Athletes and sporting organisations have voices too!
For many years the leaders of international sport insisted that they possess some near God-given right to dictate all that happens in their respective sport, and none more so than the International Olympic Committee.
What has become normative in international sport is for the elected leader to eventually become so much larger than life as to seek to exert a large measure of control over the people engage in their sport. Their exertion of control grows and so too their own sense of power that thoroughly infects them, flowing ever so gradually onto those who serve on their executives.
Close examination of leaders of international sport organisations, over the years, will reveal a startling adoption of behaviours, during their tenure, that reflected a strong sense of power.
Where international sport federations become financially strong, with large reserves, the eventual result is a spreading of largesse as much unto themselves as amongst those who they determine should share in the benefits.
Unfortunately, little research has gone into the politics of sport, if only because the sport leaders have spent so much time enunciating a philosophy that promotes sport as a rather innocent mechanism for mankind that the realities are hardly ever recognised until it reaches scandalous proportions.
A prime example is the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which began with philanthropists advocating the positive values of sport. It was not until the Salt Lake City scandal broke that some began to ask critical questions about the institution’s general mode of operation. The emphasis of the then leaders of the IOC was to quickly change the narrative to maintain effective control of the organisation. Not surprisingly they turned to world renowned Henry Kissinger of US political fame, to lead the process that eventually emerged as a revision of the mode of operation to at least give the appearance of meaning and inclusive change. The reality was a masterful piece of sport politics led by real politicians.
Perhaps it is the perceived ‘power’ of the leaders of the Olympic Movement that allows them to get by with an infective sport politics that appeases the National Olympic Committees and the international sports federations (IF), through the largesse that filters onto them, such that they readily accept what amounts to major directives that are not always democratic in nature.
An analysis of sport through the years reveal as much discrimination amongst the leaders of international sport as there is in society. This is understandable when one recognises that sport is a social construct, emerging out of human interaction in society.
Reflection in the history of the IOC would reveal the prejudices evident in the creation of an institution that is self-perpetuating, with existing members literally hand-picking its members from around the world, being the sole determinant of the selection criteria. It is an amazing twist of fate that has seen the IOC remain in control of so much of international sport through the centuries of its existence, operating as a ‘political’ sport organisation, dictating its interests around the world of sport, muck like the colonial masters of old.
The eagerness to remain firmly in control has led to some very interesting positions that have been adopted by the IOC and the IFs that are heaving dependent on it for their quadrennial funding.
In international sport today, money drives all key decisions, including, perhaps more than anything else, the socialisation of those who, like crabs in a barrel, ‘fight’ each other to be sitting at the table of decision-makers, eagerly dictating to those who are not so fortunate.
There is a sense in which the leadership of IFs consistently fail to accept that they are politicians of sport, making political decisions at every turn while convincing themselves that they are always acting in the best interest of those who they have unwittingly transformed into political minions.
Confronting issues in sport
The leaders of international sports organisations often adopt unto themselves all rights to addressing issues impacting their respective sports. Often it is the case that the process of arriving at decisions is as dictatorial as in national politics in societies around the world. This is evident almost everywhere.
Let us take the example of the FIFA scandals that saw 14 of its executive members arrested at once in Switzerland, at its headquarters. All major international sporting bodies adopted a stance of silence. None were contaminative of the scandal.
None of the international commercial sponsors turned their backs on FIFA nor did they express any views for or against the organisation and its leaders for what have been revealed in terms of their mode of operation, over several years.
Interestingly but not surprisingly, the IOC did not berate FIFA for the obvious intransigencies that remain classically ethical in nature. There has not been any threatening of FIFA with expulsion from the Olympic Games and Movement because of the evidence provided by the courts to which their leaders were answerable, despite admissions of guilt in many instances.
The IOC has not itself conducted any investigation into FIFA.
The treatment of FIFA in the aftermath of a massive scandal with far-reaching consequences has not in any way led to a loss of confidence in the sport’s leadership and its engagement on the Olympic Sports Programme. This stands in stark contrast to what has happened with some other IFs, especially weightlifting and boxing.
Importantly, when issues arise, they are often treated in a manner that leaves many of the stakeholders out of the decision-making process. This approach leaves much to be desired and results in a loss of confidence by many of the stakeholders. Athletes are often cynical about their involvement in the decision-making processes of their IF even though they are supposed to be fully represented on these bodies. This is also what happens with young people at the national level as they become ever more cynical about governance in their respective countries.
