By any ideal, international, multilateral or bilateral, playing fields are supposed to be the haven where flags are raised, rivals stand in respect to each other’s anthems to salute the national spirit, and in the end, shake hands, irrespective of a win or a loss. Scoreboards do justice to proclaim the winner and also to prove that it was just a game; a competition between the best from opposing sides, per se. More importantly, it testifies that it is not the end of the world, but it has not been manifested as such, in the last century and more so, recently.
The 1916 Olympics were cancelled due to WWI, and in 1920, the Antwerp Olympics barred the defeated Central Powers, setting a precedent where victors decided participation. The most notorious politicisation came in Berlin in 1936, where Nazi Germany hosted the Games as propaganda to project the power of the Third Reich. Jesse Owens’ four gold medals defied Hitler’s racial ideology, yet the spectacle served the regime’s agenda.
Cricket between India and Pakistan has long mirrored political hostility.
Geopolitics repeatedly shaped the Olympics. In 1956, weeks after the Soviet crackdown in Hungary, Hungary’s water polo clash with the USSR in Melbourne became the infamous “Blood in the Water” match, while the Games were also marred by boycotts over the Suez Crisis. In Munich 1972, eleven Israeli athletes were killed by Black September group, halting the competition for thirty-four hours. In 1976, over twenty African nations boycotted the Montreal Olympics over New Zealand’s rugby links to apartheid South Africa. The Cold War era drove the USA and its allies to boycott the Moscow Olympics in 1980 after the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan. The USSR and its allies retaliated by boycotting the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984. The apartheid regime in South Africa faced a coordinated sports ban from 1964, denying competition to generations of athletes. Together, these episodes show how sport became an effective political weapon and also a casualty of global conflict.
Sports remained affected by disputes over political recognition. China boycotted the Olympics from 1958 to 1980 over Taiwan’s participation, while Taiwan competed under shifting names and flags. Pakistan, citing its non-recognition of Israel and solidarity with Palestinians, repeatedly refused to compete against Israeli athletes, notably at the 1974 Asian Games in Tehran and at the 1989 World Table Tennis Championships. Similar controversies have arisen over Palestine, Kosovo, and Russia, whose athletes have faced bans or neutral-flag restrictions after the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. It further underscores that sport cannot remain politically neutral, and fuels criticism that governing bodies apply political morality selectively.
Football, the world’s most popular sport, has long reflected political conflict. The 1969 “Football War” between Honduras and El Salvador followed disputed World Cup qualifiers and escalated into military clashes. In 1986, Argentina’s World Cup match against England featured Diego Maradona’s famous “Hand of God” dazzling goal, wrapped in nationalist pride and grievance just after four years of the Falklands War. More recently, the Ukrainian crisis and Russia’s annexation of Crimea complicated international tournaments, culminating in a charged 2018 World Cup.
Beyond geopolitics, football has been scarred by violence and extremism. The 1985 Heysel Stadium disaster in Brussels, when English hooligans rioted, causing 39 deaths and a European ban on English clubs, remains a grim landmark. Through the 1990s and 2000s, hooligan clashes at major tournaments, often linked to far-right groups, continued. In Eastern Europe, nationalist ultras turned stadiums into recruiting grounds, using banners and chants to inflame ethnic and religious divides.
Even in Golf, a sport celebrated for etiquette, rowdy crowd behaviour in last week’s 2025 Ryder Cup held at Bethpage Black in Long Island, USA, threatened to overshadow the play itself. It remained marred by vulgar chants, incessant heckling, thrown bottles and toys, and behaviour that many players and media judged unacceptable. Many commentators have labelled Bethpage’s atmosphere “the most abusive Ryder Cup in almost a century.”
Cricket between India and Pakistan has long mirrored political hostility. Since independence in 1947, matches have been charged with rivalry, often worsening after terror attacks or border clashes. India has frequently frozen or boycotted cricketing ties, notably after the 2008 Mumbai attacks, and again following the 2019 Pulwama attack and Balakot strikes. Calls even arose to boycott Pakistan in the 2019 World Cup; though the teams met in Manchester, the game unfolded under intense security, resembling a military standoff more than a game. Comes Pahalgam, and India refuses to shake hands or accept a trophy from a Pakistani official, marking another low in this gentleman’s game.
Sport can leverage diplomacy; a fact that has also been proven in the past using the power of sports as a bargaining chip or a thaw agent. In 1987, General Zia-ul-Haq attended a test match in India and Pakistan and then met Indian PM Rajiv Gandhi to defuse the Brass-tacks crisis. Indian PM Vajpayee’s allowing the Indian cricket team in 2004 to visit Pakistan, Gen Musharraf’s travelling to Delhi for an ODI match in 2005, and PM Manmohan Singh’s inviting PM Yousaf Raza Gilani in 2011 to Mohali to witness the World Cup semi-final between India and Pakistan; showcasing cricket as a messenger of peace in times of chaos.
There are no simple solutions, but key lessons stand out. Transparency and consistent rules are vital, as shown by global bans on apartheid South Africa. The same should be applied to sporting ties with genocidal Israel. Governments, sponsors, and sporting bodies must engage in dialogue to shield events from political retaliation. Stronger collaboration with security, media, and fan groups is needed to curb violence through clear codes of conduct, firm deterrents, and better-trained officials. Above all, athletes’ voices should be central, since they bear the greatest impact yet have little say.
A century of turbulent history shows that sport cannot float above the world it represents, but it can insist on fairness, openness and the primacy of competition. That may not erase politics or crowd hostility, but it can help prevent turning playing fields into battlefields.
The writer is a freelance columnist and can be reached at zulfiqar.shirazi @gmail.com