Sportswashing in international sports is the practice where political leaders and regimes use major sporting events to improve their global reputation and deflect attention from human rights abuses, social crises, or domestic political instability. According to Jules Boykoff, a professor of politics at Pacific University and former professional soccer player, this phenomenon allows leaders to appear legitimate on the world stage while pursuing economic and political advantages. While historically associated with autocratic states in the Global South, experts suggest the practice is increasingly applicable to established democracies and modern political leaders globally.
The upcoming 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup, hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, has become a focal point for discussions regarding the intersection of mega-events and political spectacle. As the tournament approaches, analysts are examining whether the event will serve as a platform for political deflection, a trend seen in previous host nations including Russia and Qatar. This scrutiny follows a pattern of international sporting bodies being accused of prioritizing commercial growth and political relationships over human rights and athlete welfare.
What is sportswashing and how does it work?
Sportswashing functions by leveraging the massive, positive emotional connection fans have with sports to mask systemic issues. Political leaders use the spectacle of victory and international cooperation to project an image of stability and progress. This can target both a global audience, seeking to increase tourism and diplomatic influence, and a domestic audience, aiming to bolster approval ratings or consolidate power.
Jules Boykoff defines the term as a tool for political leaders to “appear important or legitimate on the world stage, while deflecting attention from chronic social problems, from human rights woes at home, and also while teeing up opportunities for political and economic advancement.” The goal is often to transform a nation’s brand from one associated with repression or instability to one associated with excellence and hospitality.
The effectiveness of this strategy is often measured by shifts in public perception and economic indicators. For example, following the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar, the nation saw increases in regional mediation influence and tourism. However, Boykoff notes that the domestic impact can be even more profound, as seen in Russia, where hosting major events helped consolidate internal political support and align economic interests among the ruling elite.
How have autocracies used the World Cup historically?
The intersection of sport and propaganda is not a modern development. The history of the FIFA World Cup includes several instances where host governments utilized the tournament to advance fascist or authoritarian ideologies. These historical precedents provide a blueprint for how modern regimes approach mega-events.
In 1934, during the second World Cup, Benito Mussolini used the Italian national team to embody the “fascist new man.” According to Boykoff, Mussolini characterized the players as “soldiers of sport,” utilizing their success to maximize the propaganda value of the Italian state. This era marked an early integration of athletic achievement into the state’s political identity.
A significant inflection point occurred during the 1978 World Cup in Argentina. At the time, the country was governed by a military junta. While the tournament provided a veneer of normalcy to the international community, the regime was simultaneously engaged in severe domestic repression. Reports indicate that just hundreds of meters from where the final match was held, political dissidents were being imprisoned and tortured. During this period, international political figures, including U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, were noted for their presence and engagement with the junta’s leadership, which critics argue provided a “sportswash assist” to the regime.
The following table compares historical and modern examples of sportswashing as discussed in political science contexts:
| Era / Event | Host Nation / Regime | Primary Political Objective | Reported Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1934 World Cup | Italy (Mussolini) | Promote fascist ideology and “machismo” | Increased propaganda value for the state |
| 1978 World Cup | Argentina (Military Junta) | Project normalcy during domestic repression | Temporary reduction in visible repression |
| 2014 Winter Olympics | Russia (Putin) | Legitimize leadership on the global stage | Boosted domestic approval ratings |
| 2022 World Cup | Qatar | Increase regional mediation and tourism | Enhanced global diplomatic visibility |
Why is the 2026 World Cup under scrutiny?
The 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup is facing intense scrutiny regarding the potential for political leaders in the host nations to use the event for domestic and international advantage. Unlike previous tournaments hosted by single autocratic states, the 2026 event is spread across North America, bringing the phenomenon into the context of a modern democracy.
Boykoff suggests that the United States could see elements of sportswashing, particularly if political leaders use the tournament to deflect from low approval ratings or ongoing international conflicts. He notes that President Donald Trump has historically utilized sports to his political advantage more than recent predecessors. The concern among political scientists is whether the tournament will be used to project an image of strength and stability to a global audience while domestic political tensions remain high.
