Look beyond FIFA 2022: Islamic preacher, Iran protest, BBC probe show how politics intersects with sport

Is this about football? Is this about cricket? Or is it about something bigger, larger and more profound?

Being kicked around is not a good thing, unless you are a lifeless piece of leather dancing at the feet of international heroes in one of the world's greatest sporting shows. And that could be one of the messages from Qatar, where a loud silence in a crowded stadium, a controversial Islamist preacher wanted by Indian police and a probing media entity looking at the dirt behind the razzmatazz are making things more political that an average soccer lover might expect from the FIFA World Cup tournament.

'What do they know of cricket, who cricket only know?' is a popular quote from Trinidadian cricket philosopher C.L.R. James. The writer used cricket to highlightaspects of racism, colonialism and the subjugation and injustice of people associated with the game. Cricket is often a metaphor for fair play but the creators of the game, the English, have had to face the backlash associated with their colonial rule that took the sport to the rest of the world. During the World Cup cricket tournament in India in 1996, race differences came to the fore when it was reported that fancied West Indies did not entirely mind losing controversially to Kenya, because, after all, it was a non-white team. This was the high point of Mike Marquesee's fascinating cultural look at the 1996 World Cup, 'War Minus The Shooting' whose title is based on George Orwell's description of international sport.

Add WION as a Preferred Source

I need to stop myself from reeling off a number of political instances relating to cricket, a game I am more familiar with, and instead paraphrase the legendary cricket saying for the Qatar event: 'What do they know of football, who football only know?'

Eyebrows and hackles went up in India as Islamic preacher Zakir Naik, accused by law enforcers of money laundering and hate speeches, was photographed during the World Cup as a side show of the tournament as a special invitee of Qatar. Naik is a fugitive who has been given permanent residence in Malaysia, but is himself barred from making speeches there. Enough said.

A clue as to why Qatar wants to showcase the controversial preacher and his brand of Islam might come from a research project at US-based Duke University that chronicles links between football and politics.

The project notesthat Argentina's military dictators used the 1978 World Cup to show the rest of the world that all was hunky-dory under their strongarm rule. It seems Qatar now wants to show to the rest of the Muslim world that it is more Islamic than Saudi Arabia, with whom it has a rivalry described as the "New Arab Cold War." This more-Muslim-than-thou attitude, from what I can gather, must be aimed by Doha at increasing its influence in the Gulf region, even as it steps on the toes of India, and indeed, the rest of South Asia, where Zakir Naik is widely seen as having influenced radical Islamist violence. Or maybe, just maybe, the Islamist air cover and a ban on beer in the stadia may be just a way for Qatar to opiate Muslim masses and divert their attention from the celebratory decadence in richly built infrastructure. WhatsApp forwards are showing pretty women from various nationalities cheering footballers in Qatar, with their faces and much else uncovered. In case you missed it, whisky and champagne will be available at hospitality areas during the World Cup, and beer will be available in downtown Doha at the FIFA Fan Festival. Hic!

But where there is cold diplomacy and barely undercover partying, there is also poignant politics, if there is something that can be described thus.

As Iran's football team stood in silent defiance, refusedthe sing their own national anthem even as they readied to play for their country, it was an elegant rebellion against Teheran's Islamic regime whose state-authorised moral police has triggered widespread anti-hijab protests by students, artists, and as it turns out now, popular sportspeople.

Now, consider this: A research paper in the American Economic Review, citingsub-Saharan examples, said two years ago that the success of a national team can be a useful tool in nation-building because "millions of people are able to set aside differences in politics, religion and identity and choose to lock horns in support of their national team."

It becomes fascinating when you learn that the authors of the research paper were from Brazil, Argentina and Italy, who as economists sunk their childhood soccer rivalries to methodically discuss the sport-politics link, drawing from their own personal experiences. What happened in Qatar is, more fascinatingly, a case of a people sinking their differences and forgetting their fears to unite and rise against their own government's oppressive politics.

The Duke University project notes that sport, especially football, was used in the 1930s to 1950s period by dictatorial regimes in Europe as a mechanism to show others in the continent that they were successful. What the Iranian team has done is the opposite: It showcased the failure of their own government. This is a bit like India winning the World Cup cricket in 1983 in the soil of their former colonial masters. Tables turn, and sport becomes an arena of historic upheavals. But it doesn't help Iran's anti-government protesters when their team loses badly to England, as they did at the Khalifa stadium. Winners carry more political weight.

While Iranians staged silent protests and Qatari authorities mixed and unmixed beer and football, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) decided to focuson the treatment of migrant workers, corruption in FIFA and the ban on homosexuality in the Arab country. Is the BBC an extension of UK's foreign policy? Or is this a case of a jealous media company snidely snubbing its homegrown Qatari rival Al Jazeera? Or is this, simply put, real journalism that focuses on the dark truths behind a glitzy event?

Perhaps it is a mix of all three. What is more real is that politics and sport are interconnected in ways that go beyond the obvious matches at the World Cup.

Politics, after all, is the ultimate kick for many. And it is a goal for some. The cup runneth over.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)