Crossing The Line – Politics and Sport

“It used to be all about winning,” those were the words uttered by a top athlete from the United States about sport in his era, the 1980’s. “Now it’s about entertainment,” he added with a tone of regret. Few would argue with his observation.

The comment was backed up by others saying in that era it was about bringing together a group of players that could win you the Championship; or whatever the tournament was called. It was about not only getting the mix of talent right, but also the mix of personalities, and having them share in that vision.

Often the teams that were successful in this era did not have big name signings, because they relied purely and solely on the team, and every player playing their part. One team that was always accused of trying to buy success in this era and failing was Manchester United. A big club that looked to sign big name players to bring immediate success. History has shown that success is rarely immediate.

Now clubs want the big name players not necessarily to fit into their team but because of the commercial value they bring. Sometimes a player’s signing is not even connected to commercial gain for the club, but instead for the manager, the reporter and the agent. However, often the signing of a popular big name player will be a boon commercially in terms of merchandise and ticket sales, especially with fans today following individuals rather than teams. Such a signing has the potential to swing tens of thousands of fans across to that club, which in turn translates to millions of dollars.

It is almost as if sport is now more about popularity rather than ability. It is more about commercial success over competitive success.

Which makes the recent incident with Quentin de Kock at the T20 World Cup all the more interesting.

As we have seen closer to home in Australia many sports are encouraged to have a round of fixtures dedicated to a certain cause or issue. The hope being that it will raise the profile of that societal issue or cause. The sport is rewarded with Government money, and a week or so later the round of fixtures will be focussed on another worthy cause.

The sad fact is as much as many sports and clubs want to be seen to be doing the right thing by supporting these causes very few have built a culture whereby this cause has become something that they are genuinely invested in for the long term. It is a case of tick a box take the money and move on, and the players are simply the pawns.

Yet of course these ‘events’ strike a chord with many fans who simply pay their money to be entertained. They feel that they are doing their bit by being at the game which has a focus on a section of our community, and feel that their club has done their bit. Very few will look deeper to see what the club is really doing to support this cause.

Sport for decades has tried to stay away from politics. Yet now we are seeing more and more sporting clubs and sporting figures becoming embroiled in politics. As mentioned many are being used as pawns without even realising it, others realise it and are happy to accept it, while some have a conscience and the confidence to think for themselves.

In many sports individuals open themselves up to being fined or even suspended if they make a political statement that is not in line with their club or the sport’s governing body. Yet now we are seeing sporting organisations ordering their players to support a certain viewpoint. Surely this is a case of double standards?

In football, as well as many other sports we have seen a move to both sides shaking hands prior to the match starting. This was introduced in 2004 to try and promote ‘respect’ between players, yet it is a complete farce. In fact what it has done is exacerbate any issues between players or teams.

A handshake was for centuries seen as a gesture of peace. The act demonstrated that the hand held no weapon. It has also grown to symbolise sincerity. When making an oath or a promise, the gesture of clasping hands represented the sealing of that bond. Yet sadly many people today see no issue in breaking that bond.

In football it has become a meaningless routine. Seeing players wish each other good luck before the match just because they have to, is ridiculous. It is made all the more ridiculous when as soon as the whistle blows those same players dive, push and kick each other and shout expletives at their opponents and the officials.

When there is an issue between a set of players and they refuse to shake hands it actually highlights the controversy and dislike that exists rather than diffusing it. Suddenly that becomes the focal point and the issues between the two parties flare up again.

Now we have the issue of athletes across the globe opting themselves or being told to take the knee during the national anthem. This is we are told to show support for the Black Lives Matter movement.

Yet how many people are aware when this movement started and what its objectives are? Or how this movement has evolved?

It was created as a decentralized political and social movement protesting against incidents of police brutality and all racially motivated violence against black people. The movement began in July 2013, after using the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter on social media following the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of African-American teen Trayvon Martin 17 months earlier in February 2012 in the United States of America.

How many people thought that it was created following the death of George Floyd in 2020? How many people are aware that in the summer of 2015, Black Lives Matter activists actually became involved in the 2016 United States presidential election?

They now have a wide-reaching network of activists across the United States. Also in 2013 The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGN) was created to spread the word across key cities around the world. The organisation is now truly international and advocates for the eradication of systematic racism and to prevent police violence.

In 2015 the unaffiliated Black Lives Matter Political Action Committee was created. The original organisation was very quick to state that they were not interested in endorsing Political candidates. Yet in October 2020 after two of the founding members left, the sole remaining BLMGN founder Patrisse Cullors announced the creation of the first BLMGN-sponsored political action committee.

On May 30, 2021, Patrisse Cullors announced that she was stepping down as executive director. The reason she gave was so that she could focus on her upcoming book and TV-show development deal with Warner Brothers and that such a decision had been in the works for over a year prior. There were claims made by the New York Post that Cullors had bought four luxury homes in the Los Angeles and Atlanta area during her time as executive director of BLMGN. An accusation that was denied.

