Sports and politics

Governance is a social construct, linked to questions of political theory about the relationship between the state and society. It is thus explicitly a political process (Treib et al., 2007, Tang, 2015, p. 26). Sociologists of sport also affirm that sport is political and argue that claims that sport can be apolitical are themselves political statements (Tang, 2015, p. 26). Professor Christina Boswell argues that politics is a complex struggle over ideas, where the parties involved seek to defend competing identities, cultural and material interests by appealing to their values and beliefs (Christina Boswell, 2020). “To be apolitical is to be political without realising it, for there is nothing that is not political” (Jack, 2022, p. 141). This insight confirms that politics is an all-encompassing phenomenon that permeates all social processes.

The concept of politics encompasses three dimensions that are often confused or perceived as one, but it is important to distinguish between them in order to understand political processes. The first is politics: the decision-making and power relations within groups, involving the promotion of views, the negotiation between different political forces, the process of law-making and the exercise of power at different levels, from local government to international relations. Sport policy includes measures at different levels and for different audiences to organise the sporting activities of society and to define strategies and priorities for action in the field of sport. It can have different objectives, such as contributing to the well-being of society, the development of sport infrastructure, education or supporting athletes in international success (Paiken, 2019, pp. 17-18). S. Luik (2012) has identified six core functions of sport, which include a political function to promote social change. Sport politics and economics are recognised as particularly important functions of sport (Sotiriadou, Shilbury, 2009; Andersen, Ronglan, 2012; Paikena, 2019, p. 27).

The second dimension is the polity – the institutional framework within which the process of policy formulation, interperetation and application takes place (Andreas Größler, 2010). Thus, polities are parallel governance systems that exist alongside the formal administration as informal centres of influence, e.g. traditional social structures, sports federations, which do not necessarily respect the laws and policies of the central government. For example, Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereafter TFEU) guarantees the right of citizens of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, prohibiting discrimination on grounds of nationality. Article 101 TFEU, on the other hand, prohibits anti-competitive agreements. The TFEU reflects the policy of the European Union, but in practice most team sports federations in the EU Member States ignore and violate it by introducing and enforcing discriminatory quotas for foreign players. This practice is confirmed by the EU Grand Chamber judgment of 21/12/2023 and the reasoning contained therein. EU national sports federations are thus forming policies that are contrary to the EU’s basic principles and policies. This example shows that real power and governance practices are not always in line with higher level legal norms. Policies are part of an internal process of legalisation, which demonstrates the relative autonomy of internal institutions, where two parallel systems must be taken into account: the normative framework and actual action (Carlsson, Backman, 2020, p. 453). Sporting competitions should be indeterminate and unpredictable, while normative structures should be fixed and predictable (Carlsson, Backman, 2015, p. 304). In practice, however, the opposite is often the case. Managing these parallel systems is a key challenge in both sport and general politics.

The third dimension is policy, defined by Forrester (1994) as the decision-making process that transforms information into action. Policies usually take the form of a component of a government’s policy agenda. They are the visible outcome of political activity, the means of management influence on the political processes that are adopted to achieve policy objectives, such as plans and guidelines (Andreas Größler, 2010).

Initially, the world of sport demanded autonomy to avoid the influence of public policies. But now this autonomy has banned athletes, coaches and others active in sport from expressing political opinions and taking part in setting policy. Sport governing bodies are seen as the sole policy-making authority that all must respect unconditionally (Meeuwsen, Kreft 2023, p. 342). So in practice this has had the opposite effect: autonomy has precluded any political activity in the governance of sport itself (Meeuwsen, Kreft 2023, p. 343).

The fictive prohibition of politics in sport easily created a hegemonic order that is antithetical to the principles of equality and fairness. Sport governing bodies were ‘allowed’ to create their own internal politics, which implemented a brutal political takeover. According to Espy (1979), sport is used as a platform for political gains in which management appropriates or benefits from the achievements of athletes (Paddick, 1984). Sport as a social practice in which communities are born and excellence is cultivated was politicised and privatised through managerial autonomy. This power grab is political and should therefore also be addressed and negotiated at a political level (Meeuwsen, Kreft 2023, p. 350).

The neoliberal economy transforms human relations into business relations and this system is shaped by political goals. Political power is not manifested in the legislative and executive institutions of nation-states, but in the respective sports federations and the policies they pursue (Meeuwsen, Kreft 2023, p. 347). Governors of sporting bodies often establish self-regulatory rules to consolidate their power as overseers of the game (Naha, Hassan 2019, p. 15). Paradoxically, the politics that govern sport insist on being excluded from sport. What has remained constant is that political declarations come only from the Olympic Committee or local sports federations, not from the athletes themselves or the public. Thus, sport policy globally still appears authoritarian, arbitrarily setting demands and defining positions, reinforcing the power of sport institutions and the subordination of athletes (Meeuwsen, Kreft 2023, p. 348).

Contributing to the sustainable development of sport is an important responsibility. At present, no one has taken it on. The perception that sport is used to gain and maintain power is a problem for which there are currently no effective solutions (Harris, Adams 2016, p. 106). While sports organisations still enjoy a high level of autonomy internationally, the legitimacy of maintaining their special status outside the EU legal framework is seriously questioned (Naess, 2019, p. 4). In light of recent sports governance and ethics scandals, the insistence on the autonomous governance of sport has become much weaker (Lawrence, Pam 2023, pp. 97-101). In the field of sport science, it is often assumed that decisions about sport development are made independently of the wider political and cultural context, when in fact the opposite should be true: sport policy should be based on this context. Moreover, policy change itself can create new, previously unrecognised development opportunities in sport (Klein & Marmor 2006, Green, Collins 2008, p. 226).