Politics in sport, sport of politics

In early October 2015, Cricket Australia postponed its scheduled tour of Bangladesh citing security concerns. Around the same time, the country’s national football team was also due to visit Dhaka. Just like the cricketers, the Socceroos also backed out. Their demand was that the match be shifted elsewhere. But after reviewing the security situation in Bangladesh, FIFA and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) declared that the match would be held in Dhaka. If Australia refused to play, Bangladesh would be awarded three points. Yet the International Cricket Council (ICC) could not compel the Australians to tour Bangladesh.

Because of FIFA’s firm stance, the Australian football team had to arrive in Dhaka on a chartered flight and play the match on 17 November 2015. Not only in football, but in most sporting disciplines, international governing bodies maintain strict rules on specific matters. There are questions about whether the ICC has such authority at all. Incidents in the past have amplified this doubt. In fact, the ICC’s role in global competitions has been under constant debate and criticism.

The differences between the ICC and other sporting bodies are stark. While football follows strict and precise regulations, the ICC often buckles. Once, England and Australia dictated terms in this region’s most popular sport, but today India holds undisputed sway. Social media regularly jokes that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) barely cares about the ICC. Meanwhile, what sort of authority the Asian Cricket Council (ACC) really holds is another matter altogether! It is no surprise, then, that fans at Dubai International Stadium ended up witnessing two shows for the price of one ticket.

It all began on 14 September, when Indian captain Suryakumar Yadav refused to shake hands with his Pakistani counterpart Salman Ali Agha, pouring fuel onto the already hostile relationship between the two nations. The ending was equally dramatic, with the Indian team refusing to accept the Asia Cup championship trophy from Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) chief and also the country’s Interior Minister, Mohsin Naqvi. According to the ACC’s rules, the president has the duty of handing the trophy to the champions. Accordingly, Naqvi appeared on stage, but the Indian team made it clear that they would not take the trophy from him. Instead, they proposed Khalid Al Zarooni, vice-chairman of the Emirates Cricket Board, as an alternative, insisting that they would accept the trophy only from him.

There can be no doubt that the final at Sharjah International Cricket Stadium turned into a sickly display of political hostility between the two neighbours. Explaining his refusal to shake hands with the Pakistani captain, Suryakumar Yadav said: “Our behaviour reflected the stance of the Indian government and the BCCI.” In the past, tensions between these two bitter rivals were often difficult to spot with the naked eye. At this Asia Cup, nothing was hidden. Everything was laid bare. Bilateral series between India and Pakistan have been suspended since 2008. After the Mumbai attacks, the Indian government cancelled all cricketing ties with Pakistan. Since then, the two teams have only met in ICC tournaments. Now, under the crushing weight of politics, will even those contests disappear?

The bitterness between the two countries in the Asia Cup spilled beyond the pitch onto social media. Shortly after the match, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi wrote on X: “Operation Sindoor on the field too. Same outcome – India’s victory.” Mohsin Naqvi responded swiftly, retweeting: “If war is your measure of pride, history has already recorded your shameful defeats at Pakistan’s hands. No cricket match can alter that truth. Dragging war into sport only reveals despair and taints the very spirit of the game.”

It is not new for outside events to affect the field of play. Such examples have been seen many times, in many sports, in many countries. In 1973, the Soviet Union refused to play in Chile because of the military coup and human rights abuses there. FIFA resolved the situation by declaring Chile winners. At Barcelona football matches, banners supporting the Catalan independence movement often appear in the stands, but La Liga and the Spanish football authorities manage these issues with subtlety. Can the ICC act as decisively in the case of Indo-Pakistani hostility?

Politics has not only poisoned sport; at times it has spread the fragrance of flowers through it. On 21 June 1998 in Lyon, before the World Cup match began, Iranian players handed white roses to their American opponents as symbols of peace and goodwill. Both teams posed together for a photo, sending a human message against political tension. The United States and Iran have faced decades of strained relations since the 1979 revolution and the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran. Yet, on that day, football delivered a gesture of friendship between two enemies. Many dubbed the match “The Mother of All Matches”, as the world’s curiosity was immense over the encounter between two adversaries. Iran went on to beat the USA 2-1. FIFA and the United Nations highlighted the game as a model of the “Sport for Peace” movement.

But the world of sport has also witnessed darker outcomes of war and conflict. The United States boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics in protest against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. As a result, another 65 countries stayed away, shrinking the Games dramatically. It became the smallest Olympics since 1956, with only 80 nations participating. Earlier, “Melbourne Games” had seen 72 nations, though equestrian events were held separately in Stockholm, Sweden.

Political influences have also spilled blood in sport. One of the most infamous examples came in the 1956 Olympics, when Hungary faced the Soviet Union in water polo. Just before the Games, the Soviets had brutally crushed a Hungarian uprising. Tensions boiled over into the pool, with violent clashes breaking out during the match. Hungarian player Ervin Zador was bloodied by a Soviet punch, and violence spread into the crowd. Only swift police action prevented a larger disaster.

In 1980 the US boycotted Moscow, and in retaliation the Soviet Union boycotted the 1984 Los Angeles Games, joined by several allies. Yet despite this political manoeuvring, the United States staged an enormously successful Olympics. With 140 nations taking part, it set records and is still considered the most financially successful Games in modern history, earning more than 250 million US dollars in profit.

Political enmity even gave birth to the “Hand of God” in the 1986 World Cup. Diego Maradona wrote in his autobiography that Argentina’s victory over England carried echoes of revenge for the Falklands War: “We did not just defeat a football team, we defeated a country. Before the match we said Malvinas had nothing to do with football. But we knew they had killed many Argentine children – like little birds. And this victory was revenge.”

Instead of revenge and hostility, let sport stand for friendship and goodwill.

Mahbub Sarker: Writer and sports journalist