Late last week the Litvinenko report was published. In it was the claim that Vladimir Putin “probably” approved the murder of former Russian spy and UK citizen Alexander Litvinenko due to his opposition to Putin's regime. Many have called for a boycott of Russia's 2018 World Cup in light of the inquiry's findings.
This isn't the first time a boycott of the tournament has been called for. Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham (who contributes to our panel) has previously said that Britain should boycott the event to take a stand against corruption in FIFA. That another member of the Shadow Cabinet, Clive Efford, is on our panel and takes the opposite view to Burnham throws into sharp relief how split opinions are on this issue. In addition to this, Ivorian footballer Yaya Toure stated in 2013 that many black football players could boycott the tournament unless efforts are taken to tackle racism in Russian football.
So, is this inquiry the final straw? Should we all now support a boycott? Or should sport and politics be kept separate? Our panelists offer their views on what course of action we should take—if we qualify, that is.
Last week's report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko was one of the most shocking and disturbing ever presented to Parliament. That unparalleled act of state-sponsored terrorism must be met with a commensurate response. There are a number of diplomatic, economic and parliamentary matters and sanctions for the Government to consider. But cultural collaboration cannot be overlooked, especially given Putin's history of using sporting events to secure his presence on the world stage.
The Home Secretary had no response when I asked whether, given what the report reveals about the Russian government's links to organised crime and what we know about corruption within FIFA, there is a growing case for the UK to engage other counties in a debate about the 2018 World Cup taking place in Russia. The question will not go away—David Cameron must raise it with his counterparts.
Britain officially boycotted Russia's Olympics in 1980 over the occupation of Afghanistan (though not all of the UK's athletes took notice). Russia did not boycott's Britain's Olympics in 2012 for our occupation of Afghanistan. International sports festivals are nowadays part chauvinism, part swank and part cheating. How much is left for genuine sport is moot. It takes a strong stomach to take them at all seriously.
The idea of using a World Cup boycott to "express dismay" or "raise awareness" merely fuels the flames of hypocrisy. The likelihood of a boycott inducing the slightest remorse for the ten-year-old murder of Litvinenko is gesture politics at its most absurd. Russia should be banned from the Rio Olympics for cheating, but that is a different matter.
It amazes me that the World Cup has not been taken away from Russia already. Russia annexed Crimea and invaded Donbass, causing the deaths of over 9,000 people. Flight MH17 was shot down in an area controlled by Putin's forces. The Litvinenko inquiry describes the latest in the litany of crimes by Putin’s regime that have gone unpunished. Meanwhile, the Russian Embassy in the UK ridicules us on its Twitter account:
https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/690509733594140672?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
In addition, Russia is holding over 50 recognised political prisoners, including many Ukrainians, some of whom were abducted by Russia. For example, film director Oleg Sentsov has been sentenced to 20 years in prison. Recently Moscow activist Ildar Dadin was sentenced to three years in prison for protesting peacefully. His sentence has been condemned by Amnesty International.
Yes, the UK should boycott the World Cup if it takes place in Russia. To attend would be a disgrace and a capitulation.
The 2018 World Cup is not the point. The Litvinenko report is a reminder that a longer-term British approach to Russia is overdue. Here in Poland, as in the Baltic States, few people have doubts about what the chief occupant of the Kremlin, past or present, is capable of. I was staying with friends in Vilnius when Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov was shot dead close to the Kremlin last February. The news cast a dark shadow over breakfast, yet nobody was hugely surprised.
Sporting events aside, Britain has a range of instruments at its disposal, from looking into Russian money in London to strengthening its support for its allies in the east (this week the UK Ministry of Defence announced it would send some 1000 troops to take part in NATO exercises in Poland). It should also be thinking ahead, investing in the next generation of British Russia experts. It is time to think about Russia under Putin, but also beyond Putin.
England declaring unilaterally that it is not going to take part in the 2018 World Cup would be a futile political gesture. Politicians should not use international sport competitions as a proxy for political disagreements. Such gestures do not have the desired impact on the country that is the target of our anger and will certainly not bother Vladimir Putin. Such boycotts are often unenforceable and therefore ignored by the athletes, as happened to Margaret Thatcher in 1980 when Seb Coe was among those who defied her calls for a boycott.
