It took a while for this issue to appear.
Donald Trump has been trying to steal the World Cup spotlight for himself for months. He threatened to take matches away from host cities that he considers unsafe; banned fans from Iran, Haiti, Senegal and Ivory Coast from entering the United States, for security reasons; told his co-hosts that he would love for Canada to be the 51st North American state and that he wouldn’t rule out invading Mexico militarily to fight drug cartels. All duly ignored by the rest of the world and by the president of FIFA, Gianni Infantino.
However, in recent days, the diplomatic crisis created with Europe by the threat to annex Greenland has made some politicians cry out: in retaliation, Europeans must boycott the World Cup! None of the authors of the idea are very relevant, it is true, but it was enough to spark debate.
Sports boycotts are as old as the sport itself. At the Ancient Olympic Games, in 332 BC, the city of Athens threatened to withdraw from the event because it did not like the accusation that one of its athletes was participating in a betting scheme.
Among the most famous are those from the Cold War era, when the United States and allies did not go to the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games, and the Soviet Union led a boycott of the Los Angeles edition four years later.
There have been calls for retaliation for the 2018 World Cup in Russia over the annexation of Crimea; to Qatar, in 2022, due to human rights violations; the topic will return before Saudi Arabia hosts the 2034 World Cup. The point is: what is the purpose of a sports boycott to resolve a geopolitical issue? Typically none. It doesn’t end the problem and only punishes those who have nothing to do with it: the athletes.
Regarding the World Cup that starts in June, some countries have spoken out. The Dutch Football Confederation said political positioning is a matter for the government. The French Sports Minister made it clear that the country is not even considering the possibility. Here in the United Kingdom, which has strong commercial and political relations with the United States, it would be unthinkable. England and Scotland would never give up on the World Cup.
Talking about boycotting an event based in the United States is, to say the least, naive. If football is the opiate of the people, removing a qualified country from the World Cup would be the political death of whoever made that decision. No European government leader would do something so unpopular, or risk losing business opportunities with the Americans. Furthermore, what is the real justification? Even though it sometimes doesn’t seem like it, the United States is a democratic country. The other two hosts have nothing to do with Trump’s madness.
What could happen is greater rigidity before choosing which nations will have the privilege of hosting World Cups and Olympic Games, especially when it comes to authoritarian regimes. Sports organizations need to improve the way they deal with geopolitical issues, modernize themselves instead of just repeating the speech that “sport and politics don’t mix” or that “sport has the power to unite the world”.
Nowadays, you don’t even need to be an expert on the subject to know that this is bullshit.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
