carol
Papoulias, the Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs, handled the problem personally.
[75] The above are merely the tip of a sizable iceberg! Nevertheless, the positive or
negative role of sport in international relations is dependent, to some extent, on how
the sports meetings are organized and promoted. When there is emphasis on
competitive success in terms of the national affiliations of athletes and medals won,
then there is little chance for the development of friendly relations either regionally
and/or internationally.

Throughout the world, states are ranked, to an extent, according to the interest

their governments take in sport. There are some states where sport is fully integrated
into the political system and has thus become an important instrument in
government policy, while there are others in which sport is organized by non-
political organizations and is supposedly free of political interference. Some efforts
have been made in many Western countries to exclude politics from sport. However,
there are political implications in modern sport that are unavoidable. In a world
where success in sport is regarded as a measure of national vitality and prestige, it is
difficult to avoid the fact that sport has become the tool of politics. On the other
hand it is generally accepted that sport builds character and serves as the basis for
group unity and solidarity. It is also believed that, regardless of the differences in
political or economic systems, sport is positively linked to people’s lifestyle. [76]

The idealistic view of sport has some of its roots in Greek antiquity. It relates sport

to physical perfection and sees athletic endeavour as the individual striving for
physical or bodily perfection. One variant of this view is the concept of physical and
mental harmony or the concept of the healthy mind in the healthy body. The
apolitical view is that sport is a world of its own. It is full of fun and excitement but it
has nothing to do with the real world and should be shielded from it. The keeping of
politics out of sport presupposes that existing sporting organizations are non-
political and oppose any external interference apart from government funding. [77]

More significantly, international sport is often the tool of diplomacy. The state

looms large where national image is concerned. International sport has always been a
battle for national self-pride, a ‘war without weapons’. Newly independent states have

Sport, Politics and International Relations

1701

devoted much energy and resources to sport as a way of establishing themselves on
the international stage. Communist countries consciously adopted a policy of
achieving superiority by outstripping Western countries in Olympic performance – a
goal that was achieved successfully. The relationship between sport and nationalism
has rested upon a number of arguments including the following:

.

sport is inherently conservative and helps to consolidate nationalism, patriotism
and racism;

.

sport has some inherent property that makes it a possible instrument of national
unity and integration;

.

sport helps to reinforce national consciousness and cultural nationalism;

.

sport has contributed to political struggles, some of which have been closely
connected to nationalist politics and popular nationalist struggles.

In fact, sport has often been involved in the process of nationalism as a national
reaction to dependency and it contributes to a quest for identity through nostalgia,
mythology, and invented or selected traditions. [78]

Sport does, however, have a positive contribution to make to world affairs. Sports

meetings/events encourage people from different countries, colour, religion and
cultural background to come together in a spirit of friendship and goodwill. In the
1930s the Balkan Games provided a rare example of sport being utilized to bring
together antagonistic states in an atmosphere of unity and understanding. Against a
background of complex, confrontational national issues and athletes who were
unable to compete successfully in sport in Europe, the Balkan Games emerged as an
attempt to import sport into politics in the interests of regional peace, stability and
conciliation. In addition, any consideration of these games should be set in the
context of the emergence of modern sport in the region.

Notes

[1] Allison, ‘Sport and Politics’, 5.
[2] Coakley, Sport in Society, 17.
[3] Millar, The Nature of Politics, 16.
[4] Leftwich, What is Politics?, 63.
[5] Houlihan, The Government and Politics of Sport, 5.
[6] Taylor, ‘Sport and International Relations’, 29–30.
[7] Ibid., 30–3.
[8] Happel and Kramer, ‘The Objectives of Sport and International Understanding’, 108–10.
[9] Hoberman, Sport and Political Ideology, 20.

[10] Arnaud, ‘Sport – a Means of National Representation’, 3–4.
[11] Ibid., 11.
[12] Ibid., 8–12.
[13] Ibid., 8.
[14] Langley, Sport and Politics, 8.
[15] Houlihan, The Government and Politics of Sport, 1–2.

