Soft Power Tightens It's Grip on World Sport

As Lionel Messi finally lifted the World Cup trophy, cementing him as the games greatest ever player, over 1.5 billion viewers tuned in to watch. A celebration of 16 years worth of the forward trying to win the trophy, but it was overshadowed by the act of the Qatari royal family.

The image of the Argentine that would standout after the game was of him draped in a Qatari bisht, showing the world that Qatar had succeeded in it's mission of cleaning it's world image and it had managed to influence soft power to over almost a fifth of the globe.

It then raised the question, has the ability of soft power to win hearts and minds diminished in the 21st Century? Or is it's influence more powerful than ever?

What is Soft Power?

Soft power was a term coined by American political scientist and author Joseph Nye in his 1990 book, Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power.

“When one country gets other countries to want what it wants it might be called co-optive or soft power, in contrast with the hard or commanding power of ordering others to do what it wants” Joseph Nye

Nye’s book focuses on the use of the United States soft power or its “non-coercive power” to cement its leadership position in the world.

 Whilst Hard Power is easy to measure, you can see the size of a countries army or the amount of wealth it has, soft power is spread by a countries reputation and culture and can be less obvious in the way it influences the rest of the world.

Soft power is put into three categories by Nye: Cultural. Ideological, and institutional and through these it can allow a nation to shape the world. “If a state can make its power seem legitimate in the eyes of others, it will encounter less resistance to its wishes.

"How many divisions does the Pope have?" Joseph Stalin

Soft power has existed decades before Nye coined the term in 1990 and as sports fans become more aware of its existence and how nations have used it in the past to influence global events, the question is raised about whether elite sport in the 21st Century has learnt about the influence soft power can have.

 But as we can look at, soft power isn’t a new phenomenon and has been involved in elite sports for almost a century.

History of Soft Power

1936 Berlin Olympics

Countries using elite sport to influence public perception with soft power isn’t a modern phenomenon, one of the earliest and most notable examples of a nation using a sporting event to try to win hearts and minds around the world was Germany’s hosting of the 1936 Olympics.

 Hitler’s Germany used the Olympics to disguise from the world their hidden agenda of ethnic hatred and global domination. During the games, overt displays of antisemitism were banned and a clean-cut version of Berlin and Germany was shown to the world.

 Germany had been picked in 1931 by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to host the games before the Nazi party’s rise to power. But despite the Nazi party’s public persecution of jews they were still allowed to host the games by the IOC.

 There were talks from many countries about boycotting the games, the USA specifically almost boycotted, but it was negotiated by the IOC to allow Jewish athletes at the games.

 The star of the 1936 games, much to Hitler's dismay, was USA sprinter Jesse Owens who won four gold medals, breaking world records in all of the events he competed in. Despite him being the overwhelming star of the Olympics he was snubbed by Hitler at the games sparking his famous defiance of Hitler and the Nazi party by refusing to salute at his medal ceremony.

 Following World War Two soft power would again be exercised in elite level sports during the Cold War between the USA and the Soviet Union.

 Whilst often there are calls for sports to stay out of politics they are intrinsically linked as far back as elite sport has existed and sporting competitions often can and do reflect real world conflicts.

1978 Argentina World Cup

The FIFA World Cup has a history of controversy, the precedent was set in the second ever tournament in 1934 when it was handed to Italy who were at the time under the leadership of the fascist dictator Benito Mussolini.

  Since that tournament the World Cup has been used as an opportunity of countries to improve their public image, whether that’s Russia 2018, Qatar 2022 or for Argentina in 1978.

 Whilst there had been a democracy in 1968 when the rights were originally awarded to Argentina, a decade later the country had been under a military dictatorship for two years.

 The country now led by Lieutenant General Jorge Rafael Videla brutally repressed it’s political opponents and was responsible for the death of between 15,000 and 30,000 in what was known as the ‘Dirty War’.

 Despite the political unrest the tournament was allowed to go ahead, there were protests before the games but as we’ve seen throughout their history, FIFA choose not to let politics influence their awarding of hosts, unless it is in their favour.

 Argentina would progress through the group stages of the tournament before entering a second group stage which would then lead to the final.

 Going into their game against Peru the side needed to win by a margin of three goals or more and score at least four goals to get to the final ahead of Brazil. The following result against Peru would lead to rumours and accusations of foul play from the Argentines.

 According to the Sunday Times, before the game the Argentine government shipped 35,000 tons of grain to Peru and the Central Bank of Argentina released 50 miilion US dollars worth of frozen Peruvian assets. As well as this the military dictator General Videla visited the Peruvian dressing room before the game.

 Argentina would go on to win 6-0 against Peru before beating the Netherlands in the final to lift the World Cup for the first ever time, at the time the shady activities of the Argentine government were unknown and Videla upon seeing his team lift the World Cup had succeeded in showing a cleaner image of Argentina, helping to legitimatise his military dictatorship.

 Reading about the 1978 World Cup now it seems shocking that this was ever allowed to happen, but as we look to the modern day and reflect on what lessons we’ve learned it’s clear to see the use of soft power in elite sport has never been so prevalent as it is now.

Soft Power in the Modern Day

2022 Qatar World Cup

Much like the 1978 World Cup in Argentina the latest World Cup hosted in Qatar was surrounded in controversy. Unlike the 1978 World Cup FIFA was well aware of the regime and controversies of Qatar when it awarded them the tournament in 2010.

Qatar's restriction on women's rights, its human rights violations and treatment of the LGBTQ community were all well known when the tournament was awarded to them.

A Guardian analysis found that more than 6,500 migrant workers had died in Qatar since the awarding of the tournament to them. 

 FIFA clearly had learned nothing from it’s past, or perhaps had found that the only countries willing to spend the hundreds of millions involved in running an increasingly large tournament were those with something to gain.

