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.

Piles of books on pupil’s table.

The founding fathers conceptualized a nation free from oppression and open to expression, yet the institutions tasked with cultivating the youth are given the capability to ravage core American values.

Every student ponders their obligation to school. Isn’t it hypocritical that we are raised under principles of freedom only to have that idea suppressed for the first 18 years of life? But decade after decade, swaths of children neglect the answer and endure 12 years of government mandated schooling. I am predisposed to the same logic and I finally want to dispel the common beliefs.

The institution of schooling is rooted in fascism.

Merriam-Webster defines fascism as “a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.”

Don’t get me wrong, school is useful for basic intellectual training but its permissible practices can be justly interpreted as fascism. The movie “Dead Poets Society” demonstrates this perfectly. Set at an all-boys school meant to foster the best and the brightest, life most closely resembles boot camp rather than identity through knowledge. The central theme of advocating civil disobedience in a culture groomed to detest it applies to much more than the humanities as movie outlines.

The entire philosophy of the school in the movie was rooted in fascist ideology. Administration stressed conformity, suppression and discipline. Those that act outside of the acceptable behaviors were swiftly and forcefully punished.

This is a fictional work of cinema but the fact that it is based in realism and pragmatism is what’s most scary. Schools hold the ability to teach students in the exact same manner as what is depicted in the movie and it exists well within their purpose and boundaries. What most reinforces how the mindset behind schooling is fascist is how the school in the movie never betrayed its primary duty to the students which is delivering education.

The search for pupil identity was a forfeited endeavor. It was to be invested in only as a characteristic of conformed activities which defeats the entire purpose.

What is depicted in “Dead Poets Society” is an extreme example, but to 21st century students the mindset of fascism is still prominent.

According to philosopher Cevin Soling, fascism in schooling is inherent.

“Children are forced to be in school, often against their will, and they also concede that dissent, which by its nature is disruptive, is routinely suppressed in schools and that the student population is required to engage in activities that demand their mental and physical compliance at all times or face unpleasant consequences – they will reflexively reject the blatantly obvious statement that schools are fascist institutions,” Soling said.

Soling later adds that the most fruitful learning will come from opposing fascism in any form.

A more specific demonstration of this fascism in modern schooling would simply be school start times.

Adolescents require eight to 10 hours of sleep to be considered to have healthy sleeping patterns according to the National Sleep Foundation. Unfortunately, only 15 percent of adolescents report getting at least eight hours of sleep per night.

This lack of sleep that a majority of adolescents experience has been linked to mental health issues, learning and behavior issues, substance use and abuse, obesity, and dependence on sleep and anxiety medication.

Despite these facts, school start times have, on the whole, stayed the same. The authoritative control of students sleep schedules coupled with the health impacts of that control qualify modern American schooling as fascist.

I am not subliminally sending shots at your principal but I am sending shots at what schooling represents in relation to its most essential mission.

The youth are told they have to wait 18 years to be considered full U.S. citizens and are simultaneously told that the 18 years are essential to grow necessary knowledge and understanding. The youth are tasked with being the next innovators and creators that contribute not only to our country but humanity. To be frank, I think the youth need as much sleep as they can get in order to fill the shoes of those that came before them.

Maybe you will fall back into the habits of your ancestors and sit back and just let things play out how they are. But maybe you’ll take Soling’s word and make it your ethical imperative to challenge fascism in every form.

Nevertheless, in whatever decision you make, you legitimize the essence of the U.S. that is undeniable – you have a choice. A choice to conform, a choice to strike, a choice to fight the standing laws. In anything that you do, carpe diem.

Photo courtesy of southerneducation.org.