Sportswashing is just about everywhere – but it may be backfiring on the countries that do it

Sportswashing – the act of aligning with an athlete, sports team, or event in order to distract from unethical practices elsewhere – is driven by authoritarian states and is just about everywhere.

In June, Russia held the BRICS games, an event involving 82 countries competing across 27 sports.

Last week, the McLaren Formula 1 team, owned by Bahrain-backed McLaren Racing, competed at the Qatar Airways British Grand Prix.

This week, the United States men’s basketball team is playing exhibition games against the national teams of Australia and Serbia, albeit in the United Arab Emirates.

Next week the LIV Golf tournament, which is financed by Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, will take place in the United Kingdom.

Whereas sportswashing was once limited to a few isolated major events, such as the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin, it now pervades many aspects of international sport.

It may, however, be backfiring on the countries involved.

How sportswashing impacts fans

Sportswashing affects consumers in a number of ways.

First, it can lead to heightened awareness of the problematic actions of authoritarian regimes. For example, when the Abu Dhabi United Group took over ownership of Manchester City Football Club in 2008, fans became aware of the poor human rights record of the United Arab Emirates, where the group is backed by the royal family.

However, this increased awareness is offset by fans’ enjoyment from engaging with the team or attending the sports event.

Another example is when sport fans were made more aware of human rights abuses in Qatar through its hosting of the 2022 FIFA men’s soccer World Cup. Data collected from international tourists who attended the event reported overall satisfaction with the experience, in part because it allowed them to enjoy the activities surrounding the event as well as to forget about daily problems.

This distraction is what sportswashers seek.

Second, the attention paid to, and the money spent on, sportswashed events can contribute to the view that fans are complicit in it.

They must grapple with their passions for an event, team, or sport while questioning the unethical or questionable behaviour underpinning those events, teams, and sports.

Fans can also recognise the lucrative opportunities (for the teams and leagues they support) typically associated with sportswashing.

Sometimes fans push back.

Newcastle United supporters formed a group (NUFC Against Sportswashing), and have repeatedly protested the club’s ties to the Saudi government. Since 2020, German club Bayern Munich’s fans have repeatedly unveiled banners critical of the club’s dealings with Qatar at matches.

Propaganda is the key

Propaganda is at the heart of sportswashing.

The prevailing research identifies two main forms: “soft” propaganda, which tries to persuade audiences using subtle manipulation of public attitudes, and “hard” propaganda, which attempts to dominate audiences through absurdity, dogma and pretentiousness.

“Propaganda,” the chief Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels wrote, “becomes ineffective the moment we are aware of it”.

For contemporary authoritarian regimes, a key challenge is deciding on the amount of propaganda and whether it is soft or hard. We argue sportswashing, which relies on the soft form, is highly sensitive to this difficult balancing act.

Why some authoritarian regimes don’t sportswash

When authoritarian states fail to host major sports events, own teams and purchase sponsorships rights, they forgo an opportunity to persuade audiences of an alternate reality about their human rights records.

Indeed, hard-nosed authoritarian regimes such as Cambodia, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, and Turkmenistan are barely involved in the practice.

For some, the financial resources required to undertake regular sportswashing are too burdensome. For others, there are alternative “image management” strategies available to them.

Others make no attempt to cloak their authoritarian nature to international audiences.

With no sports to “wash” away their unethical practices internationally, authoritarian regimes risk having their abuses of political rights and civil liberties noticed.

Why sportswashing may be backfiring

When authoritarian states dominate the hosting, ownership and sponsorship of international sports, audiences become more aware they are being manipulated. In essence, the subtlety that soft propaganda depends on simply vanishes.

And by making sportswashing so ubiquitous, these sportswashers have actually increased awareness of how they infringe upon human rights and suffocate aspirations for democracy.

Media aggregation data, for example, reveals that the term sportswashing increased from 51 mentions in 2018 to more than 6,000 in 2023.

As the amount of sportswashing increases, authoritarian states may find themselves facing an uphill battle as many sport fans become increasingly socially conscious and more demanding of athletes, leagues, and teams.

Instead of limiting sportswashing to a few isolated major events on the international sporting calendar, its sheer pervasiveness now inadvertently empowers prospective consumers, apathetic onlookers and established critics.

So, as long as the world remains awash with sportswashing, more of it may backfire on the authoritarian regimes that perpetuate it.