Why sports and politics can’t be separated: Rowan historian on the 2026 FIFA World Cup

As the 2026 FIFA World Cup approaches, global attention is once again turning to the intersection of sports, politics and human rights. For Debbie Sharnak, associate professor of history and international studies at Rowan, the tournament offers an opportunity to better understand the concept increasingly shaping conversations around global sports: sportswashing.

Sharnak serves as director of the Hollybush Institute for Global Peace and Security and co-coordinator for Rowan’s Sports, Society and Civic Leadership program. Her research examines how global history can be understood through the lens of sports and how sporting events can illuminate broader social and political dynamics.

Sharnak sat down with Rowan Today writers to discuss the meaning of sportswashing, its historical roots and why sports continue to shape political conversations around the globe.

Explain sportswashing. Can you give an example from history?

Sportswashing refers to the use of sporting events by governments or leaders in power to improve reputation, distract from controversy or downplay human rights abuses. One of the clearest historical examples is the 1978 FIFA World Cup in Argentina. Argentina’s military junta seized power in 1976, and the World Cup took place at the height of the dictatorship – where the most people were being killed, arrested, tortured and held as political prisoners.

The dictatorship sees the World Cup as a chance to project to the world the image of a modern, civilized state to show that any accusations of human rights violations are nonsense. They pay millions of dollars and hire a PR firm to help with that project, which is one of the first time you see this idea of “sportswashing” in use, though we are applying that label back to this time. It’s using sports to try and clean their image because of the criticism of the regime.

For the 1978 World Cup, was sportswashing successful? What was the response?

There was an interesting dynamic taking place. At the same time that the military regime is trying to use the tournament to improve its image, domestic groups in Argentina, such as the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, were also trying to figure out how to fight back against this regime. Activists saw the World Cup as an opportunity to speak out, knowing a massive number of journalists would be coming to their country for the games. Their thinking was the world might not read all the latest news articles on human rights issues, but they might learn about their plight if it is tied to the World Cup.

Before the World Cup, international human rights groups also got involved and there was an attempt to boycott the games that ultimately failed. Amnesty International ends up being the first global organization to launch a multifaceted and multi-pronged campaign during the World Cup to try and get the word out about these violations—not based on boycott but based on raising awareness and putting pressure on the Argentine regime to stop their abuses because of increased scrutiny and pressure.

The big takeaway is that this was precedent-setting. This was a new frontier for Amnesty International as it launched its first global campaign tied to a sporting event and used the World Cup’s visibility to draw attention to abuses. This is now a common tactic and Amnesty International, as well as many other civil society organizations, are involved in using mega-sporting events to bring social justice issues to the attention of the global community, including the upcoming World Cup.

What should fans keep in mind heading into the 2026 World Cup? Can you help contextualize some of the headlines we’re seeing ahead of this year’s games?

What we already know is not going to happen this year is a boycott, although discussion around them can bring press to the issues activists are trying to mobilize around. In this way, boycotts are a fascinating window into how disempowered athletes or workers try to get their message out to the general public. As we know, boycotts have been utilized or at least attempted throughout history, but they’re rarely effective unless you have complete buy-in from everyone. We also see significant criticism or detraction from boycotts because of the athletes that are hampered by that. 

Scholars have evaluated boycotts as being largely ineffective in getting any political point across, but they can be effective in garnering attention and media coverage.

There are a lot of issues around the World Cups taking place this year though. We are seeing increased human rights discussion about the World Cup regarding labor disputes, hotel workers striking, inaccessible ticket prices, and immigration concerns. These problematic issues began well before the tournament, but the World Cup can bring discussion around these concerns into sharper focus. People aren’t thinking about the treatment of hotel workers 365 days of the year, but the World Cup, for example, is an opportunity to highlight the unfairness and make people pay attention. It just shows how over time sports has been used to highlight issues that have been taking place for a long time before the sporting events and often occurs a long time after as well.

Why should people pay attention to sportswashing? How do you respond to the sentiment that sports should be separate from politics?

People have always tried to claim that sports is separate from politics and should be a separate sphere that we just enjoy without thinking about any of the broader social concerns. What my research shows and what we discuss in my classes are that they are inextricably linked. We shouldn’t pretend otherwise. Although we all like to watch a game and just enjoy it for the sake of enjoying it, it’s impossible to fully ignore and silence the deeply engrained social issues that athletes and communities face in the places that where these sports take place.

You see this come up at every single Olympics basically, especially in the last few years. I talk more about that in an article I did with Yannick Kluch for Time, details “Rule 50” which originated in the 1950’s and bans protests and political statements at Olympic venues. It argues that the Olympics have never been politically neutral, despite the International Olympic Committee promoting that idea for decades. Clearly, there are power dynamics going on in the world and this is a unique platform to talk about them.

There are major issues of concern about the World Cup in 2026 that intersect with major global politics. They include Iranian players and fans coming to the United States in the midst of a war between our two countries, and in this way, questions surrounding player’s visas and international conflict are part of the conversation surrounding the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Again, you’re seeing in real time how international politics and conflicts cannot be divorced from sporting events.

Why should someone care about the World Cup if they are not a soccer fan?

What we’ve seen from activists is that they’re trying to reach the people that care about sports, but don’t always care about politics or social issues. So, those activists are looking at the opposite kind of consideration.

But if you are someone that cares about the world and cares about social issues, the FIFA World Cup and these mega sporting events are also opportunities for them to learn about communities that one might not have learned about otherwise. It’s an opportunity for people to understand that sports is part of the larger social, political and cultural dynamic in the world as well.

It behooves us to learn about how this has operated historically and how this operates now as an opportunity to understand the world in which we live. Whether it’s music, pop culture or sports, these are all chances for us to enhance our knowledge of the world outside of formal politics. That’s my little plug for why we should continue to study history and why my classes do not only talk about what’s going on in Washington, D.C. or London or the capitals of the world, but what’s happening on soccer fields and arenas. It’s important to learn about how people live their everyday lives as well. That’s why we have this new minor and certificate program too. We want these types of studies to be a offer a more sustained examination of how we understand issues through sports, and some of the dynamics in our societies, politics, human rights, class, gender – all of which can be expressed and understood through studying these issues in the context in which they operate.

The above Q&A was written with assistance of AI using testimony given by Dr. Debbie Sharnak, associate professor of history at Rowan University.