This article initially appeared in a print issue of the Monitor released Oct. 31, 2025.

For as long as cars have existed, there have been people trying to race them. The history of motorsports is long and storied on both sides of the Atlantic, with the Indianapolis 500 defining the very early days of American racing while Le Mans defined European racing. However, the best-known forms of motorsport on each side of the ocean only began in the post-war years. Formula One (F1) began with the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) releasing an official rulebook (or “formula”) for competition in 1946, with the first proper F1 championship taking place in 1950.

No such easy development happened for NASCAR. Where the leading European racing series was built from a history of sports car racing events, the leading American series has its roots in criminal enterprise, smuggling and prohibition. What’s more, NASCAR celebrates this legacy, with a display case at their Hall of Fame containing a whiskey still built by NASCAR legend Junior Johnson. This is the story of how a Constitutional amendment, a few well-designed cars, and some small-town Southerners with a chip on their shoulder produced America’s most popular form of auto racing.

Prohibition

In 1919, the United States passed the 18^th Amendment to the Constitution, outlawing the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of” alcoholic beverages. The American temperance movement believed that a ban on the sale of alcohol would improve social relations and public health, and decades of pressure from temperance organizations such as the Anti-Saloon League finally pressured the government into passing the amendment. 

With the 18th Amendment coming into effect at the very start of the Roaring Twenties, people across the US immediately started to find ways around the amendment, which proved highly unpopular. The demand for illegal alcohol produced a massively profitable black market. In the North, gangsters like Al Capone grew rich on alcohol smuggling, but the South proved a difficult market for large-scale organized crime to conquer. Instead, the South would find its own source of illicit alcohol in the form of the Moonshiners, and their exploits would become the stuff of legend across an entire region.

Moonshiners and their cars

With alcohol rendered illegal and serious federal effort put towards enforcement, small-time alcohol producers moved their businesses underground, producing whiskey and other spirits at small distillation facilities (or “stills”) under the cover of darkness. This illicit booze, or “moonshine,” would need to be distributed across the county or the state, and for that job the distillers enlisted the help of bootleggers. Often local country boys with plenty of mechanical experience, bootleggers would drive cars full of alcohol from the secret stills down to the towns where it could be quietly sold.

Arguably the most famous bootlegger turned racing star was Robert Glen “Junior” Johnson, who won 50 races as a driver and 132 races as a team owner. Back in 2005, he and his moonshining partner Willie Clay Call were interviewed by Hot Rod magazine, where they described their extensive collection of cars modified for bootlegging exploits. Among this collection were twenty 1940 V8 Ford Coupes, cars that were the backbone of both the late moonshine era and the early days of American stock car racing. Among the most capable small-frame cars of their era, they were sturdy, easy to modify, and most importantly, cheap. 

Since bootleggers could easily collect pre-war cars, they could devote their time and resources to upgrading their fleets. The Ford coupe’s V8 engine had plenty of kick, but Johnson and other bootleggers would swap in the most powerful motors they could find, often taken from ambulances. The cars would have their extra seats removed, their floorboards lowered, and their suspensions reinforced, all to carry as much moonshine as possible. With every facet of their cars tuned for performance, and drivers who knew every turn of the country roads and every inch of their car’s abilities, the leading bootleggers made a mockery of the police. Many of them, including Junior Johnson, would view it as a badge of honor that they were never once caught while driving.

Organization and Legalization

National prohibition ended in 1933 with the 21^st Amendment, and those states that had their own prohibition laws gradually repealed and restricted them over the coming years. While whiskey-running remained a viable enterprise, especially as it evaded taxes, most moonshiners moved on from the business, and those that did found themselves with a pile of heavily modified and incredibly fast cars and not much to do with them. With no police cars to race against, many of them turned to the next best thing: racing each other.

Moonshiners had already been racing against one another since their inception, but after Prohibition, and especially after World War II, those races went from quiet back-alley affairs to public shows. The abundance of pre-modded cars already tuned for speed meant that racing was cheap and easy entertainment, and communities such as Wilkes County in North Carolina, the home of Junior Johnson, knew about and took pride in the exploits of their local moonshiners. Soon enough, they found themselves racing not for survival or liquor but for profit and bragging rights.

With auto racing booming, an engineer named Bill France seized on the opportunity to not only standardize these races but turn the sport into an empire. France, who ran the Daytona Beach circuit that hosted many of the early stock car races in the post-war era, would hold several meetings with other racing promoters, venue owners, and racers. The result of these meetings would be the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, or NASCAR. Under the unified NASCAR banner, tracks and rules underwent standardization, and the scattered races attended by local bootleggers transformed into a legitimate sport.

Even after Bill France created NASCAR and defined the rules of stock car racing, the rebellious instincts that led the bootleggers to break the law in the first place led them to find every possible exploit in the rulebook. Junior Johnson once again led the charge on this front, with his most famous rule-breaker being the infamous “Banana Car”. NASCAR gave Johnson permission to effectively bring whatever car he wanted to help get Ford to return to NASCAR, and Johnson took full advantage, effectively custom-crafting a car from the ground up. The Banana Car would go on to lead for much of its only race before a mechanical failure ended its day, but Junior Johnson’s point was proven.

That same rule-breaking spirit has lived on into modern day NASCAR. Crew chiefs still work tirelessly to find minor rules that they can bend to their advantage, while NASCAR’s inspection process desperately tries to keep a crowd of unruly vagabonds in line. At its core, NASCAR remains a sport of bootleggers pushing their cars to the limit, and the sport’s willingness to celebrate its legally shadowed past is part of what makes it so fascinating.

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.