Should sports and politics mix together?

Incident of Shahar Peer and Dubai

"There should be no place for politics or discrimination in professional tennis or indeed any sport" exclaimed Israeli tennis player, Shahar Peer, in February this year, after being denied a visa from United Arab Emirates to enter into the city Dubai to participate at the Dubai tournament.

Peer was entered into the draw of this year's Dubai tournament, but was removed from the draw after being denied a visa for safety reasons, due to the negative public sentiments surrounding Israel's invasion of Gaza.

Most of the top female players spoke up for Peer, including current world no. 1 Serena Williams, and her older sister, Venus Williams, who paid tribute to Peer after winning the tournament, but all of them continued to play in the tournament despite their verbal protests. Andy Roddick, who was the defending men's champion, was the only player who boycotted the tournament in support of Peer.

The WTA took action, fining the organisers of the tournament a record $300,000, and providing Peer with compensation in the form of ranking points and money, and also ensuring Peer would be able to compete in next year's Dubai tournament. Another Israeli player, Andy Ram, was also permitted to enter the city of Dubai and play doubles in the men's tournament the week after.

So was it really wrong for the Dubai organisers to mix sports and politics in the Peer incident?

Why shouldn't sports and politics mix?

Sport is commonly defined as an organised, competitive and skillful activity requiring commitment and fair play. Sports people should be rewarded for their efforts, and not be discriminated by other issues such as politics.

Sports often provide relief for people from the harsh reality of their everyday life. Think about the great racehorses which provided that sort of escape for people during times of trouble and economic crisis, such as the heroics of Sea Biscuit in the US during the Great Depression. By injecting the realism of politics into sports, we take away this escape channel for people.

By not mixing sports and politics, sports may also be used as a diplomatic channel to reconciliations.

As a result of these arguments, most people see themselves in this light, supporting the notion that sports and politics should not mix. That was reflected in the huge attention that the Peer incident got from the media as most people thought that it was not wise for the UAE to mix sports with politics in that incident.

But do we accept the mixing of sports and politics?

At this point, you would think that most people would not accept the mixing of sports and politics. But surprisingly, there have been alot of situations where people accepted the mixing of sports and politics.

Think about most interviews of tennis players after their matches. Alot of questions asked at those interviews are political in nature. For example, Venus and Serena Williams were asked to give their comments about the inauguration of the first black president Obama at the Australian Open earlier this year. This was a blatant mix of sports and politics. But we all seem to accept it.

What about a sports person boycotting certain events? We can all recall the refusal of some of the English cricket team a few years ago to play at Zimbabwe on the basis of that country's human rights records. What about the US boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics due to the host country's occupation of Afghanistan? What about the withdrawal of Eric Widdell from his event in the 1924 Paris Olympics due to his personal religious convictions? In the tennis world, the Williams sisters have been boycotting the Indian Wells tournament for the past few years due to a racist incident a few years ago. All of these actions are well accepted by the general public, as the refusal to participate in a sporting event allowed the sports person to send a moral message to the world.

But ironically, these sports people are also mixing sports with politics. If we take the view established in the earlier section, their non participation should not be accepted by the public. These sports people should be separating their political beliefs from their sports. It can be argued that they participate in sports as a sports person, not as a politician, and so they should not be sending their personal moral convictions through their participation in sports.

However, as we all know, the general public is more than willing to accept such a situation to occur, and even praise the sports people for standing by their beliefs.

Double standards

It seems like we have a double standard in relation to the issue of mixing politics and sports. Most people are willing to accept such a mix, by accepting a sports person's individual moral beliefs as a basis of refusing to participate at a sporting event. But if a sporting event mixes sport with politics, by exercising some sort of beliefs of its own, then people are not willing to accept that.

We can easily view the Peer incident from the point of view of the Dubai organisers and the UAE. The UAE may have a strong conviction against the actions of Israel in relation to the Gaza occupation. The inclusion of an Israeli player may result in protests from the public. This may threaten the security of other players and the people attending the tournament. As a result, Peer was denied entry into the Dubai entry.

Conclusion

The point of the above analysis is not to judge who was right or who was wrong in the Peer incident. It is more for each one of us to be aware that at times, we are applying double standards to similar situations, depending on circumstances.

Should we be applying the same standards in all circumstances?

It is hard for us to say whether it is right for us to mix sports and politics. But one thing we need to be aware of and to accept is that there is already a mix of sports and politics if we really open our eyes.