However, in today’s world, in which almost everything is presented in terms of democracy and autocracy, the bad guys seem to be winning on sports. For soccer, there is Qatar, which this year is under fire, especially for its treatment of gays and migrant workers. Russia, now a Western pariah, hosted the soccer tourney in 2018. For the Olympics, China starred this year with the winter games and in 2008 with the summer competition. Russia took the 2014 winter fest.
Yet while these individual examples seem spectacular, the list of offenders is less than impressive. In fact, few oppressor states get to host such contests. In practice, the issue today is China. Russia used to be a busy host, but because of the Ukraine war, it is unlikely to garner serious consideration for years to come. Other candidates might make a sporadic appearance but will likely be few in number: hosts must be able to pay for the sporting facilities, the country must be comfortable and safe enough to welcome masses of international visitors, and it must be sufficiently stable economically and politically to make long-term plans.
Over the last half-century, Russia (and the Soviet Union) played host three times for the 1980 Summer Olympics (USSR); the 2014 Winter Olympics, and the 2018 World Cup. China hosted twice: the 2008 Summer Olympics and the 2022 Winter Olympics. Only three other unfree states made the list: Argentina 1978 World Cup (then ruled by a military junta); Yugoslavia 1984 Winter Olympics (communist but never a member of the Warsaw Pact); and Qatar 2022 World Cup (designated by Washington as a major non-NATO ally).
There have been other authoritarian bidders, but most likely failed for other reasons, most importantly the capacity requirement: Cuba, Egypt, Azerbaijan, Morocco, Iran, and pre-revolutionary Libya and Tunisia. Some dubious democracies also have unsuccessfully submitted proposals — Malaysia, Nigeria, and Turkey (Freedom House rates the first two as partly free and the third as unfree). Future World Cup and Olympic competitions that have been set are going to democratic hosts.
Why have the baddies, most obviously China and Russia, so often made the list? One reason is cost. Democratic states must sell sports extravaganzas to skeptical publics. Even local sports stadiums run into well-grounded opposition in America. After all, why should billionaire owners and millionaire players collect subsidies from the rest of us? Ideologically, I’m not a big fan of looting high earners with confiscatory income tax rates, but in the case of sports franchise holders who believe themselves entitled to my money, I’m prepared to make an exception.
Moreover, claims of great economic benefits from such “investments” tend to be biased surveys at best and fraudulent propaganda at worst. That is especially true for a one-time sports extravaganza, like the Olympics or World Cup, which is likely to litter a city or region with white elephant sports facilities of only minimal use afterward. For instance, Brazil, a country with vast income inequities, spent $11.6 billion to host the 2014 World Cup: today “the Mane Garrincha Stadium in Brasilia, which cost almost $1 billion to build, is being used as a bus depot.” That doesn’t mean no one benefits from such festivities, but usually it is the influential and well-connected who profit most, with the rest of the population paying the bills. Authoritarian regimes are better able to push through such economic and political headwinds.
This is particularly important for big international games, which tend to be much more expensive. Sometimes hosts teeter on the brink. As 2004 approached, Olympics officials were worried about whether Athens, Greece, would finish preparing in time. It did, but it might not have been a good investment for a country just five years away from a wrenching financial crisis.
Qatar has spent an astonishing $229 billion on the World Cup, a record. Indeed, “that total is almost five times the combined amount of $48.63 billion spent on the events that decide national soccer supremacy from 1990 to 2018,” according to CNBC. What European country would commit to that kind of expenditure today? Nor would the U.S., especially on a sport that remains secondary here.
There were initially six bids for the 2022 Winter Olympic games. However, four cities dropped out, largely because of cost. Oslo, Norway; Krakow, Poland; Stockholm, Sweden; and Lviv, Ukraine. The problem was not just sporting facilities, but “ridiculous demands” from the International Olympic Committee. That left only Almaty, Kazakhstan, and Beijing, China, both rated unfree. And there was no doubt that of the two the People’s Republic of China would be easier to visit and could better manage the competition.
Barring unfree states from playing host is intended to deny them the opportunity to both whitewash and showcase a discreditable government that violates human rights. The PRC’s role in 2008 that Beijing expected to highlight its rise occasioned criticism. Opposition was even stronger this year and included boycott campaigns. The latter never had much chance of success, however, other than a diplomatic protest that did little more than irritate Chinese officials. The moment to block an unfree host is when the International Olympic Committee or FIFA (soccer’s governing body) makes their decision, not when planning and construction are complete and contests are imminent. Boycotts are largely ineffective and punish athletes more than anyone else.
Now Qatar, with the World Cup beginning, is the target of hostile fire. Like most governments in the Middle East, the Doha authorities are authoritarian, something that has never bothered the U.S. government. Autocracy was fine for Iran when the dictator was a U.S. ally. America presently defends the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which is rated below China and Iran; Bahrain, which barely edges out the Kingdom, though not by much; and the United Arab Emirates, which looks good only in comparison to the other two. Freedom House rates Qatar above them all, though it also is unfree.