 By 2034 three of the last five World Cups will have been held in Russia, Qatar and Saudi Arabia respectively, countries with poor human rights records, a lack of political freedom and a lack of rights for LGBTQ communities in those countries.

It's clear that FIFA though has learned nothing from the last century of countries using their tournaments to influence the world through soft power. Perhaps the only thing it has learned is that they can rely on these countries to provide them with vasts sums of money for hosting these games.

Newcastle United and Saudi Investment

Elite level sport has come on leaps and bounds in the 21st Century from viewing and attendance figures increasing, to the adoption of sports science and the amount of revenue within English football has increased massively.

 The Premier League has seen an astronomical increase in domestic broadcasting rights and with that increased revenue there has been more scrutiny on who spends and influences the top levels of sport.

 The Premier League has an owners’ and directors’ test which puts requirements in place to ensure that any potential owners fulfil the criteria allowed, likewise the EFL has similar checks to make sure any new owners protect the reputation of the game in England.

 When these tests were brought in it was seen as a way for the powers in England to allow ownership that had the league and fans best interests at heart and not as a way for states to influence public opinion by backing billions into a football side.

 It seemed like lessons had been learnt by the Premier League when in 2020 a Saudi Arabian backed consortium pulled out of a bid to takeover Newcastle United football club over a disagreement about the Premier League’s owners’ and directors’ test.

 The Premier League wanted assurances that the club wouldn’t be directly controlled by the Saudi state and Premier League Chief Executive Richard Masters commented that the consortium disagreed with the Premier League’s conclusion that one entity would have control of the club.

Yet 14 months later a takeover of Newcastle United was approved with the Saudi Arabia Public Invest Fund (PIF) taking an 80-per-cent controlling stake in the club.

 Since then leaked Whatsapp messages from Amanda Staveley, a key figure in the takeover at Newcastle and a director at the club, suggest that the Saudi Crown Prince personally controlled the takeover.

 Despite statements from the Premier League that they received “legally binding assurances” that the Saudi state would not have control of the club or were involved in the deal at all.

 There were also promises from the then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson that there was no Government involvement in the takeover talks with Newcastle United. However this was later proved to be a lie as messages shared under the Freedom of Information Act show that then UK investment minister, Lord Gerry Grimstone had contacted the chair of the Premier League Gary Hoffman in August 2020 on “a way forward” for the stalled talks between the Newcastle and the Saudi PIF.

 Grimstone, a former banker with high-level contacts in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, then told Hoffman.

“I can then confirm from the highest levels of the Saudi Government whether this is deliverable, and we all will then know where this stands.” Grimstone

 This conversation between the UK and Saudi Arabian government shows just how important elite sport can be in global relations. The Premier League is the most watched sporting league in the world and it’s in the interest of Saudi Arabia to show themselves in a good light through Newcastle United.

 It’s no surprise to see Boris Johnson and the Crown Prince of Saudi publicly deny their involvement in this Newcastle deal.

Public perception of the UK government using a football club takeover to help improve diplomatic relations with a country with questionable human rights laws and in which it is illegal to be gay, wouldn’t go down well with the general public.

“Boris Johnson sells Newcastle United to Saudi Prince” would cause huge public backlash, instead by not announcing it to the world and letting the Saudi Investment Fund buy the club it can go under the radar of the vast majority of the public who won’t realise the politics being exercised in such a deal.

 Whilst Johnson didn’t want to be associated with the Saudi takeover of Newcastle, when it was announced in 2021 that several of the leading teams in England were going to join a breakaway European Super League he was quick to condemn the decision.

The former Prime Minister missed the first five government meetings about the emerging coronavirus pandemic, but on the day the European Super League news broke he put out a statement and organised talks with top stakeholders within hours. 

The Premier League is the leading global sports league and Johnson was quick to condemn a breakaway league that might mean the government could less easily influence it.

 Soft power in elite sport is more prevalent than ever, whether it’s being done more subtly now, or if people are just used to having their sports influenced by oil rich countries is up for debate.

Conclusion

It feels like the general public is more aware than ever of the influence soft power can have on elite sport, high profile takeovers of well known football teams like Abramovic’s Chelsea, Abu Dhabi’s Manchester City and Saudi’s Newcastle have brought into the public eye how countries are using UK football teams to influence.

 Despite this increased awareness there doesn’t seem to have been a decrease in the amount of soft power being influenced, in fact the opposite seems to be the case.

 Saudi Arabia are currently in the process of trying to diversify their economy away from oil and are spending heavily in the world of elite sports.

They have invested almost £5 billion over the past three years into sports, spending heavily in the world of boxing, LIV golf, won the rights to the 2034 FIFA and have been spending lots in their Saudi football league.

  Saudi Sports minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Turki Al Faisal stated that it’s investment in sport was to “Help inspire a youthful population to take up physical activity and exercise, open the country up to the international community, boost tourism, create jobs and provide sports federations with growth potential.”

Whilst this may be true the Saudi investment can also be said to help deflect attention away from their controversial human rights record, using sports washing to help reflect a new image but also to influence soft power around the world.

 Ultimately the lesson that has been learnt by 21st Century elite sport on the dynamics of soft power is how effective it can be, for nations it provides them influence around the world, for the sports organisations it provides huge levels of investment they may not have otherwise.

 Whilst the morals behind such deals are questionable we are seeing an increasing amount of elite sport being used to push the agendas of countries, if there has been anything that it’s been learnt is that soft power is allowed and effective.

 Unless the sporting governing bodies suddenly develop a conscious and decide to start ignoring the vast sums offered to them, soft power in the 21st century is here to stay.

Would you be less likely to watch a sporting event knowing soft power is involved?

• Yes I would not watch it
• No it doesn't bother me
• Don't know