You cannot put a price on principles, but there have always been plenty of people willing to try.
In the 1980s, when the sporting boycott of apartheid South Africa was holding relatively firm, the casino operators of Sun City would try to lure global sports stars to play one-off exhibition matches that broke the ban. John McEnroe, then at the height of his rebellious powers, turned down one such paycheck, aged 24, with the memorable observation: “I’ve got better ways of earning a million bucks.”
In the context of the money commanded by today’s stars, the bribe offered to McEnroe might sound trivial. It is worth remembering that in 1983, the single million-dollar evening’s work would have been 10 times what he banked for winning that year’s Wimbledon.
There were, of course, plenty of players willing to take the cash, such as McEnroe’s rivals Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl, who went for US$400,000 and US$300,000 respectively.
Arthur Ashe, the black US tennis legend and anti-apartheid campaigner, would try to dissuade anyone offered what he called Sun City’s “guilt premium.” One group was always the hardest to convince, Ashe recalled: “Golfers have their heads in the sand, all of them. They’re all 5-foot-11, blond, right-wing Republicans. They don’t give a damn.”
When, as in the past couple of weeks, there has been talk of sporting boycotts on political grounds, it is the example of the South Africa ban that is most relevant, not least because of those life-changing incentives that were rejected.
The apparently disturbing treatment of the tennis player Peng Shuai (彭帥) since her allegations of sexual abuse against a leading Chinese Communist Party official has personalized the horrific human rights abuses of the Chinese government, just as the world’s broadcasters prepare to kowtow to Beijing’s hosting of the Winter Olympics in February.
In the context of the general reluctance to sanction the biggest market on Earth, the Women’s Tennis Association’s (WTA) determined stance to boycott tournaments in China until the safety of Peng Shuai is properly established is a rare example of an organization willing to put its money where its mouth is. The WTA’s protest could cost it many millions of yuan in sponsorship.
It also makes the International Olympic Committee, which appeared all too willing to take Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) at his word over staged interviews with Peng, look predictably craven.
Such is the poisonous love triangle between global sport, global money and repressive governments that comparable ethical conflicts are routinely built into the sporting calendar. One of the questions facing all athletes and competitors is: Which battles are worth fighting?
Lewis Hamilton has been among the most vocal of sporting heroes in promoting Black Lives Matter. In Saudi Arabia on Sunday, he raced for the F1 world championship wearing a rainbow colored helmet in support of LGBTQ+ rights in a country where same-sex relationships can carry the death penalty.
That loud and proud commitment is admirable, but it has also been notable that Hamilton, one of the world’s elite influencers, has so far had nothing to say about his Mercedes team’s new sponsor, Kingspan, the industrial insulation manufacturer that has been implicated in the ongoing inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire, which killed 72 people in 2017 and was one of the UK’s worst modern disasters.
Hamilton has in the past expressed his support on Instagram for the Grenfell survivors, many of whom feel understandably betrayed by his team’s lucrative association with Kingspan. No doubt, if he does come to address the issue, Hamilton would suggest that he has little control over which names Mercedes opts to plaster over his car (and, if he started down that route, he might add, he would certainly have cause to examine the history of Petronas, his team’s principle sponsor).
However, his silence on Kingspan invites critics to call him a hypocrite.
British Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Michael Gove was not slow in making that charge against Hamilton’s team, demanding that Mercedes reconsider its deal. It is, again, telling which culture wars the politicians choose to wage.
While Gove might have found the time to make insinuations about the double standards of perhaps the highest-profile black sportsman in the UK, he had nothing at all to say when faced, for example, with the news that the murderous Saudi Arabian royal family were buying up Newcastle United FC (no doubt sensing, in silence, an easy win for his “leveling-up” plans).
Such is the ubiquity of sport, such is the attraction of “sportwashing” to toxic regimes and dubious corporations, that no armchair fan is quite immune to these kinds of ethical dilemmas. How many season tickets have been returned to Newcastle’s St James’ Park in the name of the murdered Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi? Or, on a lesser scale, how many Christmas stockings will contain replica shirts that make every fan a walking advert for offshore betting companies?
Every sports fan has principles until an oligarch throws money at their team. It is usually at that point that they voice the argument that sport should not be the single blunt instrument with which to hold rogue states or corporations to account. Or, rather, that it represents a priceless source of soft power or “quiet diplomacy.”
There is merit in those arguments, but it is also worth holding in mind that these were the same formulations used by those who went to apartheid South Africa — the golfers and the tennis players and the rebel cricket tourists — just as they were pocketing their “guilt premium.”
In an age of gesture politics, one thing the past couple of weeks has emphasized is that, at the very least, ethics do not always need to dissolve in the face of financial penalty. Sport has come to enjoy the grand political gesture almost as much as the sponsors’ millions.
Taking the knee is one laudable thing, but taking a hit in your own or your organization’s pay packet to protest about something you believe in always carries a more powerful weight. Sometimes, as the WTA has tried to say, as John McEnroe and Arthur Ashe once said, genuine symbolic power lies in simply insisting: “Our principles are not for sale.”
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS