In modern history, there have been several intersections of the two most popular forms of civic expression: politics, and sport. The latest incident involved Swiss football players Xherdan Shaqiri and Granit Xhaka.
Shaqiri and Xhaka landed in hot water during their game against Serbia, when their celebrations featured an Albanian Eagle. This symbol pointed to both players’ ethnic Albanian heritage, and the mostly Albanian region which declared independence from Serbia in 2008: Kosovo.
Flashpoint
Xherdan Shaqiri also had a flag of Kosovo printed on his right boot during the game, a mark of provocation, according to the Serbians. The Football Association of Serbia (FSS) has filed a complaint against his choice of footwear.
The Serbian government refuses to acknowledge Kosovo as a separate nation, although FIFA has allowed it separate representation as a national team. FIFA, the governing body of association football, and UEFA, its European counterpart, make sure Kosovo and Serbia are not drawn together.
To even start disciplinary proceedings against two players supporting a nation that FIFA itself recognises on the basis of another member’s political prejudice is immense hypocrisy. The Swiss players protested that they were simply paying homage to their roots in a moment of jubilation, and yet have been found guilty!
FIFA confirmed on Monday that it had levied fines of 10,000 swiss francs (approximately Rs 6.9 lakh) on both players for their gestures
They were tried under article 54 of the FIFA disciplinary code, which states “anyone who provokes the general public during a match will be suspended for two matches and sanctioned with a minimum fine of 5,000 Swiss francs”. Fortunately for the Swiss team, they escaped the bans and got away with a heavier fine.
Why the Divide?
Where politics is often regarded as acrimonious, sport becomes an example of the virtues a society aspires to. Most sports, and the athletes who practise them, become a pinnacle of human achievement in the eyes of the spectators.
In modern sport, these shining examples are often considered insulated from daily “political” positions or having an opinion about the various developments in the real world. This murky underbelly of life can somehow taint our heroes – and certainly they become heroes, especially on a national scale – to a more human, partisan creature.
This bubble is immediately popped when the very athletes we watch make use of their public platform to speak out or act for a cause they believe in.
It seems strange that athletes can influence people in one way – through advertisements, support for their franchises or teams, through their personal image and popularity – but not another. Is it not ironic that a player can spread a storm of controversy by simply voicing their opinion on an issue they care about?
The question then becomes, what is an intolerable and overt political act, and what are the repercussions for a sportsperson to display their inclination? Shaqiri was wearing the same boots against Brazil, and they are his officially sponsored customised studs. FIFA rules contextualise offences like these by using terms like “publicly incites others to hatred or violence” and “provokes the general public” in Articles 53 and 54 of its Disciplinary Code.
This means that disciplinary action is taken only when the fallout from the incident is assessed as being detrimental to the health and safety of either the players, the teams or the fans. FIFA’s rules are therefore necessary to curb an escalating situation of players using their platform to weaponise their popularity, because then the cycle of aggravated retribution may never end.
A major hypocrisy in the governing body’s mentality is how it enforces a straitjacket unilaterally against the players that make up its member nations, while itself openly promoting footballing diplomacy. It is widely seen that Russia is using the 2018 FIFA World Cup as an international relations opportunity, and Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov has used Egyptian Muslim icon Mohamed Salah, among others, to legitimise his oppressive rule.
Guardiola Caught Up in Yellow Ribbon
At a club-level incident, Pep Guardiola was fined £20000 (approximately Rs 1.8 crore) for wearing a yellow ribbon in support of Catalan independence, under Law 4.5 of the International Football Association Board (IFAB) Laws of the Game manual, which expressly forbids any political symbol on the kit and uniform players and managers use.
This law is more arbitrary because it enacts a blanket ban against any sort of social awareness by players and team officials. It simply reinforces an adage of separating politics from sport – one that targets the players unfairly because of vested interests swirling around them at an organisational level.
Yay Nazis, Nay Civil Rights?!
A ridiculous instance of this can be seen at an exhibition match in Berlin under the Nazi Party in 1938. The team representing the United Kingdom gave Hitler’s ministers – including Hermann Goering and Joseph Goebbels – a Nazi salute in one of the most egregious pictures ever taken. Was that not a coup by the host nation to impose a symbol of fascism and discrimination upon a sporting event?
But FIFA let that happen even with Nazism going against the founding principles of the the organisation. On the other hand, when gold-medallist Tommie Smith and bronze-medallist John Carlos, both African-Americans, protested racism in the US on the podium at the Mexico Olympic Games in 1968, they were stripped of their 200m medals by the IOC.
Although the photo of their pose with outstretched black-gloved hands has become iconic, it must be remembered what they sacrificed in the process.
To Rise, and Stand Together
If, of course, athletes choose to take an apolitical stance, then that is their own prerogative. Legendary basketballer Michael Jordan reportedly said, “Republicans buy sneakers, too” and refused to publicly criticise racism. On the other hand, all the way from Muhammad Ali in 1967 to LeBron James, athletes who do stand up for social issues and civil rights remain some of the most popular in the world.
Colin Kaepernick, an NFL quarterback, has sparked a movement in American football by kneeling during the US national anthem to protest recent violence against African-Americans. His widely emulated gesture has ended in the NFL banning such protests starting the 2018-19 season.
Sportspeople should not be repressed into silence by the threat of damaging action by laws supposed to protect them.
Bottom Line
Why must rules regarding player behaviour try and preserve the imagined “sanctity” of the game? In today’s world of mass consumption of media, we as spectators tend to see the human side of players anyway. When the governing bodies of their sports try to paint only a certain, one-dimensional picture of players, they are doing a disservice to the many millions who consider these athletes their role models – for better or worse. If a player supports a movement that consciously espouses hatred and violence, then yes, rules are a must to preserve security.
But when these sportspeople become political champions and espouse the same values that all sports embody – fraternity, democracy and equality on a level playing field – then I say, they have a voice, they deserve to speak!
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)