Football is called the world’s game. It transcends borders, languages, and cultures. However, besides soccer for goals and glory, it has always been there for politics on and off the field. Governments, leaders, and social movements have used teams and tournaments in football. They used it to further their ideologies, gain control over the narrative, or bring about change. On the other hand, football has played its silent but powerful role as a tool for politics. This article reviews prominent examples where politics and football clashed. We also explore why the sport can never be completely neutral.
The 1934 World Cup in Mussolini’s Italy
The 1934 FIFA World Cup was the first large stage used as an instrument for propaganda. Benito Mussolini, then the fascist dictator of Italy, looked at it as an expression of Italian strength and national pride. He ensured that Italy would host the World Cup and had a big say in how it turned out.
Referees were rumored to have been pressured to favor Italy, and the national team was expected to win at all costs. Italy did win the tournament, but the competition was overshadowed by the extreme political messaging. Some players even performed fascist salutes before matches. Stadiums were filled with slogans and flags that promoted Mussolini’s regime.
Rather than a celebration of global sport, the 1934 World Cup became a symbol of how football could serve authoritarian interests.
Franco’s Spain and the Repression of FC Barcelona
In Spain, the rivalry between FC Barcelona and Real Madrid has long symbolized more than just sports. It represents deep political and cultural divides. During Francisco Franco’s dictatorship (1939–1975), this tension grew even sharper.
Franco’s regime sought to suppress regional identities, especially Catalan culture. FC Barcelona, based in Catalonia, became a symbol of resistance and local pride. The club’s stadium, Camp Nou, was one of the few public places where people could speak Catalan and wave the banned Catalan flag.
Meanwhile, Real Madrid, based in the capital, was perceived as the regime’s favorite. Though some of this perception is debated, the favoritism was evident. It was very clear, particularly in the 1943 Copa del Generalísimo semi-final. Barcelona lost 11-1 to Madrid under what many believe were politically motivated threats and pressures.
Football, in this case, became a battleground for identity, culture, and political control.
The 1978 World Cup and Argentina’s Military Regime
In 1978, Argentina hosted the FIFA World Cup while under a brutal military dictatorship. The junta, an army organization, seized power in Argentina through a coup d’état on March 24, 1976. This period was known for widespread human rights abuses. The junta saw the tournament as a way to gain legitimacy and distract the public from ongoing repression.
The government poured massive funds into stadiums and infrastructure. Political prisoners, on the other hand, were being tortured just a few kilometers away from match venues. As Argentina advanced in the tournament, many accused the government of fixing results. Their 6-0 win against Peru, which was needed to reach the final, was also deemed to be fixed.
Argentina won the tournament, and the military used the victory to fuel nationalist pride. Survivors and human rights organizations have long argued that the World Cup served as a smokescreen for atrocities.
This was a clear example of sportswashing – where a regime uses sports to clean up its international image.
The 2018 World Cup Boycotts and Geopolitics
The 2018 FIFA World Cup was held in Russia. Russia was already under global scrutiny for alleged election interference, human rights issues and the annexation of Crimea. In the wake of such unrest, several countries launched diplomatic boycotts of the tournament.
While teams like England still participated, their government officials and royal family members did not attend any games in Russia. Other countries, like Iceland, joined the diplomatic protest. Although these actions didn’t stop the tournament, they sent a message that football was not above geopolitics.
The 2018 World Cup showed that even today, global events in football are closely linked to the political landscape.
Other Modern Expressions in Football
In recent years, footballers and teams have used their platform to support social and political causes. For example:
- Marcus Rashford (England) used his influence to campaign for free school meals for children during the COVID-19 pandemic. His activism pressured the UK government into extending food aid.
- Mesut Özil, the German midfielder of Turkish descent, faced backlash for criticizing China’s treatment of Uighur Muslims. Arsenal distanced itself from his comments to protect its commercial interests in China.
- The Iranian women’s movement gained international attention when women were banned from attending football matches. After years of protest, and following the death of Sahar Khodayari, FIFA pressured Iran to allow some women into stadiums in 2019.
- The Black Lives Matter movement was supported by Premier League teams in 2020, with players kneeling before games and wearing slogans on their shirts. Though FIFA typically discourages political statements, they allowed this form of expression in recognition of the global importance of the issue.
These examples show how players and fans are using the sport to challenge injustice and promote change. This might often go against official rules or government preferences.
FIFA’s Claim of Political Neutrality
FIFA has always maintained that football should remain politically neutral. Its statutes prohibit political messages during matches, including slogans, gestures, or symbols.
However, critics argue that this policy is inconsistently applied. While some players are fined or banned for small political gestures, entire World Cups are awarded to nations with controversial records. Like the World Cups held in Russia in 2018 and Qatar in 2022. These decisions often bring accusations of hypocrisy and corruption.
Human rights issues in Qatar forced FIFA into an awkward position of having to possibly intervene. These issues were especially concerning the situation faced by migrant workers. FIFA assured that reforms would come into being. However, the critics opine that this was way too slow or limited in scope.
Being the global football-governing body, FIFA wants to remain aloof from politics. Yet this has become difficult in a world, where the public and even players demand accountability. Governments still continue to see the game as a tool for their influence.
A Game That Reflects the World
Football is a game that does not exist in a vacuum. If one looks through the keyholes of history, one can see the colorful hues of tragedy, conflict and resolution. Be it a fascist regime flaunting its powers or an athlete taking a knee for justice. This game is more about meaning than actually hitting a ball around.
As long as football passes through the world, it would command global attention. And it will never cease to be a very powerful channel for political expression; for good or for bad. While FIFA will try to keep itself away from that, being neutral is also a stand on itself, especially when this silence aids the powerful.
In the end, football is more than sport. It is a mirror of society, revealing who holds power and who seeks justice. It is also an example of how even a simple game can become a symbol of much more.