Sportswashing and Soft Power: Why It's Not Just for Authoritarian States

Image generated by AI using ChatGPT

Sport as Soft Power

Hearing the word sportswashing, what comes to mind? Saudi Arabia, Qatar, perhaps Russia. The term has become almost synonymous with authoritarian governments; a practice using sport to distract from human rights abuses or improve their international image. Yet, this understanding doesn’t illustrate the full picture.

In 1990, political scientist Joseph Nye introduced the theory of soft power, suggesting that “soft power is the ability to affect others to obtain the outcomes one wants through attraction rather than coercion or payment”. Rather than relying on hard power to exert influence through military force, countries use “resources of culture, values, and policies” to attract, rather than deter, becoming one of the most effective methods for exercising influence, including sport.

Although sportswashing is a relatively new term, both sports and politics have been intertwined for centuries, if not millennia. The Ancient Roman satirist Juvenal criticised emperors for providing citizens with panem et circenses ("bread and circuses"),  to “distract the populace when something that would normally earn the ire of said populace is taking place." Moving closer to the modern day, the 1936 Berlin Olympics allowed Nazi Germany to present itself as a peaceful and modern state to the international community, despite the regime's increasingly repressive policies. While both examples vastly differ from contemporary cases, they highlight how global leaders have long understood the political importance of sporting events.

Hosting international sporting events and elite competitions is one example of states utilising sport to shape international perceptions, often falling under the branding of sports diplomacy. Yet, when sport is used as  “a means by which a country can deflect audiences’ attention away from less favourable perceptions of a country”, more often than not, the term sportswashing is applied.

The issue is that the sportswashing label is often applied too selectively. Both the media and public are often quick to associate non-Western or authoritarian governments with sportswashing when hosting events. However, little of Nye’s theory regarding soft power suggests it is exclusive to a particular region of the world or political system. If sport is truly a source of geopolitical influence, every state with the means to wield it can engage in sportswashing.

The American Case

The US offers what is probably one of the clearest contemporary examples of sportswashing in a Western democratic state, where narratives of military strength, national unity and patriotism are deeply intertwined with sport. The annual Army - Navy American football game is the clearest example of the intertwining of sport and the military, with the President and CEO of the National Football Foundation stating that “it is a timeless celebration of young men who are not only great athletes but also future leaders of our military, willing to defend our freedoms”.  Hence, the event is as much of  a celebration of the US armed forces as it is a sporting contest. On the other hand, the Congressional Baseball Game between US Congress members on both sides of the political spectrum suggests bipartisan cooperation despite deep political division. Neither event draws widespread criticism, yet they illustrate how sport can communicate political messages just as effectively as speeches, rallies or diplomatic initiatives.

On a more topical note, the 2026 FIFA World Cup represents an even more significant opportunity, one that is accessible to the entire world, having the potential to become “the largest, most-watched World Cup ever staged.” This places the US at the centre of global attention, providing it with the perfect stage to exhibit its various cities, infrastructure and culture to billions of people. The World Cup comes at a strategically advantageous moment for the US, a critical time when Washington faces scrutiny over its foreign and immigration policy, political polarisation, and deteriorating international relations.  Furthermore, like all mega sporting events, the tournament will provide all three host nations, Mexico, the US and Canada, with economic gain and diplomatic and reputational prestige, key factors of soft power.

Interestingly, the FIFA World Cup may not even be the clearest example of sports being used as a political instrument occurring in the last month. That title may have to be awarded to the UFC White House event, “shifting a fight card intended to celebrate America’s 250th birthday from the July 4th holiday to Trump’s own birthday, placing it on the White House lawn, promoting it in the oval office”.   The symbolism was hard to miss, using military flyovers, while fighters walk cage side accompanied by war veterans, narratives of American exceptionalism and military strength were demonstrated to an international audience through the medium of sport.  

Beyond the United States

Of course, sportswashing is not unique to the US. The FIFA World Cup was utilised in Qatar 2022 to project itself as a modern Middle Eastern hub, despite the criticisms it received in the run-up to the event regarding the conditions of migrant workers and suppression of LGBTQ rights. In 2018, Russia hosted the World Cup, just four years after it annexed Crimea, projecting itself as a welcoming and globally engaged international actor, only to carry out a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Moving away from World Cup hosts, few countries have become as closely associated with sportswashing as Saudi Arabia. In recent years, Saudi Arabia has invested heavily in international sports, spanning boxing, golf, Formula One, and a successful bid to host the 2034 FIFA World Cup. However, such events in the country have been marred by sustained international criticisms over its human rights abuses regarding political freedoms, continued use of the death penalty, and limitations on freedom of expression. Through sport, Riyadh has sought to diversify its economy while projecting an image of a modern, globally engaged state.

A Consistent Definition

Recognising the use of sportswashing doesn’t diminish states’ legitimacy. Instead, it encourages the label to be applied consistently across all regions and political systems. If sportswashing is understood as the use of sport as a strategic geopolitical tool to enhance a state’s image within the international community, then it should not be solely applied to authoritarian regimes. It is best understood as an element of soft power, which all states use to different extents. The question, therefore, is not whether Western democracies engage in sportswashing, but why we are reluctant to recognise it when they do so.