1702

P. Kissoudi

[16] Cashmore, Making Sense of Sports, 352.
[17] Natan, ‘Sport and Politics’, 206.
[18] Coakley, Sport in Society, 365–6.
[19] Quoted in Guttman, The Games Must Go On, 96.
[20] McIntosh, Fair Play, 140.
[21] Coakley, Sport in Society, 365–6.
[22] Ibid., 369–70.
[23] Houlihan, The Government and Politics of Sport, 9.
[24] MacIntosh et al., ‘Canadian Government Involvement in Sport, 21–6.
[25] Collins and Nixon, ‘The Psychic, Political and Moral Uses of Sport’, 77–84.
[26] Coakley, Sport in Society, 369.
[27] Allison, ‘Sport and Politics’, 6–13.
[28] Coakley, Sport in Society, 369–70.
[29] Ibid., 367.
[30] Allison, ‘Sport and Politics’, 14.
[31] Houlihan, The Government and Politics of Sport, 1–2.
[32] Taylor, ‘Sport and International Relations’, 39.
[33] Ibid., 40.
[34] Coakley, Sport in Society, 369–70.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Kyrolainen and Varis, ‘Approaches to the Study of Sport in International Relations’, 55–88.
[37] Shaw and Shaw, ‘Sport as Transnational Politics’, 386–99.
[38] Stolyarov and Sanadze, ‘The Role of International Sporting Ties’, 38–46.
[39] Galtung, ‘The Sport System as a Metaphor’, 10–6.
[40] Jarvie, ‘Sport, Nationalism and Cultural Identity’, 69–70.
[41] Quoted in Coakley, Sport in Society, 368–9.
[42] Manitakis, 100 Chronia Neoellinikou Athlitismou, 539.
[43] Holsti, International Politics, 25.
[44] Official statements made by Greek politicians and Balkan diplomats about the political role of

the Balkan Games in the area were published in Newspaper of the Balkans, 24 Sept. 1929;
Northern Greece Messenger, 22 Sept. 1929; Northern Greece Messenger, 5 Oct. 1930; Newspaper
of the Balkans, 6 Oct. 1930; Northern Greece Messenger, 6 Oct. 1930; ‘Les Jeux Panbalkaniques’,
in Donation Carnegie pour la Paix Internationale, le`re Conference Balkanique, 404–5;
Spanoudi, ‘Les Premieurs Jeux Balkaniques’, 28; Northern Greece Messenger, 6 Oct. 1931;
Eleftheron Vima, 5 and 6 Oct. 1931; Eleftheron Vima, 10 Oct. 1932; Macedonia, 10 Oct. 1932;
Eleftheron Vima, 12 Oct. 1932.

[45] Lapchick, The Politics of Race and International Sport, 55–9.
[46] Coakley, Sport in Society, 377.
[47] Houlihan, The Government and Politics of Sport, 8. As an outcome, table tennis provided the

opportunity for positive communication between the two nations and the occasion was used
for political ends. See Sage, Power and Ideology in American Sport, 18.

[48] Coakley, Sport in Society, 372.
[49] Hill, ‘The Politics of the Olympic Movement’, 96–7.
[50] Houlihan, The Government and Politics of Sport, 8.
[51] The funding of the programme stopped in 1991 since some American officials were not

convinced that sport was an effective vehicle for public diplomacy. See Coakley, Sport in
Society, 376.

[52] Hill, ‘The Politics of the Olympic Movement’, 86.
[53] Houlihan, The Government and Politics of Sport, 7.
[54] Beck, Scoring for Britain, 181; Houlihan, The Government and Politics of Sport, 8.