There can be no doubt that Black Lives do matter as do the lives of many others, and that more must be done to eradicate racism, but some are saying that what started out as a vehicle to raise awareness of these issues has now been highjacked and has become embroiled in Politics.

Have those teams and national associations done their homework into this movement before advocating that their employees must show support for it?

If we go back to 2016 American footballer Colin Kaepernick took the knee during the national anthem before a match. His reasons for doing so he said were because he “could not stand to show pride in the flag of a country that oppressed black people.”

So does that mean that whenever a sportsman or woman takes the knee during their national anthem they are looking to convey the same message against their nation?

If the Cricket Board of South African were wanting their players to take the knee to follow Kaepernick’s example were they in fact saying that they no longer have pride in the South African flag and that their Government is still oppressing black people?

At the Tokyo Olympic Games Team GB’s women’s football players took the knee before every match they played. This was done to highlight the racial abuse directed at England’s men’s team after the Euro 2020 competition. So there was a clear message being sent by their action, but to some they were disrespecting their own National Anthem, not the anthem of those who abused their male counterparts. So did the gesture backfire or did it achieve what the players were hoping?

What was interesting about the Tokyo Olympic Games was that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) opted to loosen its rules about athletes making Political statements.

The IOC initially banned competitors from taking the knee. It said Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter forbade any kind of “demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda”. However it then decided to allow athletes to “express their views” before and after competing. This meant that they were now allowed to take the knee before an event. Many believed that this move was made out of fear, as it was believed that large numbers of athletes were planning to protest if told that they could not. (Some Rules Are Made To be Broken)

There were conditions attached to this loosening of the rules, athletes could not express their views during events and victory ceremonies, or at the Olympic Village. Any protest was not allowed to be “disruptive”, such as unfurling a flag or banner during “the introduction of another athlete or team.”

No doubt the IOC was thinking back to the 1960 Rome Olympic Games, when the Republic of China – now known as Chinese Taipei – opted to participate despite the protests of mainland China. The IOC forced Chinese Taipei to compete as Formosa or Taiwan. They were banned from using the name China at all. Many nations including the USA urged Chinese Taipei to withdraw, but they chose not to. However when they entered the stadium for the opening ceremony following the sign of Formosa, their lead athlete carried a sign that he unfurled which read “Under Protest.”

There have been many sensitive political issues that have been handled poorly in the history of sport. Probably none more so than in October 1935 when it was announced that England football’s next home match would be against Germany. It was then announced that the venue for the match would be White Hart Lane, home of Tottenham Hotspur, a club noted for its significant Jewish following. Just a month earlier In September, Germany’s Nuremberg race laws had been announced which prohibited intermarriage and criminalised sexual relations between “Jews” and “persons of German or related blood.” Jewish Germans were now to all intents and purposes second-class citizens.

The blame could only lie with the English FA, as they considered politics to have no place in sport, and admitted that the match had been arranged without any involvement or discussion with the government. As for the choice of venue, they were trying to share the games around and Arsenal had hosted the previous Internationals.

Three years later on May 14, 1938, in front of an estimated crowd of 110,000 fans at the Olympic Stadium in Berlin England faced Germany again in an end-of-season friendly. This was a far more tense atmosphere with Swastikas flying around the stadium.

The night before the match, officials from the FA and the British foreign office met and agreed that it would be prudent for the England players to perform the Nazi salute. Even though Hitler would not be attending the game it was said that performing the salute would aid the diplomatic situation. Also they believed that it would ensure a positive reaction from the crowd.

The players themselves were only informed of the decision in the changing room less than an hour before the game. While Sir Stanley Rous, the FA secretary at the time, said there were no objections many of the players, most notably Sir Stanley Matthews claimed “all the England players were livid and totally opposed to this.”

The picture of the England players giving the Nazi salute is one of the most disturbing photographs in English football. Those in the photograph are all said to have regretted going along with the salute. This is one strong example of politics and sport coming together and the players being instructed by the powers that be as to what they must do, and living to regret it.

Last week the South African Cricket Board ordered their players to take the knee at the T20 World Cup on the bus on their way to their match against the West Indies. As everyone now knows Quentin de Kock withdrew from the game following that instruction.

In the statement that he has released since taking that action he stated ““I felt like my rights were taken away when I was told what we had to do in the way that we were told.”

Sadly some in the media failed to see that point. In fact some went so far as to call de Kock a racist for his position. Which was truly mind-boggling.

If there was a racist in the team and the instruction was to take the knee to show solidarity for the #BlackLivesMatter movement, how likely is it that that individual would withdraw. They want to play cricket, and are far more likely to remain quiet than to speak out.

Credit must go to Temba Bavuma the captain of South Africa for the way he handled the controversy, but one wonders why he was left to face the media alone.

The decision to take the knee was made by The South African Cricket Board not by the captain. Surely a representative from the Board should have been facing the media? Having said that one wonders whether they could have handled the press as diplomatically and with the dignity that Bavuma showed.

