Athletic events such as the Olympics are often viewed as mere entertainment or sports competition. However, they have historically occupied a powerful middle ground, functioning as links between alienated countries and tools for diplomacy. Beyond medals and glory lies a system of soft power ties, where sporting events can become symbolic representations of conflict and struggle between nations.
For instance, during the 1969 Civil War in Nigeria, the nation held a 48-hour truce to let civilians watch Pelé, a three-time FIFA World Cup winner, play soccer; this truce ended combat, although temporarily, and enabled both sides to honor those who lost their lives and visit their family. Alternatively, following qualification for the 2006 World Cup, Didier Drogba, an Ivorian Coast soccer player, delivered a plea for peace during the First Ivorian Civil War, which resulted in a ceasefire shortly afterwards. Similarly, the Olympic Games functioned as a global event capable of reintegrating countries into the world community. Following the fall of the Berlin Wall and German reunification, a unified German team participated in the 1992 Summer Olympics in Barcelona, Spain. In these moments, sport served as a universal language and platform for peace. It brought the world closer together, one match at a time.
However, sports and major events such as the Olympics have been used by authoritarian regimes to mask their dark sides and atrocities behind an innocent facade. This practice, now coined as “sportswashing,” dates back almost a century with the first notable example being the 1936 Olympic Games in Germany. The Nazi regime utilized the Games and their image as propaganda to present a prosperous image of Germany and a civilized regime to an international audience. Meanwhile, they continued to perform mass atrocities across Europe.
In the same way that sporting events are seen as representations of a country, athletes themselves often become even more direct symbols of national identity.
Alysa Liu’s path to the Olympic gold at the 2026 Olympic Winter Games and her return to competitive figure skating have also made her a symbol of national pride, garnering the adoration of millions of Americans with not only her skills but also for what she stands for outside of the rink, openly advocating for immigrant rights following her victory. Similarly, both athletes and their accolades have demonstrated how athletes can influence global narratives in ways that politics cannot.
While geopolitical tensions have always existed, the pressures surrounding athletes today have evolved. The modern development of social media has amplified criticism, prejudice, and discrimination while also making them more common by creating echo chambers and creating stereotypes through mass media, which expedites the spread of fact and propaganda alike. As a result, athletes are subject to scrutiny by millions of online viewers worldwide, with opinions varying greatly by region.
In the past few weeks, debates surrounding Chinese-American freestyle skier Eileen Gu’s decision to represent China have become more prominent online. Born and raised in the United States by a Chinese mother, Gu chose to compete for China, stating that she wishes to connect with her heritage and help grow winter sports in the country.
While she has been celebrated as a national hero in China, her decision has sparked controversy among American audiences. Comparisons to Alysa Liu, a Chinese-American athlete who chose to represent the United States, have fueled nationalistic tensions on social media.
Spectators have framed the two athletes as opposites, with Liu juxtaposed as a contrast to Gu’s perceived abandonment of commitment to her country, despite the fact that both athletes are simply following the path they feel most comfortable with. In light of these comparisons, social media and citizens' frenzied patriotism serve as doubleedged swords for modern athletes. While they can elevate athletes into cherished symbols of a nation’s values, they can also recast them as “traitors” when their choices complicate narratives of national allegiance.
Nevertheless, sport has also become a key component in soft power with nations leveraging the privilege of hosting of events to increase their influence while opposing nations push back against these actions. Notably, the 2026 World Cup has come under scrutiny with Iran threatening to boycott matches held in the United States in light of recent conflicts.
Ultimately, sport is one of the few universal languages of humanity — it’s far easier to relate to the thrill and excitement of supporting a team or star player than to understand the fragile realm of politics. When other means fail, sport can still transcend borders and ideologies to forge vital connections with each other despite our differences. The aforementioned universality is one of the many reasons why we are so fascinated by sports. On the other hand. these events can never be perfectly apolitical, as sportswashing is practiced more than ever, and athletes are targeted by ideological campaigns, which are enabled through the rise of social media. Nonetheless, as social media amplifies the effect of rumors and echo chambers, the influence of sport grows. Often times, an exhibition match or a friendly game can do more than months of tiresome negotiation. The true power of sport lies in its ability to unite when words cannot.