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.”
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS