I have really enjoyed these Olympics. We have been treated to new sports, surprise victories (naming no names, Italy), and the usual astonishment when humans achieve the impossible. However, there is always an extremely political side to the Olympics, and that's what I wish to analyse in this article.
Superpowers wear gold
The term “superpower” was first used in 1944 to describe the UK, US and the USSR. During the 20th century, Britain lost influence and, with the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the US became the only superpower. This led Samuel Huntington to write: “There is now only one superpower. But that does not mean that the world is unipolar [rather] a uni-multipolar system with one superpower and several major powers.” So what we can learn about the current world order from this year’s Olympics?
It's no secret that sport isn't the only thing in play during the Olympic Games. Many will remember the US boycotting the 1980 Olympics in Moscow, and medal races between Russia and the U.S. acting as a quasi-proxy war during the Cold War. In 2021, the Olympics are far from a fight between Russia and America. Today, they are a scramble for medals, where the group of countries aiming for victory in the medals table has diversified along with the move from a bipolar world order to the uni-multipolar system Huntington described. The top spots in the medals table are less predictable than they once were; in fact, the US and Russia haven't been together in first and second place since 2000. So far, the dominant force in these Olympics has been China. If the pendulum swing we came to know last century between American and Soviet victories was reflective of the political climate, then what does China's current dominance show?
Many see China as the world's next superpower; it’s the largest trading power and manufacturer in the world, providing it with international political leverage, and has built up its military significantly over the last years. In order to look the part, China has learnt that superpowers wear gold. Success in sporting competitions does much to increase a country's perception as a superpower, as the USSR illustrates.
China’s fight for medals is tied to its very raison d’être. Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, there has been a strong sense that China needs to reverse centuries of domination by Western powers and to end its perception as the "sick man of Asia." However, China's sporting prowess is rather new - China only really began competing at the Olympics in 1984.
Now in Tokyo, China is turning the cogs of its medal machine, fielding 413 athletes, the highest number since Beijing 2008. The sacrifices Chinese Olympians have to make to win gold are immense. Children are scouted and sent to sports schools from a young age, missing out on an academic education, and seeing their families only a few times a year. These children are trained in sports which traditionally are underfunded in the West in order to increase China's likelihood of winning a medal. In fact, 75% of the Olympic golds won by China were in just six sports: shooting, diving, gymnastics, weightlifting, badminton and table tennis.
It seems that the Chinese population has bought into the belief that gold medals equal national prowess; many athletes who have failed to win gold have faced abuse online. As Dr. Florian Schneider notes, "To these people, Olympic medal tables are real-time trackers of national prowess and, by extension, of national dignity. In that context, someone who fails at a competition against foreigners has let down or even betrayed the nation."
As China moves up the ranks in the medals tables, so it seems to grow in power, prestige and influence, and indeed, vice versa.
“Sport is part of politics”
That said, China isn't the only country to perceive its sporting success as a reflection of its prestige. In many ways, Belarus resembles a 20th century-style dictatorship. This is a country where the KGB is still called the KGB, where streets in the capital are still named after Marx and Engels, and a statue of Lenin dominates a square in Minsk. The way Belarus views sport and athletes is no exception.
Belarus hit the news in August last year after protests erupted in response to electoral fraud, leaving “Europe’s last dictator,” Alexander Lukashenko, in power. Thanks to this year’s Olympics, the role of athletes in fighting against Lukashenko’s authoritarian regime has been put under the spotlight.
The Belarusian Sport Solidarity Foundation was formed in August 2020 after more than 250 athletes signed an open letter condemning electoral fraud in last year’s elections. The number of signatories is now around 2000, one of whom is Olympic swimmer Aleksandra Herasimenia. In an interview, she stated, “Athletes are not slaves. They have the right to have their own point of view and position […] Sport is part of politics. It has always been part of politics.”
Because of their role in the protests, 95 athletes have been imprisoned and 35 athletes and coaches have been expelled from the Belarusian national team. A court has also banned a popular sports website amid the intensifying crackdown of the media, labelling it as “extremist.”
Athletes are particularly vulnerable because sport is intrinsically political in Belarus. Before his son, Lukashenko himself headed the National Olympic Committee. He is also known to be an amateur hockey player. Lukashenko sees sporting success as a direct reflection of the country’s prestige and his regime’s legitimacy; he has used sport as an instrument of propaganda and consequently has been accused of “sportwashing” his reputation. Addressing athletes before this year’s Olympics, Lukashenko declared, “Your successes should become a response … to those states that are strangling or trying to strangle us with sanctions.” He has since expressed his frustration at Belarus’ poor medal haul (totalling seven medals). This is not dissimilar to the way 20th century dictators viewed sport: Mussolini, for example, saw sport as a way to ensure discipline and commitment.
