The Rise of Sportswashing

In December 2022, the world watched arguably the greatest football match of all time as Argentina defeated France to win the FIFA World Cup in Qatar. However, behind this eternal classic lie human rights issues, allegations of worker exploitation, horrendous treatment of LGBTQ+ citizens, and a complete lack of political freedom. The term sportswashing entered the public eye, as Qatar, and many other nations, attempt to use sport to improve its global perception.

Sportswashing examples are easy to find in a contemporary society, but the term has deep historical roots. Aimed to improve public perception and distract from ongoing societal issues, sportswashing has been used for decades.

One of the earliest examples occurred during the 1936 Berlin Olympics, as Adolf Hitler used the event as a political platform to push forward the Nazi ideology. Nazi Germany aimed to present itself as a peaceful, friendly nation, completely disregarding the party’s oppression of many ethnic and social groups. The Games were a cleverly planned tool for propaganda, as the world celebrated the congregation of elite athletes, all while hiding the true horror stories of the Nazi ideology.

A further historical example took place in 1978, as Argentina’s military dictatorship, led by General Jorge Rafael Videla, used the FIFA World Cup to improve its global image. The junta, responsible for the Dirty War, where thousands of political opponents were tortured or killed, used the World Cup to distract the public from the dictatorship, and this appeared to work as Argentina’s tournament victory was met with joyous scenes and celebrations across the nation. Despite this, the players knew the underlying circumstances – “It hurts to know we were a distraction,” stated midfielder Ossie Ardiles.

Today, however, sportswashing is a multi-billion-dollar industry. The modern era of sportswashing began when Gulf nations started to invest heavily in global sports, and Saudi Arabia is perhaps the most obvious example. Using its Public Investment Fund (PIF), Saudi Arabia has extensively invested in football – the £305 million deal to buy Newcastle United in 2021 being a major development.

The PIF committed to spending more than $2 billion on global sports in recent years, including bringing some global superstars to the Saudi Pro League, such as Neymar Jr, Karim Benzema and Cristiano Ronaldo, with the latter signed on a world record deal worth £173 million per year.

The PIF has also invested heavily in other sports, including LIV Golf, Formula 1, and boxing, and is funded by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who infamously told Fox News, “If sport washing is going to increase my GDP by way of 1%, then I will continue doing sport washing.” However, Saudi Arabia’s sportswashing efforts are not just about bringing sport and income to the nation.

The country’s attempts to remain involved in sport is part of its Vision 2030 agenda – a campaign to reduce the nation’s reliance on oil revenue. Despite this, critics debate that these huge investments are just another distraction tactic. The Kingdom’s well-documented human rights abuses and the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018 are just two examples of the oppressive regime that continues on behind the glamour and entertainment of global sporting events.

Qatar has joined Saudi Arabia in using sport as part of its political strategy. The 2022 FIFA World Cup was given to Qatar in 2010 – a decision widely scrutinised for the country’s poor human rights record. The tournament was tarnished by stories about the exploitation of migrant workers, who built stadiums under hazardous conditions.

The Guardian reported that more than 6,500 migrant workers died between 2010 and 2020, with many of the fatalities down to unsafe working conditions and a lack of safety measures, and Amnesty International quoted Nepalese worker Prem, who said, “Every day I am in tension, I cannot sleep at night. This is a torture for me.”

The Qatari government sought to overshadow these comments and criticism with massive investments in the tournament. $220 billion was spent on the event, as new stadiums, transport links, and hotels were built. Compared to the $15 billion spent on the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, this event emphasised Qatar’s willingness to showcase its wealth on the global stage.

The Qatar World Cup therefore became a headline for social justice issues. Denmark’s national team wore training shirts protesting against Qatar’s human rights issues, and German players posed with their mouths covered ahead of their match with Japan, in a symbolic protest against FIFA’s decision to ban players wearing armbands in support of political movements. Undeterred by this, FIFA president Gianni Infantino stated Qatar had made, “incredible progress,” supporting host nation and backing FIFA’s decision to host the tournament in the country.

Another effective method of sportswashing is the ownership of high-profile clubs. Manchester City, for example, have become one of the most successful football clubs in the world since the Abu Dhabi United Group bought the club in 2008. However, the owner, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, has come under fire for his nation’s suppression of political freedom and rejection of LGBTQ+ rights.

