A fortnight ago, Wimbledon decided to deny entries to players from Russia and Belarus for the 2022 edition of the tournament. Coming as it did against the backdrop of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Wimbledon said it was to thwart any attempt from the Russian regime to “derive any benefits from the involvement of Russian or Belarusian players with The Championships”. Many other sports, such as football, track and field, and Formula One, have also imposed sanctions of varying degrees. This has resurrected the debate on the influence of politics on sport. In a discussion moderated by N. Sudarshan, Sharda Ugra and Zeeshan Ali discuss the various facets of the same. Edited excerpts:
Is it possible to separate sports and politics? Can sports exist in a vacuum?
Sharda Ugra: Everyone always says, ‘Let’s try and separate sports from politics.’ But sport takes place within society, it is a product of society, and society is constantly being impacted by politics. So, it’s very hard to separate them. Given the history of political involvement in sport, because sport is seen as an agent of soft power, we will always end up in a situation like where we are today. In the highly professionalised world of elite sport, it gets even more complicated. We want to exist in an almost utopian sphere and go back to an amateur era. But you know, even that was not very utopian in the first place.
Opinion | How Wimbledon has got it all wrong on tennis and politics
Zeeshan Ali: I totally agree with Sharda. Sports and politics have always mixed. In 1974, India was to play the Davis Cup final against South Africa but we had to give a walkover because of the apartheid issue. In 1988, we were drawn to play Israel (in the World Group relegation play-offs) and we had to give a walkover again. Unfortunately, sports and arts do get affected [by politics] and when a government is involved in taking certain decisions, it’s very difficult for an individual to go against it.
Is there room for the ‘right kind of politics’? Is a morally upright stance like the one during apartheid possible in the present-day world of competing interests?
Sharda Ugra: Politics was made to play a part in sport and outside of sport to try and push the apartheid regime to change its stance. You will look at that and say, ‘That was a good thing.’ But people of my generation remember what it was like for countries like India and other non-white nations to stand up against this huge, almost monolith West which seemed to think it was okay to go and play in South Africa. Countries fought very hard against the Western world to say that South Africa’s policies were extremely flawed and had to be fixed. Sport was used as one measure to push through that message. We also see how sport has been used politically to send out a message, like Nazi Germany did in 1936 (the Berlin Games were a show of Nazi propaganda). The South African example is perhaps the only one I can think of that ended in the right way.
How should sports bodies respond when there are conflicting and ethical arguments on both sides?
Zeeshan Ali: What is right for one country does not necessarily mean it is right for the other. In the case of South Africa, the whole world was getting together for a reason, a humanitarian one. What’s happening right now is completely different. A superpower is taking over another country, and sports is becoming part of the politics. I was part of the team in 1988 when we had to give a walkover to Israel. After having reached the final of the Davis Cup the previous year, it was a huge shock to us. But that was the stance the Indian government took and we were just small players. Frankly speaking, sportspeople don’t really have much of a say. It’s sad for somebody like Daniil Medvedev to not be allowed to play certain tournaments. If a government decides that certain players or certain countries should not be playing, that is political and it is unfortunate that sportspeople get affected by it.
Also read | Rafale Nadal, Novak Djokovic slam Wimbledon ban on Russian players
The moves from Wimbledon and other bodies are being projected as sport doing its bit to bring about peace. Can sport assume such a big role where some players will inevitably be collateral damage?
Sharda Ugra: It’s interesting for people to say that ‘sport is playing its part’. There is the NHL (National Hockey League) in the U.S. where Russians are still playing. So, I think it’s a little self-righteous to say that. In the case of Wimbledon, I did get the feeling that the British foreign office made a big noise. No other individual tennis tournament has said that they will not allow Russians. When are we going to talk about Israel and Palestine? Is that not an issue that should be front and centre? A conflict has been going on for decades there. So, it’s a bit overambitious on the part of sport to think that way. For an individual sport to be doing it is literally a slippery slope. Where do you stop and on whose behalf do you stop? You do understand the anguish of the Ukrainian athletes on what’s happening in their country. But to imagine that this will work by having Russians not take part… It’s not well thought through.
Also read | Russian swimmer Rylov banned for 9 months for appearing at Putin rally
Zeeshan Ali: There is this debate going on right now that the entry into Wimbledon is not based on nationality but on ranking. So, why is Wimbledon not allowing Russian players to play? They are already playing under a neutral flag. Like Sharda mentioned the Israel-Palestine issue, tomorrow it could be another country that might have issues with its neighbour. So, will you stop every single sportsperson from that country? It’s a dangerous precedent. I just hope going forward sports doesn’t become a play thing for any government to decide, ‘Okay, tomorrow, we don’t want this or that country to play because we don’t kind of agree with their policies.’ There is no end to it.
Sports bodies and governments have tried to clamp down on all forms of protest. On the other hand, they do not shy away from using these very events and successes of sportspersons to enrich their standing. How do you see this dichotomy?
Sharda Ugra: You see elite sports use platforms of all kinds of governments to stage events. Look at where some Formula One races are held. There was also a controversy about Qatar being given the rights to host the FIFA World Cup. So, it’s almost like you have played into the hands of the people in power. I think, sport, perhaps, should find a way to ring-fence itself. The Olympics is another kettle of fish because there are a number of international federations. But at least sports like tennis, that are high profile, very elite with a lot of money, highly professionalised and largely well-run, should really fence themselves away. I just wanted to bring up the case of Peng Shuai, the Chinese tennis player who had spoken out against a [government] official. Tennis’s response at that time was outstanding. It stood up for its player and took tournaments away from China. Even though it’s come to a point where we do not know what the truth really is, tennis’s first line of defence was, ‘Let us speak to her. She’s our athlete. Let us look after her.’ And what has Wimbledon done? It has said, ‘It’s somebody else’s thing. Let’s get these people out.’ Sport should not allow this. What was the symbol of the athlete at the end of 2020 and 2021? It was to take a knee, to raise a fist and to stand up against discrimination. That’s the way sport should be used, rather than this kind of exclusion, which is what Martina Navratilova also said. Exclusion is not the way to go.
Editorial | Kicked out: On suspension of Russian sports team
Zeeshan Ali: Sport is supposed to unite and not divide us. It’s dividing people right now and that’s the last thing we want. I was at the Olympics in 1988 and then I was the (non-playing) captain of the Indian team in 2016 in Rio. The kind of atmosphere you have in the village, especially in the dining room area, where you have people from different countries sitting together... It’s not a question of colour or language or anything. Everybody over there is a sportsperson. In Rio, there was a McDonald’s outlet where people would queue up for one kilometre. In that one kilometre, you had people from 100 different nationalities standing and talking to each other. That’s uniting people. Unfortunately, the situation right now is doing anything but that and sport is a loser.
When governments play such a huge role in sports, from funding to presiding over events, can we truly expect sports and politics to be detached?
Sharda Ugra: I don’t think so. Particularly in Olympic sports where, in around 75% of the countries, funding is from the government and through taxpayers. So, you do know that the government will be trying to stamp its authority. But professional sport doesn’t require anything other than, say, permissions to stage events. So, it’s the duty of professional sport to stay a bit more clear-headed and vigilant about how much politics it will allow. If sport wants to play a part, let it raise money for the refugees and all other causes. What’s happening in tennis is largely a propaganda exercise and you cannot fall into this. Because political involvement is not going to reduce. It’s like what George Orwell said about the image of the future being the boot on the face. You have to push back as much as you can.
Also read | Russians, Belarusians out of Paralympics amid boycott risk
Zeeshan Ali: I don’t think sports and politics are ever going to be detached. Sports bodies in most countries come under the jurisdiction of the government. Let’s leave the BCCI out of it, but I’m talking about other sports in the country, like hockey, that are completely reliant on the sports ministry and the government. It also cannot be a sports body’s decision to go against the government because there will be repercussions. But like Sharda said, there needs to be some amount of leeway given, for a certain stand to be taken concerning big political decisions. As much as we would like sports and politics not to mingle, it’s not happened in so many years and, unfortunately, going forward also I don’t see it happening. Even in individual sport, if you were to go against your nation’s decision of not playing in a particular country or traveling to a particular country, there may be repercussions. A government can say, ‘Okay, we will withhold your passport.’ And then you cannot travel to any part of the world. So, we sportspeople and sports federations have to at some point abide by these decisions, whether it is good for the sport or not. Unfortunately, we’re just pawns in something much bigger.
Explained | Russia’s recent exclusions from international sport
Sharda Ugra: It was quite interesting to hear what Zeeshan had to say. To my mind the IPL (Indian Premier League) is a classic example of how politics has been allowed to spread itself completely over the sport. So, we cannot have Pakistan players in the IPL. Now, is cricket a team sport? Yes, absolutely. But it’s a team sport with teams from Mumbai and other cities. An Indian team will always win the IPL. But you can’t have Pakistan players because of an unwritten rule and because there will be some ‘hassle’. There will not be any hassle…. hassle will be created. Cricket in India, and Pakistan, has allowed itself to be completely overwhelmed and manipulated by politics. Cricket has become the currency with which politics is enacted. And when Wimbledon has done something like this now, it shouldn’t want to become currency again. That’s what Zeeshan said, ‘You can allow yourself to be manipulated terribly before you even know it.’