Sport, Politics and International Relations

1703

[55] Beck, Scoring for Britain, 182–4.
[56] Ibid., 184; Houlihan, The Government and Politics of Sport, 8.
[57] Cashmore, Making Sense of Sports, 352–3.
[58] George Orwell, ‘The Sporting Spirit’, Tribune, 14 Dec. 1945. Orwell also stated that ‘I am

always amazed when I hear people saying that sport creates goodwill between the nations, and
that if only the common peoples of the world could meet one another at football or cricket,
they would have no inclination to meet on the battlefield. Even if one didn’t know from
concrete examples (the 1936 Olympic Games, for instance) that international sporting
contests lead to orgies of hatred, one could deduce it from general principles. . . . At
the international level sport is frankly mimic warfare. But the significant thing is not the
behaviour of the players but the attitude of the spectators: and, behind the spectators, of the
nations who work themselves into furies over these absurd contests, and seriously
believe . . . that running, jumping and kicking a ball are tests of national virtue.’

[59] Langley, Sport and Politics, 19.
[60] Cashmore, Making Sense of Sports, 349–53.
[61] Howell, Made in Birmingham, 171–2.
[62] Houlihan, The Government and Politics of Sport, 7.
[63] Cashmore, Making Sense of Sports, 353.
[64] Taylor, ‘Sport and International Relations’, 33.
[65] Cashmore, Making Sense of Sports, 353.
[66] Hill, ‘The Politics of the Olympic Movement’, 92–3.
[67] Taylor, ‘Sport and International Relations’, 33.
[68] Cashmore, Making Sense of Sports, 353.
[69] Hill, ‘The Politics of the Olympic Movement’, 94.
[70] Ibid., 115–16.
[71] Toohey, ‘The Politics of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics’, 109–16.
[72] Cashmore, Making Sense of Sports, 353.
[73] Pendleton, ‘Deuce or Double Fault?’.
[74] Luschen, ‘Sport, International Conflict and Conflict Resolution’, 47–56.
[75] To Vima, 9 June 1995.
[76] Mangan, ‘Prologue’, vii.
[77] Whannel, Blowing the Whistle, 24–5.
[78] Ibid., 24–5, 78.

References

Allison, L. ‘Sport and Politics’. In The Politics of Sport, edited by L. Allison. Manchester: Manchester

University Press, 1986.

Arnaud, P. ‘Sport – a Means of National Representation’. In Sport and International Politics – The

Impact of Fascism and Communism on Sport, edited by P. Arnaud and J. Riordan. London: E
& FN Spon, 1998.

Beck, P. Scoring for Britain: International Football and International Politics, 1900–1939. London:

Frank Cass, 1999.

Cashmore, E. Making Sense of Sports, 3rd edn. London: Routledge, 2000.
Coakley, J. Sport in Society: Issues and Controversies, 3rd edn. St Louis, MO: Times Mirror/Mosby

College Publishing, 1986.

Collins, R. and M.R. Nixon. ‘The Psychic, Political and Moral Uses of Sport’. Journal of Sport

History 10, no. 2, (summer 1983): 77–84.

Donation Carnegie pour la Paix Internationale, ed. 1e`re Conference Balkanique. Documents Officials.

Athens: Dotation Carnegie pour la Paix Internationale, 1931.

1704

P. Kissoudi

Galtung, J. ‘The Sport System as a Metaphor for the World System’. In Proceedings of the

International Symposium ‘Sport – The Third Millennium’ (Quebec City, Canada, 21–25 May
1990), edited by F. Landry, M. Landry and M. Yerles. Saint-Foy: Les Presses de l’ Univerite
Laval, 1991: 10–16.

Guttman, A. The Games Must Go On: Avery Brundage and the Olympic Movement. New York:

Columbia University Press, 1984: 108–10.

Happel, D. and R., Kramer ‘The Objectives of Sport and International Understanding’. In

Proceedings of the Congress ‘Sport and International Understanding’, (7–10 July 1982), edited
by M. Ilmirinen. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1984.