The people that will be hurt by England refusing to go Russia will be the fans, the economy—which benefits greatly when England qualify for a World Cup—and the current generation of footballers who will have been denied the chance to compete against the world class players of their generation.
I support a League One football team that seldom wins trophies. For me, and millions like me, the only time I get support a team in a major competition is when England qualify for the Uefa or Fifa finals. A boycott only works with the cooperation of other major footballing nations, but no one will notice if stay at home on our own.
Though the allegations surrounding the murder of Alexander Litvinenko are concerning, attempts to make grand political points through sport rarely work and merely express the cowardice of politicians unwilling to make a proper political statement. The IAAF’s indefinite ban on Russian athletes is a perfect example. Russian athletes were far from being the only ones up to no good as regards doping and the ban is nothing more than a chance to demonstrate Western moral superiority. Russia has earned the right to host a World Cup as a long-standing contributor to global football, particularly as it has never hosted the tournament before. Calls for a boycott reek of bitterness in light of the rejected England bid. Russia 2018, and sport more broadly, should be judged purely on the quality of the athletic achievement on display, not turned into a quasi-Cold War.
In the late 1970s, human rights activists urged against letting the USSR hold the 1980 summer Olympics. It would send entirely the wrong message to people inside the country and to the Soviet leadership, they argued, and repeat the error of letting Nazi Germany host the Olympics in 1936. Many countries, sportsmen and women ignored the call and the Olympics went ahead, but the extent of the Moscow boycott was impressive. The message got through.
After Putin’s constant attacks on civil society in Russia, the Litvinenko Inquiry findings, and the annexation of Crimea—immediately after the Sochi Olympics, be it noted—it is more important than ever this time to impose a total boycott. The 2018 World Cup must not be held in Russia. The present regime must be denied the opportunity to host the world's most popular sporting event.
This isn't the first time a boycott of the tournament has been called for. Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham (who contributes to our panel) has previously said that Britain should boycott the event to take a stand against corruption in FIFA. That another member of the Shadow Cabinet, Clive Efford, is on our panel and takes the opposite view to Burnham throws into sharp relief how split opinions are on this issue. In addition to this, Ivorian footballer Yaya Toure stated in 2013 that many black football players could boycott the tournament unless efforts are taken to tackle racism in Russian football.
So, is this inquiry the final straw? Should we all now support a boycott? Or should sport and politics be kept separate? Our panelists offer their views on what course of action we should take—if we qualify, that is.
A rational response to state-sponsored terrorism
Andy Burnham, Shadow Home Secretary and MP for LeighLast week's report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko was one of the most shocking and disturbing ever presented to Parliament. That unparalleled act of state-sponsored terrorism must be met with a commensurate response. There are a number of diplomatic, economic and parliamentary matters and sanctions for the Government to consider. But cultural collaboration cannot be overlooked, especially given Putin's history of using sporting events to secure his presence on the world stage.
The Home Secretary had no response when I asked whether, given what the report reveals about the Russian government's links to organised crime and what we know about corruption within FIFA, there is a growing case for the UK to engage other counties in a debate about the 2018 World Cup taking place in Russia. The question will not go away—David Cameron must raise it with his counterparts.
Gesture politics at its most absurd
Simon Jenkins, Columnist for the GuardianBritain officially boycotted Russia's Olympics in 1980 over the occupation of Afghanistan (though not all of the UK's athletes took notice). Russia did not boycott's Britain's Olympics in 2012 for our occupation of Afghanistan. International sports festivals are nowadays part chauvinism, part swank and part cheating. How much is left for genuine sport is moot. It takes a strong stomach to take them at all seriously.
The idea of using a World Cup boycott to "express dismay" or "raise awareness" merely fuels the flames of hypocrisy. The likelihood of a boycott inducing the slightest remorse for the ten-year-old murder of Litvinenko is gesture politics at its most absurd. Russia should be banned from the Rio Olympics for cheating, but that is a different matter.
