The diplomacy and realist politics of the World Cup
The World Cup is not detached from geopolitics. Yet it also preserves channels of engagement even when political relations deteriorate.
In a nutshell
Football games and the fan hype around them can sometimes resemble miniature wars. Clashes between football fans can escalate nationalism and even local rivalries into fistfights and street riots. While living in the Middle East, I watched a match between a Turkish team and its Georgian rival and heard fans repeatedly chant saldir (“attack”) from the stands. On another occasion, while waiting for a flight at an international airport, I witnessed orange-clad supporters of the Dutch national team scuffle with Argentine fans in blue and white. Competition in sports, with teams and athletes serving as proxies for citizens and nations, often serves as a substitute for war.
Sport as a proxy for conflict
The idea of sports simulating warfare is not new; in fact, it is quite ancient. Research from the University of Oregon found that hunter-gatherer societies engaged in “coalitional play fighting” to physically condition for war and raiding.
When the Olympic Games emerged in ancient Greece in the 8th century BCE, they were accompanied by an Olympic truce that temporarily suspended hostilities among participating city-states. From their earliest days, major sporting events were diplomatic and political instruments. In the 1936 Berlin Olympics, the Nazi regime toned down its public antisemitism to present a more favorable image to the world.
In 1930, just a few years before the outbreak of World War II, FIFA held its first World Cup. Unlike the Olympic movement, which became increasingly entangled in the geopolitical tensions of the 20th century, FIFA generally sought to portray itself as politically neutral. Yet football could not escape global conflict. During the war, FIFA Vice President Ottorino Barassi hid the World Cup trophy in a shoebox to prevent it from falling into Nazi hands. Hitler had hoped to host the 1942 World Cup, but the tournament was canceled as the war engulfed Europe. Since then, FIFA has maintained a formal commitment to neutrality while selectively excluding countries and teams on geopolitical grounds.
When the World Cup resumed its normal gaming cycle after World War II, Germany and Japan remained barred from participating until the 1950s. In 1958, Indonesia, Egypt and Sudan refused to play against Israel during World Cup qualifying. When FIFA declined to accommodate their objections, the three countries withdrew from the competition. Under apartheid, South Africa was excluded from FIFA competitions from 1970 to 1990. In 1974, the Soviet Union declined to face Chile due to tensions with the regime of Augusto Pinochet. Yugoslavia was suspended in 1994 over the Balkan Wars. In 2006, Myanmar was disqualified from the competition after failing to play Iran in an Asian qualifying match. Since its invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Russia has been suspended from international football.
Teams have also been banned because of governments interfering in domestic football associations. That list is considerably longer and more revealing. In these cases, the disqualifying action was not geopolitical conflict, but corruption.
FIFA’s inaction has often been as telling as its bans. Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Rwanda during the Tutsi genocide were never barred from playing when they met tournament qualifications. Postwar decisions on banning specific countries are notably incoherent. FIFA banned South Africa under apartheid, but not North Korea. It has excluded Russia for attacking Ukraine, but not the United States after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Turkiye was not disqualified for invading Cyprus in 1974, but the unrecognized Turkish Republic of North Cyprus is not allowed to participate. Meanwhile, both Palestine and Taiwan have teams. If FIFA’s geopolitics appear anarchic, it is because they mirror the international system itself.
FIFA and regional realism
Like any international forum, FIFA and international sports are geopolitical terrains. Banning national teams is a low-cost manner of signaling displeasure over violations of international norms. It hits a country’s ego without any economic sanctions or military action. The impact is largely symbolic rather than material, but it signals a failure to meet the expectations of international civil society.
When FIFA banned Russia following its invasion of Ukraine in 2022, it did so on geopolitical rather than sporting grounds. This marked a departure from the corruption, governance and eligibility issues that underpin most football sanctions. Unlike the bans imposed on South Africa under apartheid and on Yugoslavia during the Balkan wars, which followed United Nations resolutions, Russia was suspended without a corresponding UN mandate. As a permanent member of the Security Council, Moscow is uniquely positioned within the international system. Yet FIFA chose to act regardless, moving ahead of formal international institutions.
Earlier this year, FIFA president Gianni Infantino argued in favor of lifting the prohibition against Russia competing because the measure “has achieved nothing.” Reflecting the regional nature of contemporary geopolitics, the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) initially appeared open to Russia’s gradual return to international football. However, strong opposition from several European federations blocked any move to readmit Moscow. Mr. Infantino has acknowledged both the opportunities and limits of football as a diplomatic tool. Defending the participation of Russian players in European competitions, he stated that bans had “created more frustration and hatred” and that allowing Russians to play in “other parts of Europe could help.”
More by Ian Oxnevad
Just as FIFA rejected Russia without a UN resolution, it has similarly rejected calls to ban Israel despite the UN’s urging. When pressed by Amnesty International to ban the Israeli Football Association, FIFA’s vice-president Victor Montagliani deferred to UEFA. That the latter has been a decisive factor in FIFA’s decisions regarding what are arguably the two most acute conflicts today reflects Europe’s influence in international football.
Scenarios
Most likely: Football will largely weather geopolitical tensions
International football is uniquely positioned to weather geopolitical tension and political conflict, and it will likely retain this ability for the foreseeable future. There are several reasons to believe this is the case. First, FIFA’s history demonstrates this resilience. During World War II, when European politics and global war effectively locked out international sporting events, FIFA’s appeal and success in Latin America allowed it to sidestep regional conflict until shipping and travel risks made sports untenable worldwide.
Second, as an institution, FIFA has proven remarkably selective about banning countries for conflict. As it stands, its decisions on banning Russia and its reluctance to do the same to Israel reflect a European dynamic rather than a global one. Even if European football were to effectively ban Israel, new partnerships in the Middle East forged by the Abraham Accords, along with Israel’s continued participation in Latin American competitions, would prevent a truly global ban from forming. FIFA has proven remarkably diplomatic in keeping the pitch open so that simulated combat in sports can play out constructively.
Less likely: International football will become hyper-politicized like the Olympics
A less likely scenario is that football becomes more like the Olympics, increasingly vulnerable to politicization. The Olympics in the 1930s and Cold War rivalries afterward demonstrate how international sports can become proxy battlefields and displays of national ego. Football has worldwide reach, and the sport can be found in virtually every country. Because of this international presence, football could become an athletic corollary to a Hobbesian war of all against all.
This is especially possible as regional tensions in East Asia, polarization in Europe over migration and Middle East politics bring conflict to the field. However, football is not the Olympics, and its history demonstrates a conscious move to avoid this eventuality. Because of its nearly universal presence and relatively low cost of play, football can simply sidestep conflict and play elsewhere. All in all, this flexibility allows life to carry on in sport even when hampered by conflict.
Contact us today for tailored geopolitical insights and industry-specific advisory services.