Similarly, Paris Saint-Germain’s Qatari ownership took over the club in 2011, and helped transform the club into one of Europe’s elites and attract some of the world’s best players, like Neymar Jr, Kylian Mbappe, and Lionel Messi. Again, the acquisition of the French side is widely seen as a mere continuation of Qatar’s sportswashing strategy, as the country hopes to present itself in a positive light.

Furthermore, sponsorship deals can also connect sports, politics, and sportswashing. Formula 1’s links to the Gulf nations have drawn attention, especially the 2021 addition of the race in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where human rights issues rage on.

Seven-time champion Lewis Hamilton spoke out in 2022, highlighting the “mind-blowing” stories he had heard about the nation, before continuing to the media in the F1 paddock, “Ultimately it is the responsibility of those in power to make the changes and we're not really seeing enough. We need to see more". With such a prominent figure in the sport speaking out on the matter, this sparked further pressure on the nation and F1 to act, however the race remains in the calendar for the 2025 season and beyond.

Despite this, while the argument that sportswashing is always negative is strong, it must be considered that not all investment in sport by controversial regimes is bad. In some cases, sports can act as a catalyst for change.

This was seen in South Africa’s movement away from apartheid in the 1990s, where the country’s re-entry into international sporting events acted as a key indicator of political reform. Hosting the 1995 Rugby World Cup was a defining event, as Nelson Mandela used the tournament to further bridge the racial divide plaguing the nation. The Springboks emerged victorious, and this victory was celebrated worldwide as a key moment of uniting a nation that had been divided for so long.

Mandela confirmed his belief in the power of sports in a speech at the 2000 Laureus World Sports Awards, where he mentioned, “Sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire. It has the power to unite people in a way that little else does.”

Mandela continued, emphasising how sports could, “create hope where once there was only despair,” breaking down barriers more effectively than governments ever could. Mandela’s comments display sport as a universal language, that can connect, and heal, any society.

In a similar vein, the spotlight placed on nations like Qatar and Saudi Arabia as a result of sport has the ability to encourage change. The attempted sportswashing programmes by these governments could push more open conversations about political regimes, and encourage reform, as a wider audience is exposed to the ideas and methods of the controversial Gulf investors.

In some cases, those critical of sportswashing may overestimate the influence of sports on a country’s policies. While sport is a global entity, political reform often occurs within a country and requires an effort from both domestic and international forces. The perception that hosting an event like The Olympic Games or owning a football team will transform a country’s political stance is simplistic, and almost never the case.

Governments commonly use sports for PR, but this also doesn’t equate to the success of this method. Sporting events leading to societal change is typically a result of an event being part of a wider political movement, like the 1995 Rugby World Cup, instead of the event single-handedly causing change.

The global rise of sportswashing has implications for both sports and society. While major sporting events undoubtedly provide a global platform for unity, their exploitation by authoritarian regimes raise troubling questions about the integrity of these events, and the governing bodies that oversee and allow them.

Fans of clubs such as Newcastle United and Manchester City are especially impacted as they are forced to weigh up their support and loyalty with the ethical issues surrounding their ownership. This is encapsulated by Newcastle fan Normal Riley, who highlighted this struggle in an interview with The Independent, acknowledging, “I have a masters in human rights…I’m fully aware of Saudi Arabia’s record. I’m massively conflicted. I still love that football club.”

Despite Riley’s understanding of human rights issues, for him loyalty takes precedence, mentioning, “The reality is I am going to engage in behaviour that’s hypocritical. There are no two ways about it.” Therefore, for some, the excitement of success and trophies outweigh the moral dilemmas, but for others, the ethical implications of this success create somewhat of a guilty conscience.

Sportswashing therefore provides a challenge to the global integrity of sport. As the financial stakes rise, so does the willingness of governmental regimes to use sport as a distraction from controversial politics. Of course, sport has the power to unite, inspire, and change, but examples show it can be exploited as a tool for propaganda.

The question remains: can sport maintain its credibility in the face of these enormous financial and political pressures, or will it become increasingly compromised by the pursuit of profit and power?