Hill, C. ‘The Politics of the Olympic Movement’. In The Changing Politics of Sport, edited by

L. Allison. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1993: 84–104.

Hoberman, M.J. Sport and Political Ideology. London: Heinemann, 1984.
Holsti, K.J. International Politics: A Framework for Analysis, 6th edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall, 1992.

Houlihan, B. The Government and Politics of Sport. London and New York: Routledge, 1991.
Howell, D. Made in Birmingham: The Memoirs of Denis Howell. London: Macdonald/Queen Anne

Press, 1990.

Jarvie, G. ‘Sport, Nationalism and Cultural Identity’. In The Changing Politics of Sport, edited by

L. Allison. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1993: 58–83.

Kyrolainen, H. T., Varis. ‘Approaches to the Study of Sport in International Relations’. Current

Research on Peace and Violence 4, no. 1: 55–88.

Langley, A. Sport and Politics. Hove: Wayland Publishers Ltd, 1989.
Lapchick, R. The Politics of Race and International Sport. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1975.
Leftwich, A. What is Politics?, Oxford: Blackwell, 1984.
Luschen, G. ‘Sport, International Conflict and Conflict Resolution’. In Proceedings of the Congress

‘Sport and International Understanding’, (7–10 July 1982), edited by M. Ilmirinen. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, 1984: 47–56.

MacIntosh, D. C. Franks and T. Bedecki. ‘Canadian Government Involvement in Sport: Some

Consequences and Issues’. In The 1984 Olympic Scientific Congress Proceedings, vol. 7, edited
by G. Redmond. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, 1986: 21–6.

McIntosh, P. Fair Play: Ethics in Sport and Education. London: Heinemann, 1979.
Mangan, J.A. ‘Prologue’. In Sport in Europe: Politics, Class, Gender, edited by J.A. Mangan, vol. 1.

London: Frank Cass, 1999: vii.

Manitakis, P. 100 Chronia Neoellinikou Athlitismou: 1830–1930 [‘A Hundred Years of Modern

Greek Athleticism: 1830–1930’]. Athens: n.n., 1962.

Millar, J.D.B. The Nature of Politics. London: Duckworth, 1962.
Natan, A. ‘Sport and Politics’. In Sport, Culture and Society. A Reader of the Sociology of Sport, edited

by W.J. Loy and S.G. Kenyon. London: Macmillan Company, 1969: 203–10.

Pendleton, B. ‘Deuce or Double Fault? The Defection of Tennis Player Hu Na: A Study of China-

United States Sport Diplomacy’. In The 1984 Olympic Scientific Congress Proceedings, vol. 7,
edited by G. Redmond. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, 1986: 13–20.

Sage, G. Power and Ideology in American Sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, 1990.
Shaw, T. and S., Shaw. ‘Sport as Transnational Politics: A Preliminary Analysis of Africa’. In Sport

and International Relations, edited by B. Lowe. D. Kanin and A. Strenk. Champaign, IL:
Stipes Publishing Company, 1978: 386–99.

Spanoudi, M. ‘Les premieurs jeux Balkaniques’, Les Balkans I, no. 2, (Nov. 1930): 28.
Stolyarov, V. and L., Sanadze. ‘The Role of International Sporting Ties in Strengthening Peace and

Understanding Between Nations’. In Proceedings of the Congress ‘Sport and International
Understanding’, (7–10 July 1982), edited by M. Ilmirinen. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1984:
38–46.

Sport, Politics and International Relations

1705

Taylor, T. ‘Sport and International Relations: A Case of Mutual Neglect’. In The Politics of Sport,

edited by L. Allison. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986: 27–48.

Toohey, D. ‘The Politics of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics’. In The 1984 Olympic Scientific Congress

Proceedings, vol. 7, edited by G. Redmond. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, 1986:
109–16.

Whannel, G. Blowing the Whistle. The Politics of Sport. London: Pluto Press, 1983.

1706

P. Kissoudi