The idea that politics does not have a huge influence on sport is a surprisingly commonplace falsehood. The symbolism that can be achieved through sport is impossible to resist for governments around the world. Whether it is an inspirational victory, a validation of status or a participation choice, all countries understand the power of sport. Nowhere is that the case more than at the Olympics.

After the rampant politicization of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, the IOC’s decision to choose Rio de Janeiro as the host city in 2016 could return the innocence to what is supposed to be a celebratory festival of sport. Even a special address from US President Barack Obama could not dissuade the delegates of the International Olympic Committee from awarding the Games to South America for the first time. That President Obama felt it appropriate to effectively pitch on Chicago’s behalf is testament to how much of an influence politics has on sport in general, and the Olympics in particular.

Ever since the Nazis realised the huge propaganda potential of the Olympic Games at Berlin in 1936, it has become an opportunity for nations to make political points, protest against the behaviour of other nations and even use as a distraction to launch wars. There have been organised boycotts, acts of terrorism and more recently, the advent of commercialisation. But the most obvious example of politics almost overshadowing the sport was China’s hosting of the Games in 2008, which will undoubtedly go down as a watershed moment for overt politics in the Olympic movement.

Even before the Games began, controversy had raged for several different reasons. Many people were unhappy that Beijing had been chosen as the host because of China’s poor record on human rights. There was also outrage at China’s repressive regime, both at home and in Nepal and Taiwan. Criticism of the country’s suitability was manifested when the Olympic torch relay became a huge embarrassment. There were protest in many parts of the world and Chinese security became increasingly overpowering.

The opening ceremony in Beijing will go down in history for its spectacle, size and grandeur, as well as the political ramifications once the participating nations were presented. Opening ceremonies for any sports event have long been mocked as pointless and unnecessary, but Beijing 2008 changed all that. A stunning visual show and perfectly choreographed performances were primarily extremely entertaining but also, in a political sense, a major representation of strength. Hundreds of drummers gave an almost tribal performance which evoked soldiers on a battlefield preparing for war. The enormous size and evident cost of the show was a purposeful effort from the Chinese to show the rest of the world how powerful they are.

The parading of nations is a tradition of the opening ceremony and has always provided an opportunity for governments to make a political point, which was very much the case in Beijing. The television commentary for the parade tended to focus more on each nation’s relationship with China rather than the athletes’ achievements and prospects. Taiwan were eventually allowed to enter as a separate entity but were referred to as 'Chinese Taipei', a small example of China’s repression. The United States were given a huge cheer by the crowd, showing China’s admiration for a country whose power they would like to match. Protracted negotiations between North and South Korea failed to reach an accord so both entered separate teams, and both received starkly different reactions from the Bird’s Nest Stadium crowd.

Something as seemingly insignificant as the chosen flag-bearer became an avenue for subtle political protest. For example, France’s flag-bearer was outspoken in his criticism of China, and the USA chose a Sudanese refugee out of hundreds of athletes as a clear point to China’s role in the problems in Darfur. Cameras searched to see which leaders were present and who had stayed away in protest. Bush, Putin and Sarkozy were present for example, which appeased the Chinese government, but Gordon Brown did not attend. Such things are considered incredibly important in the political arena.

London 2012 will certainly not match the spectacle of Beijing 2008, largely because of a lack of financial strength in comparison to China. The likelihood of a new government next year may also prohibit a repeat of the previous politicization. The 2016 Games in Rio could provide a fresh start to the Olympic movement, reminding everybody that first and foremost it should be a celebration of sporting competition. But if the history of the Olympics guarantees one thing, it is that the Games will not be solely about sport. However, it is unlikely that we will ever again see such a meaningful show of power as in Beijing.

Website team