The year 1936 has gone down in European history as the year of the Berlin Olympics under Nazi Germany. Three years before the outbreak of the Second World War, these Olympic Games were seen by Hitler as a propaganda tool to send a strong message to the world: Aryans are superior athletes. This belief was rooted in the eugenics theory that racial superiority could be explained by genetics. Of course, eugenics is at the heart of Nazi ideology and these Olympic Games of the past were the ideal opportunity to prove the hegemony of Aryan athletes; and thus defend the relevance of this ideology. However, African American athletes enjoyed enormous success in 1936, in particular Jesse Owens, famous for being the first African-American athlete to win four gold medals at the same Olympic Games. His success also left its mark on history, as Adolf Hitler refused to acknowledge Owens’ victories or shake his hand. Indeed, this famous episode, experienced as a humiliation by Hitler, underlines a major theme in sports and politics: the instrumentalization of sports by authoritarian regimes.

 But why is this so important today? Sports have been, and still are, an important form of soft power used by authoritarian and democratic rulers all over the world. In this article, I will attempt to analyze the limits and dangers of the instrumentalization of sports by authoritarian states and propose a broader description of sports as an effective geopolitical weapon for democratic states.

What does “Authoritarianism” really mean ?

Authoritarianism is a vague concept to a lot of folks. Its true meaning is poorly understood, yet roughly 40% of the world’s countries are ruled by an authoritarian leader. Simply put, authoritarianism is a political system whose main objective is to maintain the power of the ruler, come what may. regimes ignore the rule of law and democratic principles and their mandate does not depend on the consent of the people. To stay in power, authoritarian leaders use a range of strategies, from violent coercion to propaganda. Sports are a soft power tool used by authoritarian rulers to convey an ideology. But is this method effective? ? 

Firstly, sports bring people together and help build a nation. Secondly, it promotes the state’s official ideology and reinforces authoritarian narratives of national greatness. These characteristics are particularly true of totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany or present-day North Korea, whose ultimate goal is to create a utopia. In this sense, sports can be a vehicle for the state sponsored ideology. Nevertheless, sport is not always used as a means of conveying an ideology, and many authoritarian states see it simply as an effective weapon, an extension of the state’s political and economic power.

Sport and Authoritarianism: Dangers and Limits? 

These days, sports are primarily a revenue platform for authoritarian states. Several Middle Eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, are increasingly financially involved in all kinds of sports, particularly soccer and Formula 1. In 2024, sports are attracting considerable attention and have become a global phenomenon that appeals to more and more people. The amount of money invested in and the revenues generated by the sports market are increasing rapidly, with an expected growth in revenues of over 60% by 2028. However, as sports revenues rise, so does the economic cost of hosting sporting events. 

A common trend has been observed over the past decade: unstable democracies and authoritarian states are increasingly hosting major sporting events. These states are often oil-rich countries such as Qatar, Bahrain or Saudi Arabia. As explained previously, these states use sports to convey broader political messages and achieve popular cohesion. Unfortunately, staging major events such as Formula 1 races, the World Cup or boxing matches, is financially draining and does not always benefit the economy as a whole. In fact, in many cases financing global sporting events ends up creating a greater financial burden for the population. For example, the 2022 World Cup in Qatar cost 220 billion American dollars, a huge sum that will take decades to repay, and has contributed to  the financial disparities within the country.

The protection of human rights is another major concern when it comes to authoritarian regimes hosting sporting events. In fact, most authoritarian countries lack the appropriate infrastructure and facilities to host sporting events, so they usually build these infrastructures from scratch, specifically for the events in question. Construction is often very intensive and these regimes do not hesitate to violate international laws. Most recently, Qatar, which hosted the 2022 World Cup, was targeted by numerous international organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Right Watch over the abuses committed against migrant workers and the hundreds of workers injured during the construction of half a dozen brand-new stadiums in the space of just a few years. The Qatari government has denied most of the allegations. Therefore, Qatar’s problematic situation has given rise to a real debate on the legitimacy of authoritarian regimes hosting such sporting events. 

But Why should Democratic States Care?

Colossal amounts of money are involved in hosting major sporting events, often creating significant conflicts of interest. Despite the mobilization of athletes and humanitarian organizations to denounce the abuses of host countries, democratic states have often turned a blind eye to the issue of sports in authoritarian countries. Recently, the situation has changed somewhat with the resumption of war in Ukraine. The Russian invasion of Ukraine represents the biggest ground war in Europe since  World War II. In this context, sports represents one of the many points of tension in the conflict. Sport became a veritable soft power weapon, helping to raise Russia’s profile. 

Since 2022, many Russian athletes have been denied the right to take part in sporting competitions, with the aim of penalizing Russian “soft power” and sending a strong message of support for Ukraine. One of the first victims was tennis player Danil Medvedev, who was unable to take part in a number of major tennis tournaments, including Wimbledon 2023. Despite being ranked No. 2 in the world, Medvedev and his fellow Russians and Belarusians were banned from that year’s Wimbledon. Similarly, the Russian and Belarusian delegations were banned from taking part in the 2024 Paris Olympics, a heavy sanction seen as a humiliation by both countries. Nevertheless, sports seem to be increasingly used by many as a way to condemn injustice and punish acts of impunity. For instance, Seven-time Formula 1 world champion Lewis Hamilton has repeatedly spoken out to call out Formula 1’s involvement with authoritarian and repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia, which fail to respect human rights.

