Politics-based sports boycotts never work

There are plenty of reasons why England should boycott this year’s World Cup in Russia, although early indications are not totally in favour of such a snub. Two reasons against the idea of non-participation, however, are quite solid: Mixing up sports with politics only serves to hinder athletes’ progress, and this sort of measure has never worked.
The current spy row between Russia and Britain is a serious diplomatic matter, but a World Cup boycott by England would only make matters worse. Symptoms of the Cold War era would re-emerge and before we know it the dividing line that has only recently faded would become vivid once again. Nations would feel the need to either participate in the tournament or ignore it, their absence or involvement interpreted in different ways at the highest international levels.
Let’s make the poisoning affair strictly a matter between England and Russia. Let’s make it strictly a political, not a sporting, matter. We have seen time and again that sporting events boycotted because of politics never resolve conflicts. In fact, international tensions increase every time a major sport tournament is boycotted.
The Olympic Games, of course, have been a major victim of this. For years they were subjected to the political whims of superpower nations, who used their boycotts to embarrass or take revenge on enemies. Did the boycotts help? Never. Diplomatic disputes were never resolved and the people most affected were those who trained hard to take on the world’s best in athletic competition.
The World Cup itself has seen its share of major boycotts, although international politics has played a lesser role compared with the Olympics. High-profile boycotts involved disputes over quality and included the very first Cup winners, Uruguay, who won the trophy at home in 1930 but were  dismayed that only four European teams took part and so declined to defend their title in Italy four years later.
Uruguay maintained the boycott for the 1938 tournament, held in France. Argentina, who had expected to host, believing the Cup should be contested alternately between South America and Europe, joined in the boycott after protesting loudly against the selection of France right after Italy.
The current talk about a boycott has nothing to do with sporting fairness. European countries are watching England closely, because a boycott would come as a major blow. Some news commentaries have been in favour of England’s absence, saying Britain’s expulsion of Russian diplomats has already rendered England’s World Cup participation this year untenable.
An England pullout would almost certainly lead to a “revenge” boycott – or several of them. What is less certain, but very likely to happen, is that the countries siding with either England or Russia could join in the fray. Football would be more heavily politicised, and the question of who’s the best in football would not be decided at the World Cup, nor who’s the best in any other sport with an overarching tournament. There would be claims and counter-claims as to which nation is best, all because of politicians waging battle.
The latest reports coming out of England seem to confirm that its national team will take part in the Cup. That’s good news for fans of the game – and for all those who remember the frustration shared over sporting boycotts during the Cold War.