Additionally, the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics are viewed as a secondary opportunity for similar political maneuvers. The scale of these events provides a massive platform that can be co-opted to shape national narratives. Activists in Los Angeles have been organizing since 2017 to address the socio-economic impacts and political implications of these massive developments.
The ability to dissent during these events is also a major concern. In the 2018 World Cup in Russia, the government passed legislation restricting protests within host cities. Observers are now watching to see what level of political expression and dissent will be permitted during the 2026 tournament in the United States.
What role does FIFA play in political spectacle?
FIFA, the international governing body for soccer, has faced long-standing accusations of corruption and excessive commercialization. The organization’s leadership has been criticized for its close relationships with various political leaders, which critics argue facilitates the sportswashing process.
FIFA President Gianni Infantino has been a central figure in these discussions. Boykoff points to Infantino’s history of engagement with authoritarian leaders, including his interactions with Vladimir Putin in Russia. Infantino has also been noted for his presence in Qatar during the 2022 World Cup, where he managed relationships with local leadership amidst international criticism regarding migrant worker rights and human rights standards.
The decision-making process regarding host nations has also drawn criticism. The awarding of the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia occurred without a competitive bidding process, a move that has raised questions about the transparency and integrity of FIFA’s selection methods. This decision aligns with Saudi Arabia’s broader strategy of investing heavily in “macho” sports, such as boxing and UFC, to reshape its global image.
The relationship between FIFA and political leaders often transcends simple hosting duties. It frequently involves the cutting of political and economic deals. Boykoff cites the state dinner and visit in Washington, D.C., involving President Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as an example of how international political leaders and “sportswashers” often work in tandem to advance their respective agendas.
How does commercialization impact athlete safety?
Beyond the political implications, the “FIFA greed machine”—a term used by critics to describe the organization’s relentless pursuit of revenue—has significant consequences for the athletes themselves. The expansion of the tournament calendar and the introduction of more matches have led to increased concerns regarding player health and safety.
FIFPro, the global players’ union, has been vocal about the risks posed by congested match schedules and the physical demands placed on players. The union has raised questions about athlete fatigue and the rising rate of injuries as FIFA continues to trial ideas such as holding the Men’s World Cup every two years.
Climate change presents another critical challenge. As tournaments are hosted in increasingly extreme climates, the physical safety of players becomes a primary concern. While FIFA has implemented “water breaks” during matches to mitigate heat, Boykoff argues that the organization has found ways to monetize these pauses by allowing commercials during the breaks. This practice is viewed by critics as a way to profit from the very environmental challenges that threaten player safety.
The tension between commercial interests and worker rights is a defining feature of modern mega-events. While unions like FIFPro are gaining strength and advocating for better conditions, they face a governing structure that often prioritizes broadcast revenue and sponsorship deals over the long-term health of the players.
Can soccer remain a tool for community building?
Despite the heavy commercialization and political maneuvering at the highest levels, soccer retains a powerful capacity for grassroots community building. Activism within the sport has historically driven social change, providing a model for how fans can challenge power structures.
In cities like Portland, Oregon, soccer activists have successfully fought for accountability within local club management and ownership. These victories demonstrate that the bonds created through sport can be pivoted into meaningful political action. Lower-league teams and community-oriented clubs offer a contrast to the highly commercialized professional tiers, focusing on affordability and local engagement.
The challenge for the future of the sport lies in preserving this community essence while navigating the massive economic and political forces that drive the World Cup and the Olympics. As the 2026 World Cup approaches, the eyes of activists, players, and the global public will be on whether the event serves the game and its communities, or merely the interests of those seeking to use it for political gain.
The next major updates regarding the 2026 FIFA World Cup preparations and official host city protocols are expected to be released through FIFA’s official communications channels in the coming months.
What are your thoughts on the impact of politics on international sports? Share this article and join the conversation in the comments below.