Is it possible to separate sports and politics?

a fortnight ago, Wimbledon decides to deny entry to Russian players and Belarus for the 2022 edition of the tournament. Coming against the backdrop of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Wimbledon said this was to thwart any attempt by the Russian regime to “get any benefit from the participation of Russian or Belarusian players with the championship”. many other games, such as soccer, Track and field and Formula One have also imposed restrictions to varying degrees. This has restarted the debate over the impact of politics on sport. N. In a discussion conducted by Sudarshan, Sharda Ugra and Zeeshan Ali discuss different aspects of the same. Edited excerpt:

Is it possible to separate sports and politics? Can games exist in a vacuum?

Sharda Ugra: Everyone always says, ‘Let’s try and separate sports from politics.’ But sport takes place within society, it is a product of society, and society is constantly being influenced by politics. Therefore, it is very difficult to separate them. Given the history of political involvement in sport, as sport is seen as an agent of soft power, we will always be in the position we are today. In the highly professional world of elite sports, it gets even more complicated. We want to exist in an almost utopian realm and go back to an amateurish era. But you know, even that wasn’t very utopian in the first place.

opinion | How Wimbledon got it all wrong on tennis and politics

Zeeshan Ali: I completely agree with Sharda. Sports and politics have always been mixed. In 1974, India was supposed to play Davis Cup final against South Africa, but due to the issue of apartheid, we had to give a walkover. In 1988, we were ready to play Israel (in the play-offs in the World Group Play-offs) and we had to give a walkover again. Unfortunately, sports and art are affected [by politics] And when a government is involved in taking some decisions, it is very difficult for an individual to go against it.

Is there room for ‘the right kind of politics’? Is a morally upright attitude possible during apartheid in the current world of competing interests?

Sharda Ugra: Politics was made to play a role outside the game and game to try and push the apartheid regime to change its stance. You’ll look at it and say, ‘That was a good thing.’ But people of my generation remember what it was like for countries like India and other non-white nations to stand up against this vast, almost monolithic West, who thought it right to go and play in South Africa. Countries fought against the Western world to say that South Africa’s policies were extremely flawed and had to be corrected. The game was used as a measure to further that message. We also see how sport has been used politically to send a message, as did Nazi Germany in 1936 (the Berlin Games were a show of Nazi propaganda). The South African example is probably the only one I can think of that ended correctly.

How should sports bodies react when there are conflicting and ethical arguments on both sides?

Zeeshan Ali: What is right for one country may not necessarily be right for another country. In the case of South Africa, the whole world was coming together for a humanitarian cause. What is happening now is completely different. One superpower is taking over another country, and sports are becoming a part of politics. I was part of the team in 1988 when we had to give a walkover to Israel. It was a big blow for us after reaching the final of Davis Cup last year. But the Indian government took that stand and we were just small players. To be honest, the players don’t really have much. It is sad for someone like Daniil Medvedev not to be allowed to play some tournaments. If a government decides that some players or some countries should not play, it is political and it is unfortunate that players get affected by it.

Read also | Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic Slam Wimbledon Russian Players Ban

Steps from Wimbledon and other bodies are being projected as the sport is doing its bit to bring peace. Can the game play such a big role where some players will inevitably suffer collateral damage?

Sharda Ugra: It is interesting for people to say that ‘the game is playing its part’. The US has the NHL (National Hockey League) where the Russians are still playing. So, I think it’s a bit self-righteous to say that. In the case of Wimbledon, I thought the British Foreign Office made a big noise. No other individual tennis tournament has said that they will not allow Russians. When are we going to talk about Israel and Palestine? Isn’t this an issue that should be front and center? There has been a struggle going on for decades. So, it’s a bit over-ambitious on the part of the game to think of it this way. Doing it for an individual sport is literally a slippery slope. Where do you stay and what do you stay for? You understand the suffering of Ukrainian athletes what is happening in their country. But to imagine that it would work if the Russians didn’t participate… is not well thought out.

Read also | Russian swimmer Rylov banned for 9 months for attending Putin rally

Zeeshan Ali: It is currently being debated that entry to Wimbledon is not based on nationality but on the basis of ranking. So, why is Wimbledon not allowing Russian players to play? They are already playing under the neutral flag. Like Sharda referred to the Israel-Palestine issue, tomorrow it could be another country that could have problems with its neighbour. So will you stop every single player in that country? This is a dangerous example. I hope that going forward, sport doesn’t become a matter of game for any government to decide, ‘Okay, tomorrow, we don’t want this or that country to play, because we don’t agree with their policies’. this has no end.