With all that said, the financial and ideological stakes of sports make it a powerful weapon for sanctioning authoritarian states and defending liberal democratic ideals, notably the protection of human rights and freedom of expression. The current state of Putin’s war in Ukraine transcends any concept of human justice and in this context, the instrumentalization of sports to attack Russia’s image and soft power seems more than appropriate. While the intersection between sports and geopolitics is not intuitive, it is essential to understanding complex power dynamics. As guardians of democratic values, it is imperative that democratic states reclaim sports as a platform to oppose oppression, foster international solidarity and lead a global commitment to justice and human dignity.

So what is one to do when they have to be a spokesman for such a chaotic regime? For years, the solution was to tell the press what to write and supress any reporting otherwise. But such a solution was ineffective in East Berlin in 1989. German Democratic Republic officials were talking to western reporters like Tom Brokaw and answers, not fictitious realities, had to be given.

Fresh new leader Günter Schabowski was thrust into the spokesman role in 1989, two years after American President Ronald Regan’s “tear down this wall!” speech. Most Americans would credit Regan with bringing the Berlin Wall down, but the real credit belongs, accidentally, to Schabowski. Not long after taking his new role, Schabowski was handed a memo by Party officials. In it were new regulations that allowed the East Germans the ability to apply for permission travel abroad in ways they never could before. As he put it at a fateful press conference, the new bill, which was planned to be passed the next day, “[allowed] every citizen to travel out of East Germany by way of the border crossing points.” Glossed over were very important details like the bill’s timeline or the red tape that one would have to navigate to obtain permission. When asked about the former, Schabowski famously improvised and gave an incorrect answer, “As far as I’m aware, immediately; straight away.”

The gaffe was earth-shattering. Immediately, East Berliners crowded Checkpoint Charlie in an effort to cross through to West Berlin. The border cops, not briefed on what the new situation was, let the citizens through without proper passports. The Wall had ceased to exist, East Berlin had ceased to exist and, not long after, the Soviet Union would cease to exist, all because a flustered man fresh off his vacation was thrown into the ring and made to speak for a chaotic and passive-aggressive state.

Part of me pities Sean Spicer for the same reason. As the White House Press Secretary for Donald Trump, he has to answer for a man who famously dodges questions on a regular basis or concocts a lie on the spot to address them. But Spicer, too, has a pattern of Trumpish behavior when talking to the press, either on his own or by order of his boss. Without his “Pants on Fire” claim that Trump’s inauguration was “the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period,” we wouldn’t have Kellyanne Conway’s laughable “alternative facts” phrase.

It’s bad enough we have a president that contradicts himself, makes up facts and rambles on when trying to speak to anyone, but the damage is further compounded when he has a spokesman who so recklessly shoots from the hip that he might one day steal the fact-checking spotlight from Trump. Spicer said that Trump’s first travel ban wasn’t about religion even though the bill favored religious minorities and Trump’s campaign team, including Trump himself, assured the public it was a Muslim ban.

Spicer, clearly not briefed on any solid information, said the White House may investigate the false claim that millions voted illegally in last year’s election. It won’t. “There is no investigation,” he later said. “I said it was possible. Anything is possible.”

Yikes. Not a reassuring statement coming from a chaotic and unpopularadministration. It’s the same kind of inconsistency that Schabowski had in his short time as the GDR’s unofficial spokesman. We’ve seen how disastrous such a spokesman can be, so I ask: would Sean Spicer have also opened the Berlin Wall? How many more press conferences until he actually starts making unofficial policy? He came dangerously close recently when he suggested that the use of barrel bombs, would spark another missile strike. He was later forced to walk back on that claim, not only because he was arguably issuing a policy change as a press secretary, but also because the Syrian military has been using barrel bombson its citizens for years.

My effort in making this comparison between Spicer and Schabowski is not to suggest that Spicer should be fired, nor is it to introduce a solution. Rather, I’m hoping the comparison emphasizes how dangerous Spicer’s style has been and how urgent change is needed. I’ve previously written about how Trump’s contradictory foreign policy apparatus can be equally effective as it is dangerous. Expert officials like Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley can contradict Trump on policy not only because they’re more rational and authoritative voices, but also because they’re the ones making and implementing policy. Spicer, on the other hand, is a press secretary. His job is merely to communicate clearly to the press what the administration says and is doing. Schabowski failed to do that and it cost him his job and his country’s existence. Thankfully, the United States is a powerful nation that doesn’t hinge on the existence of a wall, at least until Trump builds his. But with impulsive foreign actors like Syria, Russia, North Korea and Iran, it’d be best that our erratic president is the only one making provocative statements. We’ve managed, so far, to keep them from doing any serious damage.