There are several questions that come out of this situation, first of all should governing bodies be forcing players to take such a stance and make such a gesture? Surely such a gesture has to come from the heart of the individual or it has no meaning?

Secondly should sport be continuing to allow such statements to be made before games? Are they detracting from the game itself? If they are to be allowed then surely there must be tighter controls, as just like the handshake being rejected, a player opting not to take the knee becomes a bigger issue than the game itself.

One current international athlete, who for obvious reasons requested that they remain unnamed stated that they felt that if the Governing body wanted the team to show a unified front against racism then they felt that they should ask the team to make such a gesture once. Then once done that is it. They felt that there were too many incidents where attention is being taken away from the game itself.

They may have a point, but sport has made a rod for its own back. The more it takes money to show support for certain causes the more those governing the sport loosen their grip on controlling their players. Not all players will tow the party line. Many take great pride in the image that they have cultivated and the values that they endorse. Those with a strong self awareness and principles are not going to be dictated to on all of these issues. To be honest why should they be?

At the end of the day they are responsible for their actions, as many of them know if they step out of line during a game. So if the powers that be want to make a point and show support for a cause then let them do it, but do not expect the players to be the pawns.

All these years later the individual players who gave the Nazi salute in Berlin are the ones remembered ahead of the 6-3 victory. They were the ones who had to live with the fact that they stood there on the pitch and gave that salute. Those who made the decision that they must do so have faded into the background, and few even knew who they were at the time. What were the consequences to them?

Sport has so much power to uplift and to breakdown barriers but it cannot be manufactured, it must be allowed to happen naturally. The actual respect in sport is genuinely seen after the match has been completed. These are the images that live long in the memory. South and North Korean players holding hands at the East Asia Cup following their match and saluting the fans together,. Andrew Flintoff consoling Brett Lee in the second Ashes Test at Edgbaston in 2005 when England had won by two runs, Bobby Moore and Pele swapping shirts at the 1970 FIFA World Cup. These are moments captured in time, moments of genuine respect between sportsmen and women. None of them were staged to try and convey a message, they all happened naturally.

Moving forward if a player wishes to take the knee during the national anthem how are the authorities going to stop them? After all they have encouraged such gestures. This is a sign of the times now, but what will be the sign in the future?

Already we are witnessing players not just taking the knee but now also raising a clenched fist. While the taking of the knee is seen as a passive protest, the clenched fist is seen by many as being a sign of aggression.

The problem is that this gesture means different things in different countries. For example amongst communists and socialists a raised right fist is sometimes called the red salute, whereas amongst some African-American activists, especially in the United States it has been called the Black Power salute. During the Spanish Civil War, it was known as the anti-fascist salute. A raised right white fist has been known as the Aryan fist or the White Power fist, and this is generally associated with White nationalism. So is it appropriate for a white athlete to raise their fist while taking the knee?

Despite the different interpretations the raised fist is seen by many around the world to represent unity or solidarity, generally with oppressed peoples, so it can be argued it does has a place when the knee is being taken.

In an article published by the BBC on the meaning of the clenched fist published in 2018 psychologist Oliver James was quoted as saying “It’s a way of indicating that you intend to meet malevolent, massive institutional force with force of your own – you are an individual who feels bound with other individuals to fight an oppressive status quo.” If this is true then it is understandable that some people feel threatened by the raised fist and see it as aggressive.

Yet the real issue is a far greater one, and the world needs to demand change. In 1968 Tommie Smith and John Carlos stood on medal podium at the Mexico Olympics and created an image that lives on in the memory. Instead of basking in the glory of their success, they took the opportunity to bring awareness to an issue that they felt needed the world’s attention. Interestingly Tommie Smith stated in his autobiography, “Silent Gesture”, that the clenched fist salute that they gave was not a Black Power salute, but in fact a human rights salute. He has also stated that the issue they were trying to promote was racial inequality and injustice in the U.S., despite the nation boasting to be the home of the free and the brave.

They raised their black-gloved fists and bowed their heads while the U.S. national anthem played. They explained later that they bowed their heads as a sign of respect for the country. Almost 50 years later Colin Kaepernick took the knee during the national anthem because he could not stand to show pride in the flag of a country that oppressed black people. So what has changed? (Respecting A Nation’s Anthem)

The Black Lives Matter movement originates in the USA, where these problems still exist; they exist in many other places in the world too and not just to people because of the colour of their skin.

What happened to the dream of Civil Rights Activist Martin Luther King Jnr, who famously said in 1963 “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.” Over fifty years on one wonders whether that dream has been fulfilled in the USA.

In sport it is time to once again let players show their true character. Yes some will make asses of themselves on social media, but rest assured their star will not shine as long as those of good character. As Samuel Johnson wrote “The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good.” Such gestures should not be linked to money or sponsorship deals, they must come from the heart. These gestures should also never be dictated to athletes.