From the 1968 Olympics ‘Black Power’ salute to Henry Olonga and Andy Flowers’ ‘Death of Democracy’ armbands, the rigid dichotomy of politics and sport has inevitably overlain throughout histoy. In a world governed by bureaucracy, we shouldn’t be surprised to find controversial sentiments on a soccer pitch, netball court or football field, but the ICC (international cricket council) have always attempted to limit the use of test matches as a stage for rhetoric.
Yet on the second day of the third test in the Investec Series, Moeen Ali, a British Muslim of Pakistani descent, generated controversy when he wore two wristbands saying “Free Palestine” and “Save Gaza”. Although the ECB (england and wales cricket board) determined ali’s stance as “humanitarian not political”, the match referee, David Goon, overruled this decision and asked him to take them off.
Whether or not Ali had intented to convey a political message, this event raises an issue that has come up time and time again in many sporting events; do politics and sport mix?
Both “Free Palestine” and “Free Gaza” are indeed political movements missioned to challenge Israeli policy, and both have - albeit somewhat ambiguous - political pro Palestinian connotations to the highly controversial conflict in the Middle East. However, one could argue that the lack of consistency in the ICC’s ban against “conveying messages which relate to political, religious or racial activities or causes” was apparent later on that same day; further on in the afternoon, the England team wore logos in support of “Help for Heroes” on their shirts.
This British charity which provides veterans and soldiers at home with physical and psychological support and recovery, strictly states that their cause is solely humanitarian. However, its indirect support for the British military could be argued as political in the same way Ali’s “Save Gaza” (as opposed to “Free Gaza”) wristband, which was intended to merely raise awareness of the rising civilian fatality rate in the strip, was?
Both on and off the cricket pitch or television screen, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has generated plenty of controversy over the past few weeks, with sporting figures such as NBA star Dwight Howard quickly deleting a tweet with the hashtag #FreePalestine soon after it was published. Although this particular incident occurred off the basketball court, it still raises the question of whether political rhetoric belong in sports or sporting figures’ public influence as a whole.
Perhaps it is their responsibility as role models to pressure the international community to intervene in the middle east, but one could just as easily argue that these people — as they are ordinary people after all — simply may not have enough knowledge to justify or even understand what they have endorsed. Or maybe, just maybe, they’ve even accepted propoganda from biased media sources along the way.
In any case, the question remains. Has sport become a political tool? A soapbox for equality? Or should it stick to, well, simply being sport?