Of course, not being as bad as the worst is scant praise and Doha should treat its citizens and expatriate workers better. Still, some of the criticism loses any sense of proportion. Qatar does not threaten, bomb, invade, and occupy other nations (compare China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the U.A.E., not to mention, er, the U.S.). Qatar does not kill civilians prodigiously in an aggressive war (Arabia and the U.A.E.), toss a million people in reeducation camps and create a surveillance state (China), imprison those who call war a war (Russia), murder and dismember critical journalists (Saudi Arabia), blockade and threaten to invade a smaller neighbor (Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E.), or call in a neighbor’s military to sustain an unpopular, minority monarchy (Bahrain).
Qatar’s offenses on top of a lack of democracy are still genuine — bad treatment of expatriate labor and criminal penalties against gays. Unfortunately, these practices are common in the Gulf. However, as the Economist observed, poor laborers still go because they are worse at home. As for criminalizing (all) sex outside of marriage, “such conservative but seldom-enforced laws are common throughout much of the developing world, and in almost all Muslim countries. Qatar hardly stands out.” FIFA’s award of the World Cup to Qatar also was tarred by corruption, but then again, that also is not unusual for that organization. Even the U.S. government, whose people have appropriated the name “football” for a game that little uses the foot, felt moved to issue criminal indictments of FIFA officials.)
Beyond the details of individual cases, there are good arguments for keeping politics out of the formal selection process. The first might seem like a tired mantra but remains valid: don’t politicize sports. For instance, the Carter administration’s 1980 boycott of the Moscow Olympics, backed by the threat to deny passports to U.S. athletes, gained some three score adherents but achieved little other than causing the Soviet Union and its Eastern European allies to boycott the 1984 Los Angeles games. Why undermine international competitions for no serious gain?
Earlier this year, Britain’s Boris Johnson government decided to highlight its anti-Russian position and pressured Wimbledon to bar Russian tennis players from the tournament — even if they opposed the war and lived overseas. Naturally, the All England Lawn Tennis Club submitted. To the shock of all concerned, Vladimir Putin did not respond by ending the war against Ukraine, calling democratic elections, resigning his position, and presenting himself at The Hague for trial. Instead, players were unfairly treated and the tournament was tarnished by the exclusion of several top players and the denial of rating points by players’ associations.
Sports is not sacred but turning it into a political weapon undermines a universal human endeavor that delivers pleasure to so many. It helps bring together people from nations at odds and even at war, acting as a small but still useful means to promote greater international comity. Moreover, the existence of forums in which all peoples can participate is a tribute to the best of diversity and tolerance — and publicly embarrasses those who invidiously discriminate. For instance, Iran’s Supreme Leader recently reiterated his directive that Iranian athletes not play Israelis in any international competition. This policy regularly tarnishes the reputation of the Islamist regime.
Even though not many unfree states end up hosting international events, treating such governments as equals encourages them to participate. Imagine proposing a directive, whether formal or informal, that no one not approved by the U.S. and its allies would be eligible to hold a major international competition. First, it likely would be defeated, with most of those who abstained at the UN regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine likely to oppose a restriction effectively directed at them. What would better unite Tajikistan and Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, China and India, Nigeria and South Africa, and scores of other states than a Washington proposal to police athletic competitions, excluding countries it declares to be unfree based on criteria it defines?
Indeed, who would be safe from exclusion? Turkey is formally democratic but rated unfree by Freedom House. Although its overall score is slightly better than that of Qatar, the latter gets a better grade for civil liberties. Nigeria also is democratic and limps over the line as partly free. Would it be eligible to host the World Cup or Olympics? What of Hungary, formally democratic and a NATO ally, but rated only partly free, barely above India? Colombia, a democracy and U.S. favorite, comes in at a similar level. In or out? The Economist tartly observed of the World Cup: “Unless FIFA wants the tournament to rotate among Finland, Norway and Sweden, it cannot always hold it in a blameless spot.”
If democratic states succeeded in creating a two-tier system, those nations denied full rights probably would go elsewhere. The sporting world could be split in two, which would destroy the purpose of international competitions. In an alternative system, most large events would end up in a handful of countries capable of hosting them, almost always starting with … China. It would be an ultimate irony to end up enhancing China’s role while attempting to limit it.
Second, perhaps an even better reason to leave politics formally out of the selection process is that an authoritarian regime acquiring one of the games is drinking from the famed poisoned chalice. Far from legitimizing autocracy, such extravaganzas, by drawing in athletes, tourists, and journalists, now seem to increase foreign scrutiny of human rights violations and desperate efforts to forestall criticism.
Prior to the latest World Cup, most people around the world probably knew little about Qatar. Now they know a lot. And they have heard as much if not more criticism than praise, especially from civil society organizations. Athletes also are planning protests. Some are making critical videos, others plan to wear armbands or T‑shirts with messages. The U.S. soccer team is including rainbow colors in the U.S. soccer federation’s crest.