What becomes an international sporting issue is, often, dictated, like everything else, by the leadership and not. Necessarily by many stakeholders. This makes a mockery of the concept of democracy as applied to sport. When athletes take a stand, it is easy for them to be made pariahs rather than heroes and heroines. Much depends on the extent to which their criticisms and protestations align with the views of the leadership.
A sporting issues is one that receives the attention and support of the leadership of the IF. The latter define the nature of the ‘issues’ and turn around to determine how they are to be managed, in the best interest of the leadership and not necessarily of the sport.
Social Justice and Human Rights
In the recent past, the debacle of US Gymnastics spread across the globe. The harrowing experiences of the athletes were exposed. Perhaps it is somehow related to the fact that the sport is controlled by members of the upper classes and while people, for the most part, that tit ok so long for the tragedy to be fully exposed.
it is difficult come to terms with the fact that it appears that so much of the disrespect of the gymnasts were undertaken in the presence of their parents who seemed to have thought nothing of it.
An article carried on https://www.npr.org/2018/11/20/669669746/the-parents, revealed, “Normally, at least one of Larry’s hands would be hidden from the parents’ view. To them, it always looked like Larry was doing a regular sports massage or adjustment — and the fact that he was working with the lower body wasn’t weird, given the injuries he dealt with.
What parents couldn’t see was the actual abuse — either because Larry’s hands went under the towel, or because he would block their line of sight with his body.
Here’s the other thing about parents being in the room: If you’re the kid in this situation, the one who’s having this so-called “treatment” happen to you, the fact that your parent is right there makes you think: “Well, this must be OK.”
Survivor Kaylee Lorincz recalls, “I think I was just lying there, like, trying to fight back tears, because I was in so much pain and I didn’t know why he was doing this to me.
“I didn’t want to look at my dad sitting in the room like that. I was just so uncomfortable, and he would talk to my dad, like, while he was doing this. So, I was like, ‘OK, maybe there’s nothing wrong with this. Like, he’s a doctor, it’s fine.’ “
Now, after the fact, safeguarding has become a leading issue in sport. It always was but few in leadership wanted to listen. That is the case with wo many other forms of abuse and injustice being perpetrated in sport today but to which IF leaders turn a blind eye.
IFs are often aware of human rights abuses in their sport, and it is only until the athlete takes legal action that attention is placed to such incidents. The result is often that the IF’s leaders take control of the process, establish Commissions, effect some minimal changes that appears the international media and some of the power brokers in sport, then move on.
On 25 March 2024, the BBC carried an article headlined, Vinicius Jr: Racist abuse means Brazil winger feels ‘less like playing’.
BBC: Last updated on 25 March 2024.From the sectionEuropean Football
Brazil forward Vinicius Jr breaks down in tears responding to questions about racism
‘Brazil winger Vinicius Jr says he feels “less and less” like playing football because of the repeated racist abuse he has suffered’.
The article stated, “Last season there were 10 such incidents against the 23-year-old reported to prosecutors by La Liga.
“During an emotional news conference on Monday, Vinicius added he would not be forced to leave Real Madrid and Spain and let racism win.
“However, he said he was finding it “hard to move forward” from the abuse.
“Brazil face Spain in an international friendly at the Santiago Bernabeu in Madrid on Tuesday as part of an anti-racism campaign under the slogan ‘One skin’.
Vinicius said: “It never crossed my mind [to leave Spain] because if I leave Spain I give the racists exactly what they want.
“I will stay because that way the racists can continue to see my face more and more.
“I’m a bold player, I play for Real Madrid and we win a lot of titles and that doesn’t sit well with a lot of people.
“I just want to play football but it’s hard to move forward; I feel less and less like playing.”
Is this just happening in football? Surely not/ However, in several of the other sports the leaders look the other way and athletes are scared that they may lose their career opportunities if they take a stand.
For all that we speak about in the world of sport and how much we are about justice and human rights, Colin Kaepernick has not been taken on by any of the NFL teams. What lessons have we learnt from that? Athletes who speak out are not all treated the same.
Kaepernick’s shame was that he spoke out against the abuses in society, the very society in which he was born and grew up.
The response is that super sport stars ‘must be seen and not heard’ bringing to light the injustices perpetrated in sport. They must be satisfied with their income and just shut up.
Caribbean athletes are fearful of retribution in sport as is the case with the politics in their respective countries. The legacies attendant to conquest, slavery and colonisation run deep. They are deep enough to dictate the ready acceptance of racism, discrimination, and injustice of any form, for the ounces of fame and fortune that sport brings their way.
