‘We live in the era of the empowered athlete’, says former player and political scientist

The accumulation of off-field controversies in the 2022 World Cup had an unprecedented effect on Qatar’s pitches. As never before in a World Cup, players took a stand, protested and were questioned about issues that go beyond sports.

“We live in the era of the empowered athlete”, analyzes Jules Boykoff, 52, a political scientist who studies the impact of the World Cups and the Olympics in the host countries.

A former soccer player, he was a prospect in 1990 when he debuted with the US national team against Brazil in the Toulon Tournament in France. The Brazilian team, which had Cafu, won 2-0.

Boykoff proudly remembers his confrontation with the captain of the five-times in one of the most relevant youth competitions in football. The memory makes him reflect on how football and its athletes have changed, according to him.

“I was too naive to position myself politically. I’m even afraid to think what I might have said if some journalist came to ask me about political issues”, he says.

Questions such as those that the captain of the US team, Tyler Adams, heard from a journalist from Iran, about racial discrimination in the US, or those that many athletes had to answer in relation to the death of migrant workers in Qatar and the persecution of gays in the country of the Cup.

Boykoff sees the protest organized by players from Germany, who covered their mouths after being banned from wearing a rainbow captain’s armband, as an evolution. For him, the financial independence of established athletes gave them freedom to position themselves.

“Fortunately, they don’t depend so much on managers,” he says. “Great, but that can’t be an obligation. They need to have the freedom to choose. If they want to talk, let’s listen to them”, she adds.

Mr. mentions the term “sportswashing” in articles and interviews. What precisely do you mean by that? Sportswashing happens when a political leader uses sport and events like the World Cup and the Olympics to try to prove himself legitimate, gain geopolitical importance and improve his reputation. What he wants is to divert attention from real chronic problems, such as human rights violations.

With sport, it is possible to create space for geopolitical and economic advances. It doesn’t necessarily materialize, but it can. You saw, for example, that Qatar just signed a new military agreement with the US during the World Cup.

But is this a risky game too? Countries end up under the spotlight… Yes, Qatar shows that betting on sportswashing can be a risky game. Who hosts a big event, at the same time that you want some subjects not to be talked about, attract attention to them. We saw this with regard to anti-LGBTQIA+ laws and working conditions in Qatar, which gained a great deal of international media attention. There is no guarantee that the political leader will get what he wants.

But that’s when we talk about results in the external image. We have to remember that many times the main objective is related to the internal public.

Because? I will give an example, the 2014 Olympic Games in Sochi. Vladimir Putin managed, a year before the event, to pass an anti-gay propaganda law. This had a terrible international repercussion, especially in the US. Yes, but in Russia he used this, with other measures, it is true, to increase his popularity.

It created, according to local researchers, a new sense of Russian nationality. The Winter Olympics contributed to this. After the event, Putin had an approval rating of 86%, polls showed. Popular, he annexed Crimea.

We have examples of using events as a springboard to popularity for tyrannical leaders who implement actions such as starting a war.

At the same time, we have to remember that sportswashing is not only observed in authoritarian countries. It takes place in democratic nations like Brazil and the USA. In Los Angeles, the mayor says the 2028 Games will end the city’s homelessness problem, which doesn’t seem feasible. In Rio, they promised to clean up Guanabara Bay. This critique of the political use of events needs to be extended to democratic countries as well.

Usually when the event starts, the main subject ends up being the sporting highlight, which helps to hide the countries’ problems. It’s hard to compete with Messi scoring goals, with the stories that football provides… Yes, I am passionate about the sport and I know it. But if you compare it with the past, I believe there is an evolution. In the past, this trend of total focus on the game was 100% confirmed. The Qatar Cup broke with that in some ways. There is critical coverage of the country.

I believe we are seeing something different. First, because there are many problems in Qatar. There are reporters there and they are seeing and reporting this to a global audience. The second reason is that we had players from different countries talking about sensitive country issues.

When Denmark announced that it would wear a shirt with a human rights message, it got attention. When Germans were prevented from wearing the rainbow armband and covered their mouths in protest, it propagated something that was not common.

What explains this greater engagement of some athletes in causes that go beyond football? There is a factor that is the financial independence that more consecrated players have conquered. Fortunately, they don’t depend on managers as much.

I take the example of Messi, who is an athlete who does not take a stand and it is his right to be like that, there is no criticism of what I am going to talk about. He earns US$ 40 million (R$ 212 million) per year salary. Not to mention sponsorships and other revenues. The winning team of the Cup will receive US$ 42 million (R$ 222 million) in total, to be shared with all of the team, coaching staff and employees. The management of the award is the country’s federation.

So these athletes no longer need the prize money, for example. The event, yes, needs them, financially speaking. With that financial independence comes freedom.

There’s another question. There are well-known figures who became known for taking a political stand. You think of Manuel Neuer and remember his statements about LGBTQ+ rights. This is no longer a taboo.

We are living in the era of athlete empowerment. Today, they are expected to take a stand and talk about issues not directly related to football.

Do you see this as an evolution? I see freedom and security for them to speak as something positive. But it must be made clear that it should not be an obligation. Many are well advised, prepared and have information. Let’s hear them.

At the World Cup, we saw the captain of the US team, Tyler Adams, being questioned by a journalist from Iran about racial discrimination in the US. That’s how things are currently in the sport. Players need to be prepared for this. When I played it wasn’t like that.

When I was 19 and playing, I was too naive to take a stand. I’m even afraid to think what I might have said if some journalist came to ask me about political issues (laughs). Of course, I would say something very naive or stupid.

I do not believe that athletes should be forced to speak or even charged. They need to have the freedom to choose. If they want to talk, great.

In 2021, you wrote a piece in the New York Times stating that the Tokyo Olympics should be cancelled. There are those who advocate a boycott of the World Cup. Is it your case? It’s difficult [boicotar], I will not lie. I welcome and am sympathetic to whoever proposes this, but I’m watching. I believe it is possible to do both, criticize the system and support the athletes who are doing their job.

I cannot accept that these FIFA executives, with all their corruption, bad decisions and malfeasance, will succeed in stealing the game from a football fan like me.

The 1978 World Cup, held by the Argentine military dictatorship, and the Berlin Olympics, organized by Adolf Hitler, were marked by benefiting authoritarian regimes. Do you believe that the Qatar Cup will be remembered like this in the future? It’s hard to make predictions, it’s dangerous. But we have lessons from these cited examples. You look at media coverage at the time and you see reports of complacency and even praise for political figures. Hitler has been described by the New York Times as “one of the greatest, if not the greatest, political leaders in the world today”. This is a literal excerpt from a newspaper text. This is not what happens in Qatar.

What we do know is that after the Olympics in Berlin, Hitler saw his popularity increase. This strengthened him for the actions he took in the following years.

In both cases, in Argentina and Berlin, authoritarian leaders promised the best possible event to sports officials and that nothing bad would happen during it. As soon as the party ended, repression only increased in these two countries. What will it be like in Qatar after FIFA leaves and the world’s attention disperses?

There is a complaint from Qatar that there is a lot of prejudice because it is an Arab country. Yes, on that I have to agree. There is prejudice. We need to highlight that Qatar made some changes in its labor legislation for foreigners, there were reforms that perhaps we would not have had without the World Cup. It’s hard to know if these changes will make a difference when the tournament is over. We’re back to the same question I asked earlier: what will happen when the world’s spotlight shifts elsewhere?

X-RAY

Jules Boykoff, 52 years old, professor at Pacific University, in the USA, who studies the impact of the World Cups and the Olympics in the host countries, and a former soccer player.