‘The Times’ offers rules for sports boycotts

Press, 8 July 1976, Page 20

‘The Times’ offers rules for sports boycotts

Under the headline "Conscience Yes; Blackmail No,” a leading article in “The Times.” London, last week discussed the boycotts and threats of boycotts in international sport. The article said: ...

This seems to be boycott week so far as international sport is concerned. The United States has withdrawn from the Davis Cup, and Britain and France have withdrawn from next year s competition though not from the organisation itself, because Mexico has not been banned for refusing to play • South Africa. The England Young Cricketers party has been banned from Jamaica because some of them have played or coached in South Africa. A number of African countries are threatening not to attend the Olympics alongside New Zealanders because the All Blacks rugbv team is touring South Africa. And Guyana Intends to boycott any Olympic event in which Guyanese athletes would be rompeting against New Zealanders.

All of these disputes concern South Africa, but they ire not all of a kind. Some of them relate to bilateral snorting engagements, some of them to multilateral tournaments. Some of them are Instances of dir»ct pressure on countries and sportsmen who have played in or against

South Africa, some are cases of indirect pressure. Others again are examples of pressure, bv countries who are prepared to plav South Africa, against those who cause difficulties in an international tournament by refusing to do so.

With so many different kinds of boycott being applied there can be no simple rule of thumb, except for those who believe either that no sporting boycott can ever be justified or that any sporting pressure on South Africa is to be welcomed. But the issues are really too complex for either of these propositions to be appropriate. A number of general principles need to be applied. The first is that individual countries should be free to play or not to play against South Africa in bilateral engagements. The second is that the decisions whether South Africa should be allowed to play in a multilateral tournament should be taken by majority vote of those taking part. In those instances where the majority are in favour but a country still refuses itself to play against South Africa it should be deemed to nave lost any match for which it failed to turn up — but should not be expelled from the competition. A number of countries have an understandable repugnance

against any sporting engagements with South Africa because South Africa applies racial criteria in sport, and the feelings of these countries should be respected. But it should not be acceptable ■ for any- country to- go beyond that and refuse to play with ■another • merely ’ on the grounds that it has played South Africa. Countries should not try to dictate to each other, and can properly be excluded if they do try. The effect of these principles would be to permit any country itself to boycott South Africa but'not to apply pressure on others to do so. If that were generally agreed the international sporting scene would be a good deal more orderly than it seems likely to be. But it would be optimistic to expect an international understanding of that nature. The key question is whether the countries of the third world will be able to enforce the exclusion of South Africa from all international sport. If they seek to do so by threatening others who play against South Africa then that pressure should be resisted, even if most regrettablv it leads to a reduction in the number of sporting encounters between the third world and other countries. The right of conscience must be respected, but that does not give a right to blackmrtl.