About the geopolitical shift of power in global sport business - part 2: In the boxing ring for global sport business dominance

Historically, Western countries – primarily those in Europe and North America – have dominated global sport business and its governance. This dominance stems from their early establishment of international sport organisations, their role in shaping global sporting rules and competitions, and their economic power which has allowed them to host and organise major sporting events. For instance, the International Olympic Committee (IOC), founded in Switzerland, and FIFA, founded in France, were early examples of Western influence in global sport.

In contrast, many Eastern countries – particularly those in Asia and the Middle East – were either under colonial rule or had less influence in the early development of international sport. This historical imbalance has contributed to the current perception of Western countries as the traditional leaders in global sport. In part 1 of this three-part posting on the geopolitical shift of power in global sport business, I asked the question if the ‘West’ is better than the ‘Rest’.

I may have well used the 'West' and 'East' labels as they help to simplify and categorise the broad spectrum of countries based on their historical and contemporary roles in sport business. While this binary classification is a simplification, it allows for a comparison of trends, power dynamics, and shifts in influence. For example, Western countries have traditionally held most leadership positions in major sports federations, whereas Eastern countries have increasingly sought to assert their presence and influence in recent years.

In a rapidly shifting global landscape, the intersection of sport and politics has therefore become more apparent than ever. The discourse on whether the West is superior to the Rest in the arena of global sport is not just an exercise in comparing athletic prowess but also a reflection of deeper geopolitical currents. In part 1 I argued that the moral high ground is elusive when it comes to the international competition for sport’s most prestigious assets and athletes.

In my own words, I have come to realise that to assert the ‘West’ as unequivocally superior in the global sport business landscape is naïve at best when we navigate through a historical terrain marked by complex legacies of colonialism, imperialism, male dominated power structures and last but not least - capitalism. Examining the historical footprint of the so-called West reveals instances that challenge any claim to moral, cultural, or political superiority. In the final (next) posting I will further explore how sport has become a battleground for national prestige, examining the ways both Eastern and Western powers are leveraging sports to bolster their geopolitical standings and perceived power positions. This will culminate in proposing a scenario for the future of sport business that based on current geopolitical trend analysis seems most likely to eventuate. But first let us briefly look back in time.

Historical precedent is rife with examples of elite sport being commandeered for political gain – by the West and by the East. The 1936 Berlin Olympics stand out as a prime instance where sport was used as a tool of propaganda. Under the guise of showcasing modernity and efficiency, Nazi Germany manipulated the Games to promote its ideology and regime. Fast forward to the Cold War era, where both East Germany and the Soviet Union employed systematic doping programs to secure sporting victories, furthering their political and ideological agendas on a global stage. More recently, Russia's systematic doping scandal and subsequent ban from international sporting events reveal the extent to which sport can be corrupted by political interests.

But the moral paradox in global sport remains stark. The United States, for instance, with its myriad domestic issues – ranging from capital punishment and mass incarceration to contentious debates over abortion and the separation of church and state – competes fiercely on the international stage, often projecting an image of democratic and moral superiority. Yet, this projection is undermined by its own socio-political challenges. Similar views can be expressed about Australia, using the example of harsh and stringent border controls where elected members of parliament now even want to deny refugees of war-torn regions entry into the country.

It would be fair to say that Western nations have historically played a pivotal role in shaping the landscape of international sport, both through the creation of governing bodies and their enduring dominance in sport’s global power structures. Nations such as England, France, the USA, Germany, and Switzerland have not only founded many key international sport organisations but have also maintained significant influence over their governance.

The origins of many major international sport federations can be traced back to Western Europe and North America. The International Olympic Committee (IOC), established in 1894 in Paris by Pierre de Coubertin, is a prime example. The IOC's headquarters remains in Switzerland, reflecting the enduring influence of Western nations. Similarly, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), founded in Paris in 1904, has long been dominated by European leaders. As a matter of fact, Joao Havelange (Brazil) was the only FIFA President from outside Europe. Except for Avery Brundage (USA) all IOC Presidents were or are European, including the current President Thomas Bach from Germany. The UEFA, the governing body for European football, is another example where Western influence is prominent, with its headquarters in Switzerland and its leadership predominantly drawn from Western European nations. Other big money sport governing bodies reside in Switzerland (volleyball, equestrian, aquatics, cycling), Monaco (athletics), England (tennis) and Ireland (Rugby).

Western nations have also been at the forefront of organising the world’s major sporting events. The United States, for instance, has hosted the Olympic Games multiple times including 3 Winter Olympic Games, and with Los Angeles set to host the Summer Games for the third time in 2028. England, in London has hosted the Olympics 3 times. France, with Paris now having hosted the Summer event 3 times and hosted 4 (soon to be 5) editions of the Winter Olympics, has more than showcased its influence to win and capacity to organise and host large-scale sporting events. Germany has also been a frequent host of major sporting events, including the World Cup, Euros and both the Summer and Winter Olympics.

The dominance of Western nations in these governing bodies and event organisations has led to a concentration of power that shapes global sport’s agenda, regulations, and major decisions. This control has not only facilitated the establishment of sport norms and standards but has also ensured that the Western perspective remains central to the development of international sport policies and practices.

In essence, the Western nations’ historical and ongoing leadership in the governance and organisation of global sport has cemented a position at the top of the sport power hierarchy, influencing how sport is structured, regulated, and celebrated worldwide. However, in more recent times this position of economic and moral leadership over world sport is becoming an increasingly contested space.

In ‘International sport business: current issues, future directions’, Adam Karg and I propose five possible geopolitical scenarios for the future of sport business and how sport will be governed. These scenarios are based on structural forces that create global trends impacting the future of the world. These forces are the demographic development of nations; human development matters such as health, education and fighting poverty; the human impact on the natural environment; economic development of nations and corporations; and the impact of (digital and AI) technology on society at large. I invite you to consider all five scenarios in our book, but for the purpose of this blog I will be focusing on what I believe is the most likely scenario to eventuate for sport business.

This scenario is built on the fact that the international system is progressively directionless, chaotic and volatile as international rules and institutions are increasingly ignored. OECD countries are plagued by slower economic growth, widening societal divisions and political paralysis. Autocracy is on the move and pushing democracy aside and China, Russia and others seem to be taking advantage of the West’s troubles to maintain its international influence. Many global challenges remain unaddressed. This leads me to believe that a global scenario for the future of sport business that we have called ‘Winners are Grinners’ is most likely to eventuate. I will reflect on that scenario in the final posting (in weeks to come) about the geopolitical shift of power in global sport business.