Should international sport events be boycotted on political grounds?

[Martinus]

You Poles and Ukes need to settle this on the battlefield.

Actually, most Poles (and Polish politicians) are against the boycott. I'm also against it but I hate the argument that one should not "mix sport with politics". I just think that Timoshenko is a seedy person and we should not get embroiled in Ukrainian power faction plays.

Also, since 1638, we are not big fans of meeting Ukes on the battlefield.

[Gups]

Yes.  The cricket and rugby boycotts of South Africa were right.  But it should be up for sporting bodies not politicians.

Yes, because sporting bodies have such a great record in these matters. World cups 1934, 78 Olympics 1936 etc

International sports teams represent their contries, not their sporting organisations.Since thhose bodies are generallty representative of nobody, they have no moral right to make such decisions, only a government does.

[Sheilbh]

Sporting bodies haven't done well but I don't know that governments would do any better.  I think governments would be more likely to boycott over political points at rivals - like 1980, or I could imagine an Argentine government boycotting the UK - than a moral point like the campaigns against tours in South Africa.  Sporting bodies can also be put under greater pressure by campaigners than governments, I think, because they don't have to balance offence caused with other considerations.

But sporting bodies do often get it wrong, especially if they're as purely mercenary as the FIA.

[CountDeMoney]

I was watching the news yesterday, saw that the fact the Saudi team is the only Olympic participant that doesn't allow women was rubbing some people the wrong way.  I don't see the Brits blocking the Saudis, though.

It is counter to the IOC charter, however.

[Martinus]

Not sure I understand that sentiment. Sure, we all know politicians are crooked and corrupt but at least they are (in theory at least) answerable to the public. Officials in UEFA or FIFA or the International Olympic Committee are not less crooked and corrupt, but they answer to noone. Why the hell do you believe them more competent to make that decision? 

I meant national sporting bodies.  It's a fair point about FIFA and the IOC but I don't think they'd ever support a boycott of one of their lucrative money-making opportunities/magnificent sporting events - the one exception I can think of is that I think the worldwide Rugby Union banned South Africa from the World Cup.  But I think it's for, say, the FA to decide whether or not to send a team to the Euros not for No. 10 - though it's difficult to know whose omnishambles is greater.

Ok I see what you mean. I thought your point was that politicians shouldn't be making the kind of choice the German politicians are making now (e.g. not to attend sport events in Ukraine).

[Sheilbh]

Ok I see what you mean. I thought your point was that politicians shouldn't be making the kind of choice the German politicians are making now (e.g. not to attend sport events in Ukraine).

Oh no.  That's entirely for politicians to decide.  I think Sarko refused to go to 2008.

[CountDeMoney]

Hey Sheilbh, why do you have Adam Sandler as an avatar?

[Sheilbh]

Hey Sheilbh, why do you have Adam Sandler as an avatar?

It's Thom Gunn, sadly under-rated poet - though his stock's rising:
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/bio/thom-gunn

[alfred russel]

There are targeted boycotts/embargoes all the time--Iran for example. I don't know why sports should be excluded from potential action--especially since they can generate emotional angst without significant economic discomfort (or worse) on a population.

[CountDeMoney]

Hey Sheilbh, why do you have Adam Sandler as an avatar?

Heh, lulz. 

[Barrister]

I don't get the argument of "you shouldn't mix politics with sports".

They're only sports.  22 men kicking a little ball around.  Why the hell shouldn't sports be subject to politics?

I'm all for sports boycotts.  I think in this particular case it's an excellent way of putting pressure on the Ukrainian government.

[Valmy]

It is simply a question of liberty. The British government (for one) has no right to impose a boycott on any of our national sporting organisations. But that doesn't mean that the organisations themselves can't choose to impose a boycott.

The US Government forbids me to do all sorts of things for political reasons, like do business in Iran, I do not see any pariticular reason they cannot do the same to a sports body.

[Martinus]

I don't get the argument of "you shouldn't mix politics with sports".

They're only sports.  22 men kicking a little ball around.  Why the hell shouldn't sports be subject to politics?

I'm all for sports boycotts.  I think in this particular case it's an excellent way of putting pressure on the Ukrainian government.

The problem is that in this case a boycott just plays into Russia's hands. Timoshenko was a Russian crony and a boycott at this time will simply mean Ukraine gets pushed further into Russian hands.

Not to mention, I think the whole debacle is just an excuse for the countries who are against Ukrainian EU accession to score a few points.

[Richard Hakluyt]

It is simply a question of liberty. The British government (for one) has no right to impose a boycott on any of our national sporting organisations. But that doesn't mean that the organisations themselves can't choose to impose a boycott.

The US Government forbids me to do all sorts of things for political reasons, like do business in Iran, I do not see any pariticular reason they cannot do the same to a sports body.

Thinking about it I reckon we all have more or less arbitrary lines which we feel that government should not cross. For me it makes sense that our government prevents us from selling weapons or nuclear technology to Iran. Banning all trade I'm not so sure about. Preventing British citizens from visiting Iran to kick a ball about seems a step too far to me. There is a spectrum of restrictions here and people will favour different positions on that spectrum. In general, I feel that nowadays government pokes and pries far too much into matters that should be the province of other areas of society, such as the individual, family, sporting association etc etc

[Barrister]

I don't get the argument of "you shouldn't mix politics with sports".

They're only sports.  22 men kicking a little ball around.  Why the hell shouldn't sports be subject to politics?

I'm all for sports boycotts.  I think in this particular case it's an excellent way of putting pressure on the Ukrainian government.

The problem is that in this case a boycott just plays into Russia's hands. Timoshenko was a Russian crony and a boycott at this time will simply mean Ukraine gets pushed further into Russian hands.

Not to mention, I think the whole debacle is just an excuse for the countries who are against Ukrainian EU accession to score a few points.

I have no doubt Timoshenko is somewhat crooked - she is a Ukrainian politician after all.  But everythign I've read had Timoshenko and Yuschenko as being more western-oriented, while Yanukovich was more Russian-oriented.  Now since taking power Yanukovich has on the one hand being playing the role of an eastern european authoritarian very well, he has been cautious about getting too close to Russia.

But the entire case against Timoshenko has been a blatant political process throughout.