It is not uncommon for administrators, fans, and commentators to echo the sentiment, “Keep politics out of sports.”
It is a sentiment rooted in the desire to focus solely on the outcome of games or tournaments. Yet, history is replete with examples of the inextricable connection between sport and politics, especially the influence of economic and geopolitical power in the contemporary sporting landscape.
From the marble stadiums of Ancient Greece to FIFA and ICC World Cups, sports have never been merely a game.
Globally, sports mirror the socio-economic and political structures of society and/or the global structural hierarchy, serving either as a tool of diplomacy or a powerful platform for protest.
In the Caribbean, CLR James’s (1963) analysis of the socio-economic and political relations of cricket is borne out in his classical oeuvre Beyond a Boundary.
Stadium as a political stage
There are numerous examples that prove the idea that sports are inherently apolitical is a myth. The 1936 Berlin Olympics were designed by the Nazi regime to showcase “Aryan supremacy” and fascism.
However, Jesse Owens, an African American athlete, had other ideas as he torpedoed the Nazi show by winning four gold medals, shattering the myth of Aryan racial supremacy.
Cricket, perhaps more than any other sport, carries the weight of its colonial and political origins. In 1968, South Africa’s apartheid government refused to allow England to tour because their squad included Basil D’Oliveira, a “coloured” player born in Cape Town, South Africa.
The response to the blatant state-sponsored racism was the eventual banning of South Africa from international cricket in 1970. South Africa returned to international cricket after a 21-year hiatus in 1991, as apartheid, as an official system, became progressively moribund.
Caribbean Position –
Principles vs Pragmatism
We must stop asking if politics should be in sports and start asking why we ever thought they could be separate.
A stadium is a gathering of thousands, and where there are people, there are power dynamics, identity struggles, and shared values.
To demand “neutrality” from sports is often a request to ignore the reality of the world outside the gates and turnstiles.
Ultimately, sports are not a distraction from politics; they are among the most honest ways we practise politics.
The Caribbean was considered the ideological heart of the anti-apartheid movement in sports, which was put on trial in the Robin Jackman Affair during England’s 1981 tour of the Caribbean.
The Prime Minister of Guyana, Forbes Burnham, rescinded the visa of English bowler Robin Jackman, declaring Jackman persona non grata because of his playing and coaching ties in South Africa.
However, the rest of the Caribbean was more diplomatically ‘soft’, as the governments of Barbados, Antigua and Barbuda, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago allowed the tour to continue. The first Test of the series was played at the Queen’s Park Oval.
The lack of a firm position by regional governments highlighted the tension between the absolute moral rejection of apartheid and the economic and social boons of international cricket.
However, the Caribbean position on apartheid was clearly demonstrated with the West Indies “Rebel Tours” of South Africa, 1982–1983 and 1983–1984. The “rebel” players, including Lawrence Rowe, Colin Croft, David Murray, Alvin Kallicharran, and Bernard Julien, defied the global boycott to play in South Africa for monetary gains despite having to undergo the ignominy of being granted an ‘honorary white status’ to compete. Worst of all, ‘honour’ was removed once the tour was completed!!
The Caribbean responses were swift and unrelenting:
• Life bans: The West Indies Cricket Board handed down lifetime bans to the players, as the tours were seen as an outright betrayal of the struggle against racial oppression.
• Social ostracism: Many players were treated as pariahs upon their return for accepting ‘blood money’.
Athlete activism
While governments use sports for “soft power” and national branding, athletes have historically used their visibility to challenge the status quo. The 1968 Mexico City Olympics is one of the most enduring images of the 20th century: Tommie Smith and John Carlos raising black-gloved fists on the podium.
Their silent protest against racial injustice in America cost them their careers at the time, but it solidified the athlete’s role as a moral conscience.
Colin Kaepernick’s decision to “take a knee” during the US national anthem in 2016 ignited a global conversation about police brutality and systemic racism. Unlike the isolated protests of the past, modern activism is often collective.
During the Black Lives Matter movement, entire leagues—from the NBA to the WNBA—altered schedules and wore social justice slogans, proving that today’s athletes view themselves as stakeholders in the political process, not just performers.
The end of neutrality
We must stop asking if politics should be in sports and start asking why we ever thought they could be separate. A stadium is a gathering of thousands, and where there are people, there are power dynamics, identity struggles, and shared values. To demand “neutrality” from sports is often a request to ignore the reality of the world outside the gates and turnstiles.
Ultimately, sports are not a distraction from politics; they are among the most honest ways we practise politics.