Sports bodies and governments have tried to crack down on protests of all kinds. On the other hand, they do not shy away from using these events and successes of players to enrich their position. How do you see this dichotomy?

Sharda Ugra: You see elite sports use the forums of all kinds of governments to stage events. See where some Formula One races are held. There was also controversy over the right to host the FIFA World Cup for Qatar. So, it is almost as if you have played in the hands of those in power. I think, the game, perhaps, should find a way to ring-fence. The Olympics are another kettle of fish as are many international federations. But at least sports like tennis, which are high profile, very elite with a lot of money, highly professional and largely well-run, should really distance themselves. I just wanted to raise the case of Chinese tennis player Peng Shuai, who raised his voice against a [government] official. The tennis response at that time was excellent. It stood up for its player and took the tournament away from China. Although it got to a point where we don’t know what the truth really is, tennis’ first line of defense was, ‘Let’s talk to him. He is our athlete. Let’s take care of her. And what has Wimbledon done? It said, ‘It’s someone else’s thing. Let’s get these people out.’ The game should not allow this. What was the emblem of the athlete at the end of 2020 and 2021? It was to take a knee, raise a fist and stand against discrimination. The game should be used in this way instead of such exclusion, which was also said by Martina Navratilova. Exclusion is not the way to go.

editorial | Kicked out: on the suspension of the Russian sports team

Zeeshan Ali: Sport unites us, not divides us. It’s dividing people right now and that’s the last thing we want. I was in the Olympics in 1988 and then I was the (non-playing) captain of the Indian team in Rio in 2016. How is your atmosphere in the village, especially in the dining room area, where people from different countries are sitting together… It is not a question of color or language or anything. Everyone there is a player. In Rio, there was a McDonald’s outlet where people used to queue for a kilometer. In that one kilometer, you had people from 100 different countries standing and talking amongst themselves. This is what is uniting people. Unfortunately, right now the situation is doing anything but the game a loser.

When governments play such a huge role in sports, from funding to presiding over events, can we really expect a separation from sports and politics?

Sharda Ugra: I do not think so. Particularly in the Olympic Games, where in about 75% of countries, funding comes from the government and through taxpayers. So, you know the government must be trying to stamp its authority. But staging events for professional sport does not require anything other than permission. Therefore, it is the duty of professional sport to be a little more clear and cautious about how much politics it will allow. If sport wants to play a role, let it raise money for refugees and all other causes. What is happening in tennis is largely a promotional exercise and you cannot fall into it. Because political participation is not going to decrease. This is what George Orwell said about the image of the future which is the boot in the face. You have to push back as much as you can.

Read also | Russia, Belarusians out of Paralympics amid risk of boycott

Zeeshan Ali: I don’t think sports and politics are ever going to separate. Sports bodies in most countries come under the jurisdiction of the government. Let’s exclude BCCI from this, but I am talking about other sports in the country like hockey, which are completely dependent on the sports ministry and the government. The decision to go against the government cannot even be of the sports body as it will have consequences. But as Sharda pointed out, there needs to be some leeway to take a definite stand with regard to major political decisions. As much as we would like sports and politics not to mix, this has not happened in all these years and unfortunately, I do not see it happening in the future. Even in individual sports, if you go against your country’s decision not to play in a particular country or travel to a particular country, there can be consequences. A government might say, ‘Okay, we’ll stop your passport.’ And then you cannot travel to any part of the world. So, we players and sports federations have to abide by these decisions at some point of time, whether it is good for the game or not. Unfortunately, we are just pieces of something bigger.

explained | Russia’s recent boycott from international sport

Sharda Ugra: It was quite interesting to hear what Zeeshan had to say. I think the IPL (Indian Premier League) is a classic example of how politics has been allowed to permeate the entire game. So, we cannot have Pakistani players in the IPL. Now, is cricket a team sport? yes of course. But it is a team sport with teams from Mumbai and other cities. An Indian team will always win the IPL. But you can’t have Pakistan players because of an unwritten rule and there will be some ‘trouble’. There will be no problem… there will be trouble. Cricket in India and Pakistan has allowed itself to be completely overwhelmed and manipulated by politics. Cricket has become the currency with which politics is done. And while Wimbledon has just done something like that, it shouldn’t pose again. That’s what Zeeshan said, ‘You can allow yourself too much manipulation before you even know it.’