A litany of unpunished crimes
Sarah Hurst, Founder and Editor, X SovietIt amazes me that the World Cup has not been taken away from Russia already. Russia annexed Crimea and invaded Donbass, causing the deaths of over 9,000 people. Flight MH17 was shot down in an area controlled by Putin's forces. The Litvinenko inquiry describes the latest in the litany of crimes by Putin’s regime that have gone unpunished. Meanwhile, the Russian Embassy in the UK ridicules us on its Twitter account:
https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/690509733594140672?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
In addition, Russia is holding over 50 recognised political prisoners, including many Ukrainians, some of whom were abducted by Russia. For example, film director Oleg Sentsov has been sentenced to 20 years in prison. Recently Moscow activist Ildar Dadin was sentenced to three years in prison for protesting peacefully. His sentence has been condemned by Amnesty International.
Yes, the UK should boycott the World Cup if it takes place in Russia. To attend would be a disgrace and a capitulation.
Thinking beyond Putin
Annabelle Chapman, journalist, WarsawThe 2018 World Cup is not the point. The Litvinenko report is a reminder that a longer-term British approach to Russia is overdue. Here in Poland, as in the Baltic States, few people have doubts about what the chief occupant of the Kremlin, past or present, is capable of. I was staying with friends in Vilnius when Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov was shot dead close to the Kremlin last February. The news cast a dark shadow over breakfast, yet nobody was hugely surprised.
Sporting events aside, Britain has a range of instruments at its disposal, from looking into Russian money in London to strengthening its support for its allies in the east (this week the UK Ministry of Defence announced it would send some 1000 troops to take part in NATO exercises in Poland). It should also be thinking ahead, investing in the next generation of British Russia experts. It is time to think about Russia under Putin, but also beyond Putin.
The fans deserve more
Clive Efford, Shadow Minister for Culture, Media and Sport and MP for ElthamEngland declaring unilaterally that it is not going to take part in the 2018 World Cup would be a futile political gesture. Politicians should not use international sport competitions as a proxy for political disagreements. Such gestures do not have the desired impact on the country that is the target of our anger and will certainly not bother Vladimir Putin. Such boycotts are often unenforceable and therefore ignored by the athletes, as happened to Margaret Thatcher in 1980 when Seb Coe was among those who defied her calls for a boycott.
The people that will be hurt by England refusing to go Russia will be the fans, the economy—which benefits greatly when England qualify for a World Cup—and the current generation of footballers who will have been denied the chance to compete against the world class players of their generation.
I support a League One football team that seldom wins trophies. For me, and millions like me, the only time I get support a team in a major competition is when England qualify for the Uefa or Fifa finals. A boycott only works with the cooperation of other major footballing nations, but no one will notice if stay at home on our own.
A quasi-Cold War
Adam Rawcliffe works at the Institute of IdeasThough the allegations surrounding the murder of Alexander Litvinenko are concerning, attempts to make grand political points through sport rarely work and merely express the cowardice of politicians unwilling to make a proper political statement. The IAAF’s indefinite ban on Russian athletes is a perfect example. Russian athletes were far from being the only ones up to no good as regards doping and the ban is nothing more than a chance to demonstrate Western moral superiority. Russia has earned the right to host a World Cup as a long-standing contributor to global football, particularly as it has never hosted the tournament before. Calls for a boycott reek of bitterness in light of the rejected England bid. Russia 2018, and sport more broadly, should be judged purely on the quality of the athletic achievement on display, not turned into a quasi-Cold War.
Let's get the message through
John Crowfoot, Rights in Russia NGO (trustee; in a private capacity)In the late 1970s, human rights activists urged against letting the USSR hold the 1980 summer Olympics. It would send entirely the wrong message to people inside the country and to the Soviet leadership, they argued, and repeat the error of letting Nazi Germany host the Olympics in 1936. Many countries, sportsmen and women ignored the call and the Olympics went ahead, but the extent of the Moscow boycott was impressive. The message got through.
After Putin’s constant attacks on civil society in Russia, the Litvinenko Inquiry findings, and the annexation of Crimea—immediately after the Sochi Olympics, be it noted—it is more important than ever this time to impose a total boycott. The 2018 World Cup must not be held in Russia. The present regime must be denied the opportunity to host the world's most popular sporting event.