It is obvious that sport in Belarus has inherited many Soviet traditions, including the employment of athletes by State agencies, which makes athletes dependent on the State in order to secure their loyalty. Moreover, Belarus has seen many Cold War-style athlete defections. Most recently, Kristina Timanovskaya has fled to Poland on a humanitarian visa after her removal from the national Olympic team for criticising her coaches. Timanovskaya faced backlash from the State media, saying she lacked “team spirit” for complaining that her coaches had entered her into the 4x400m relay race at short notice. According to the Belarusian State, Timanovskaya was removed from the team because of her emotional condition - something the athlete herself has denied. Timanovskaya said two coaches entered her room and told her to pack her bags immediately, forcibly taking her to the airport to send her back to Belarus. Timanovskaya asked the International Olympic Committee for help and refused orders to return. This attempt to drag her back was probably motivated by the fact that Lukashenko sees the Olympics as an opportunity to gain prestige, not to cause embarrassment.
All this goes to show that Lukashenko’s regime knows no bounds. Timanovskaya has said that she wants to return to Belarus, but that it is too dangerous presently. History, and indeed current events, dictate that she is right.
Just how revealing is Tokyo 2020 of sexism in sport?
However, the political role of sport is not limited to power play among nation-states. There are also power struggles among individual athletes.
The sexualisation of women’s sport has been widely reported on this year. At the centre of the debate has been artistic gymnastics, a sport in which women tend to compete in fitted leotards and men in a tank top and shorts or tracksuit bottoms. But just how far does this problem go in elite sport?
In gymnastics, uniform is dictated by outrageous regulations. For women, leotards must be “elegant”, with a neckline extending down to the shoulder blades. Worse still, “The leotard leg length cannot exceed the horizontal line around the leg, delineated by no more than 2cm below the base of the buttocks.” The official line is that more conservative leotards prevent the judges from having a clear view of the gymnasts’ legs - although apparently this does not apply to men, who are allowed to wear shorts or trousers.
Recently, many female gymnasts have taken a stand against what they see as the sexualisation of the sport. This year, the German women’s team have opted to compete in unitards instead of the “spangled lingerie” commonly worn. “We wanted to show that every woman, everybody, should decide what to wear,” explained athlete Elisabeth Seitz.
However, sexism in gymnastics goes beyond this. Another important question we must ask is why men and women scored differently in artistic gymnastics. Most notably, women's floor routines are performed to music, unlike in men's floor routines. Reading the guidelines for floor routines provided by British Gymnastics is quite revealing. Men are scored on acrobatic skills, yet women must also exhibit a “quality of grace” and a “dancer-like command” of their chosen music.
USA Gymnastics notes that floor routines give women the chance to “express their personalities”, something men, apparently, are not required to do.
This goes back to the very beginnings of gymnastics, where women’s routines were expected to be graceful, while men’s gymnastics was a display of strength. This clearly has not changed, and the sexism in gymnastics seems rampant. It was not long ago that female gymnasts were speaking out about sexual abuse by sports doctor Larry Nassar, yet sexism and sexualisation in this sport continue.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has washed its hands of this problem by issuing a set of Portrayal Guidelines for female athletes, asking broadcasters not to “focus unnecessarily on looks, clothing or intimate body parts.”
However, the IOC knows full well what uniform requirements are for women, and unfortunately, gymnastics is not the only sport guilty of such sexualisation of women. In beach volleyball, the uniform code is as follows:
2.1.2 The official men's uniform for the Olympic Beach Volleyball tournament consists of:- A TANK TOP and SHORTS- Eventual ACCESSORIES2.1.3 The official women's uniform for the Olympic Beach Volleyball tournament consists of:- A TOP and BRIEFS or a ONE PIECE uniforms.- Eventual ACCESSORIES
In beach handball, the Norwegian women’s team has been fined $1,700 for wearing shorts instead of bikini briefs earlier this year.
I also noticed this issue in diving, where women wear incredibly skimpy swimsuits. The uniform code states:
4.1.1. Design Decency:
the wearing of the swimsuit shall not offend morality and good taste (in particular, but not exclusively, because of the cut of the suit and body parts exposure whether covered or not). Surface covered (shape);
For swimsuits used in pool swimming competitions: Men’s swimsuits shall not extend above the navel or below the knee. Women’s swimsuits shall not cover the neck or extend past the shoulders, or below the knee.
In this case, men also must follow an invasive uniform code. Who gave these sport federations the right to dictate what athletes could wear down to the last centimetre? And why are women the victims of these codes in most cases? In 2024, the Olympics will be held in Paris, a city which claims to be as liberal as they come – let’s hope it can live up to its reputation by making meaningful changes to these archaic sports regulations.
To conclude...
There are many different facets of the political side to sport, and these are just a few. But looking forward to the Paralymics, it's worth keeping an eye on what is at play besides the sports themselves.
This post is composed of articles originally written for TheLatest.com