Political influences on sport: positive or negative?

The recent storm caused by the ACC report into criminal activity in Australian sport, fronted by politician Kate Lundy, has raised the question: Should political influences on sport be encouraged for the greater good?

Or should politicians stick to long-winded speeches and baby kissing?

The ACC report, no matter what the aggrieved parties say, should be a good thing for sport.

It seems very noble in its goal to rid the various codes we love to watch and play of criminal influences.

But could it be just bandstanding? This same government also helped the FFA in creating a team in Western Sydney, through investing in football infrastructure.

Other cases of sports and politics becoming bedfellows paints a much more complex picture.

One of the more recent of these examples is the indignity suffered by the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) when the organisation was suspended by the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

The actual story is very complicated, but essentially the IOA was suspended from the Olympic movement for various reasons.

One is that the IOA have a constitution as required by the Indian Ministry of Sport that is not within IOC guidelines, including unlimited terms of governance, with people being nominated and pulling out as political tides ebb and flow.

There are also some interesting characters who ran for positions, such as Lalit Bhanot, who ran for secretary general of the IOA after being implication in the corruption of the recent Commonwealth Games held in India.

Almost every player in the organisation had a either a direct interest in, or was patroned by, a political movement.

The aftermath had the Indian government and IOA blaming everyone but themselves, including each other, the IOC, and various sporting associations within India.

Who lost out? Well, as long as the IOC is suspended, their athletes stand to miss out on both government funding and the chance to participate in the Brazil Olympics and anything beforehand.

Whereas the Indian example shows how politics can badly fail sports, the case of the Gleneagles agreement has many more shades.

The Gleneagles Agreement was a pact made in 1977 between the heads of Commonwealth nations to discourage international sports teams playing in, or against South Africa, as a form of protest against Apartheid policies.

This was made after the International Cricket Council had already banned South Africa in 1970, as the African nation would only play against white nations fielding white players, as dictated by the Apartheid policy.

However, Gleneagles meant that other sports – Rugby, Football, and Hockey, to name a few – would also be banned.

There were unsanctioned tours, such as the New Zealand Cavalier’s 1986 Rugby tour and the infamous rebel cricket tours between 1982 and 1990.

It’s a very tough situation – there’s no argument that the era of Apartheid was a blight on the 20th century, but is it right that sports loses out?

It is a shame that people like Keppler Wessels were lost to their country, and that the people under a particular regime missed out on the joy of sport because of government policy.

Did the lack of competition help rid the rainbow nation of Apartheid due to international pressure like economic sanctions? I’m not sure, but Nelson Mandela with a Springbok top on seems to resonate through the ages a lot more then Graeme Pollock missing out.

Of course, politics and sport together can also be a very good thing, especially for society as a whole.

A perhaps different example is Cuba.

Under the banner “sport for all”, the Cuban government gives all people access to sport from an early age, and the better athletes are sent to sport specific schools.

Sport in Cuba has always been considered amateur, and athletes and coaches earning a living overseas pay 80% of their income back to the government (in order to keep with the communist equal wage).

However, elite athletes are given gifts such as luxury houses to stay in the country, rather than take their talent overseas.

This policy has served the country particularly well in boxing and baseball.

Boxing has served Cuba particularly well at the Olympics. Between the Mexico City games in 1968 and the Sydney games, Cuban Boxers won twenty seven gold medals, thirteen silver medals, and seven bronze medals for an impressive total of forty seven.

At grassroots level, there are 19,000 boxers in Cuba, across 185 facilities.

Cuban baseball has also been traditionally strong.

In 1997, Cuba ended its 10-year, 152-game, winning-streak at the baseball International Cup by losing to Japan 11-2.

Every school in Cuba participates in a junior Olympic program, and a new National Sport institute studies aspects like sport medicine.

All funded by the revolutionary government. Looking at it without any other politics, the high participation rates and success at international level is one thing Cuba can be proud of. This, in gaining national pride, suits the political agenda.

There are many more examples of sport and politics coming together, including the Moscow and Los Angeles Olympic boycotts, Hitler and Jesse Owens at the 1936 Berlin Olympic games, and Silvio Berlusconi’s ownership of football giants AC Milan while being Italian President.

It’s almost always a complicated relationship.

In theory, a government representing the broader community in sporting matters is a good thing, a way to give opportunities and voice to the people, right?

However, with sport proving to be such a good outlet for personal agendas, perhaps we should still keep a critical eye on politicians who want to be part of our codes, and make sure we retain our own values.