Sport + Politics = War minus shooting?:From IND-PAK handshake row to Trump threatening to shift Olympics, how no pitch stays neutral

Sport has long claimed to exist above politics. Yet, from Kabul to Washington and Dubai, recent developments show how political power, nationalism and diplomacy continue to shape the global playing field or so it seems. Trump’s remarks on World Cup, Olympics draw global attention United States President Donald Trump recently said that Boston could lose its hosting rights for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, citing “street takeovers” and what he described as poor safety and governance. He also suggested that the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics could be relocated- remarks that drew swift reactions from sports officials and city administrators. FIFA and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have not commented officially on his statements. While the US President has no legal authority to alter tournament venues, his words drew attention to the growing overlap between political leadership and global sporting governance. Dr Heather L. Dichter, Associate Professor of Sport History at De Montfort University, in an interaction with Bhaskar English, observed the inseparable nature of sports and politics. “International sport has long mirrored political realities. The Cold War is the biggest example- the capitalist West versus the communist East, played out in the sporting arena instead of a ‘hot’ war.” India-Pakistan tensions spill into Asia Cup In South Asia, the recent India-Pakistan encounters at the 2025 Asia Cup reignited another debate over the intersection of sport and diplomacy. Indian players declined post-match handshakes with their Pakistani counterparts after their Asia Cup matches in Dubai amid heightened tensions following the Pahalgam terror attack. Later, the Indian team also declined to receive the Asia Cup trophy from Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) chairman Mohsin Naqvi, who concurrently heads the Asian Cricket Council. The PCB called the incident “regrettable”, while Indian officials offered no public comment. Sports historian Boria Majumdar tells Bhaskar English that such acts cannot be dismissed as mere emotion. Whenever we say sports and politics do not mix, that’s a political statement in itself. Even a simple handshake, or the refusal of one, carries diplomatic weight. Afghanistan withdraw after airstrike row The Afghanistan Cricket Board (ACB) withdrew from the upcoming tri-nation T20 series in Pakistan after airstrikes in Paktika province reportedly killed several civilians, including three domestic Afghan cricketers. In its statement, the ACB called the incident “a cowardly attack by the Pakistani regime” and said the withdrawal was a mark of respect for the victims. Captain Rashid Khan backed the decision, saying that the lives lost included “young players and civilians”. Pakistan’s government has not responded publicly. The tri-series, also involving Sri Lanka, was to be held in Lahore and Rawalpindi in November. According to Dichter, symbolic withdrawals like this one rarely bring political change – but they send a message. Exclusion from sport has the potential to make a political issue more visible. Boycotts or withdrawals might not shift policy, but they highlight injustice on a global stage. Pakistan pull out of Junior Hockey World Cup Adding to the regional fallout, Pakistan recently withdrew from the upcoming Junior Hockey World Cup, scheduled to be held in Chennai and Madurai from November 28. The International Hockey Federation (FIH) confirmed the pullout, citing that Pakistan’s decision was formally communicated and that a replacement team will be announced soon. Officially, the move was attributed to “logistical and administrative reasons” but sports analysts say political tensions likely played a role, a reminder that even development-level competitions are not immune to diplomatic strain. Politics and sport- a long-standing link The tension between neutrality and nationalism in sport is far from new. In the 20th century, several global sporting bodies imposed restrictions or bans tied to world events. Germany and Japan were barred from the Olympics after World War II. South Africa endured a three-decade exile (1964-1992) for apartheid. During the Cold War, the 1980 Moscow and 1984 Los Angeles Olympics were boycotted by rival political blocs. Dichter points out that even “neutral” decisions by governing bodies carry political implications. Recognising a national sports federation can itself be tacit acceptance of a political regime. The IOC punished Indonesia for refusing Taiwan’s participation in the 1962 Asian Games- neutrality is easier said than done. Most recently, Russia and Belarus were barred from the 2024 Paris Olympics after the Ukraine invasion, with athletes allowed only as “neutral participants”. A stage for protest- then and now Majumdar notes that international sport has always served as a platform for protest and symbolism. Take the 1936 Berlin Olympics- most countries performed the Hitler salute except India and the United States. That decision itself became an act of nationalist significance. From the Black Power salute of Tommy Smith and John Carlos in 1968 to Muhammad Ali lighting the torch in Atlanta or Cathy Freeman running in Sydney- these are all deeply political gestures. He adds that such acts are not “just posturing”, as some critics suggest. They have major diplomatic impact because ‘sport is war minus the shooting’ (a quote from George Orwell). Every symbolic act- a walkout, a flag, a refusal- tells the world where you stand. The field remains political From presidential remarks in the United States to handshake refusals in Dubai and withdrawals in South Asia, the past few months have underlined a truth that historians and athletes seem to have recognised: sport is never insulated from politics. As Dichter puts it, “In the 21st century, we have shifted from full boycotts to diplomatic ones- the absence of a leader can now speak louder than the absence of a team.” And as Majumdar reminds us, “Each act on the sporting field, however small, is loaded with political meaning. It always has been and it always will be.”