and private prisons – evidence that sport is acutely political. The myth, functionally, has been leveraged to filter political viewpoints that jeopardise brands and bottom lines, and green light political machinations that advance them.
During his iconic run as heavyweight champion of the world, Muhammad Ali dazzled political audiences as frequently as he did boxing crowds. Shortly after defeating Sonny Liston, Ali joined the Nation of Islam – drawing the intersectional ire of white Americans that detested Islam and the new champion’s ‘unforgivable’ blackness.
Ali, a maestro in the ring and behind the microphone, used his heavyweight reign as a potent political dais. His barrage against white supremacy was unapologetic, his celebration of blackness unabashed, and his promotion of Islam as relentless as the series of punches he delivered to Joe Frazier, Oscar Bonavena, or George Foreman during the ‘Rumble in the Jungle’. At the apex of the Civil Rights era, Ali masterfully demonstrated how sport and politics overlap, but more critically, how professional athletes can be mobilised and manoeuvred to have immense political impact.
Prominent commentators, most notably Dave Zirin, have lamented the decline of progressive activism within modern sport. A range of voices, particularly on major sport stations, including ESPN, argue that politics has no room in sport.
These observations highlight a dangerous intersection in modern sport: the institutional suppression of progressive political activism, overlapped by the myth of sport as apolitical that is, in fact, anything but.
Politics and sport today are based on a marketing that highlights military might and US hegemony. Baselines that, within today’s geopolitical moment, are inextricably tied to the framing of Islam and Muslim bodies as foe.
Fighter jets flying atop football stadiums, US military advertisements filling up airtime between baseball innings, military recruiters eyeing young men and women walking out of basketball arenas, the US Department of Defense paying NFL franchises millions of dollars to honour one of its soldiers on any given Sunday.
In the US today, military might is a consistent and ubiquitous part of every major sporting event. One cannot attend or watch an athletic event without absorbing countless images of war and symbols of US hegemony.
Military symbols and their concomitant messages advance the brand and bottom line of professional sport. Furthermore, they feed a culture of xenophobia and bloodthirsty patriotism that is already ripe in stadium stands and arena bleachers.
Therefore, it was no surprise that thousands of sports fans rushed to defend Schilling - and echoed his tweet - evidencing: first, that the world of sport is not insulated from the Islamophobia psychosis that surrounds it; and second, militarised marketing in sport is integrating and intensifying Islamophobia within its bounds. Therefore, Schilling’s statement did not come from left field.
Racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia have been staples within European football for a long time. The latter, illustrated by Schilling’s statement and the strategy of militarised marketing and culture that spawned it, signals the rise of Islamophobia within the field of US sport.
While ESPN reprimanded Schilling for his statement, the grave concern is the underlying militarisation of sports marketing – in short, financial and branding structures – that seed and spur Islamophobic attitudes. We should be less concerned with Schilling the pitcher of Islamophobia, and draw our attention on the NFL, NBA and MLB as pitchmen.
For the millions of Muslims who consume and love US sport, knowing who to cheer for and differentiating between the home and rival team isn’t easy.
This article originally appeared as: ‘The vilification of Muslims in world sport’. Courtesy: Aljazeera.com