Sport in Zimbabwe: Football
Before Zimbabwe gained independence, football matches acted as one of the only spaces in which political masses could gather and converse. The black Zimbabwean population was not allowed to hold public meetings, but formed an all-blacks football club, the Dynamos, in 1963. Seventeen years later, Robert Mugabe announced Zimbabwe’s independence from the Dynamo’s pitch. Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of Zimbabwe's Movement for Democratic Change, took to the same field years later to declare the country's dire need for a new leader. He rallied his supporters by chanting, “We showed you the yellow card at the time of the referendum, and now today Robert Mugabe we are showing you the red card" (Africa United, Bloomfield). The rhetoric of football transcended the field and became political capital — a language the people understood wholly and could rally behind, a means of government control and anti-government protest.
National football in Zimbabwe suffered immensely with the collapse of the economy under Mugabe’s rule. In fact, two members of the Mugabe family are responsible for the deterioration of football and state. According to a popular football magazine in Europe, Robert Mugabe’s nephew Leo turned “football into an extension of his uncle’s political agenda.” Leo Mugabe, headed the Zimbabwe Football Association (ZIFA) for a decade from 1993-2003. He was ousted for allegations of corruption when Zimbabwe was 4th in Africa and 14th in the world — an admittedly large stride after being banned from international soccer and only able to play against the also forbidden South Africa until 1980. In spite of Zimbabwe’s mediocre standing, the team did not have enough money to travel or pay players largely due to the Mugabe’s economic corruption and Robert Mugabe’s detrimental economic policy. Consequently, the nation focused its attention of European teams — a common theme throughout much of Africa.
Prior to the South African World Cup, the official World Cup trophy visited every African nation — a remarkable journey symbolizing Africa’s first World Cup and place in the international community that extended beyond South Africa’s apartheid. When the trophy reached Zimbabwe, FIFA permitted Mugabe to hold the trophy for photographs — a decision that sparked political uproar. Human rights groups argued that allowing Mugabe to hold the trophy and make a statement endorsed and legitimized his oppressive, violent regime.
Football in Zimbabwe is hardly a success story. The Dynamos reached the semi-finals in the 2008 African Champions League, but the reward money hardly brought the players home. During the 1970s and 80s, some lucrative mines in Zimbabwe still thrived and backed club football teams, but all sponsorships disappeared with the collapse of the economy. Any success was undermined by economic disaster, political corruption and rioting fans. In spite of the fact that the Zimbabwean national team, the Warriors, has failed to qualify for the World Cup or win a major tournament, there is national hope and pride taken in the Warriors’ ability to competitively play internationally. According to Steve Bloomfield, a journalist who spent time in Zimbabwe learning about the intersection of politics and sport, “Against a backdrop of hunger, violence and uncertainty, these teams had brought a slice of normality and success to a country starved of both.”
National football in Zimbabwe suffered immensely with the collapse of the economy under Mugabe’s rule. In fact, two members of the Mugabe family are responsible for the deterioration of football and state. According to a popular football magazine in Europe, Robert Mugabe’s nephew Leo turned “football into an extension of his uncle’s political agenda.” Leo Mugabe, headed the Zimbabwe Football Association (ZIFA) for a decade from 1993-2003. He was ousted for allegations of corruption when Zimbabwe was 4th in Africa and 14th in the world — an admittedly large stride after being banned from international soccer and only able to play against the also forbidden South Africa until 1980. In spite of Zimbabwe’s mediocre standing, the team did not have enough money to travel or pay players largely due to the Mugabe’s economic corruption and Robert Mugabe’s detrimental economic policy. Consequently, the nation focused its attention of European teams — a common theme throughout much of Africa.
Prior to the South African World Cup, the official World Cup trophy visited every African nation — a remarkable journey symbolizing Africa’s first World Cup and place in the international community that extended beyond South Africa’s apartheid. When the trophy reached Zimbabwe, FIFA permitted Mugabe to hold the trophy for photographs — a decision that sparked political uproar. Human rights groups argued that allowing Mugabe to hold the trophy and make a statement endorsed and legitimized his oppressive, violent regime.
Football in Zimbabwe is hardly a success story. The Dynamos reached the semi-finals in the 2008 African Champions League, but the reward money hardly brought the players home. During the 1970s and 80s, some lucrative mines in Zimbabwe still thrived and backed club football teams, but all sponsorships disappeared with the collapse of the economy. Any success was undermined by economic disaster, political corruption and rioting fans. In spite of the fact that the Zimbabwean national team, the Warriors, has failed to qualify for the World Cup or win a major tournament, there is national hope and pride taken in the Warriors’ ability to competitively play internationally. According to Steve Bloomfield, a journalist who spent time in Zimbabwe learning about the intersection of politics and sport, “Against a backdrop of hunger, violence and uncertainty, these teams had brought a slice of normality and success to a country starved of both.”
Sport in Zimbabwe: Cricket
The international cricket community often comments on the necessity of the separation between sport and politics, yet in Zimbabwe, cricket and politics seem to be hopelessly intertwined. In 2002, the Australian cricket team along with the International Cricket Council (ICC) cancelled several matches scheduled to occur in Zimbabwe, citing security and safety concerns. Again in 2002, the international community expressed significant concern about playing World Cup matches in Zimbabwe. However, the matches proceeded and the president of the ICC remarked, “[The] board recognized that it did not have the mandate or ability to make political judgments” (Malcolm Gray). The ICC staunchly held the position that political decisions were to be made by politicians, and, without a legitimate safety concern, the cricket matches had no reason not to continue as planned.
In spite of the ICC’s (arguably idealistic) non-partisan stance and desire to distinguish sport from politics, the 2002 World Cup matches in Zimbabwe were scattered with episodes of severe violence. Protestors were arrested, few beaten to death, and several tortured for attempting to organize a World Cup boycott. One young man was “arrested and tortured for protesting against Mugabe. According to cric info he was held for four days, 'raped by officers, starved, electrocuted and beaten on the soles of his feet before being thrown from a moving car' and arrested and beaten on three other occasions.” (JSTOR, Dabscheck).
As the violence increased, so did the international objection to sending sports teams to play in Zimbabwe. However, many sports organizations refused to listen to the political and moral objections of the fans and club members. After refusing to cancel a match in Zimbabwe, an executive of The England and Wales Cricket Board stated “We are not, of course, immune to, or unaware of, what is happening in the wider world, but we do not believe that it is our role to make subjective moral judgments about the various regimes in the different cricket-playing nations. These are matters for elected Governments to consider and take a decisive and early lead.”
Some believe that international refusal to travel to Zimbabwe for cricket could highlight the astounding level of poverty, famine, and violent political corruption in Zimbabwe. The ICC declines to take a political stance, but some would say also fails to both educate the international community about human rights violations and refuse to engage in behavior that potentially perpetuates those atrocities.
In spite of the ICC’s (arguably idealistic) non-partisan stance and desire to distinguish sport from politics, the 2002 World Cup matches in Zimbabwe were scattered with episodes of severe violence. Protestors were arrested, few beaten to death, and several tortured for attempting to organize a World Cup boycott. One young man was “arrested and tortured for protesting against Mugabe. According to cric info he was held for four days, 'raped by officers, starved, electrocuted and beaten on the soles of his feet before being thrown from a moving car' and arrested and beaten on three other occasions.” (JSTOR, Dabscheck).
As the violence increased, so did the international objection to sending sports teams to play in Zimbabwe. However, many sports organizations refused to listen to the political and moral objections of the fans and club members. After refusing to cancel a match in Zimbabwe, an executive of The England and Wales Cricket Board stated “We are not, of course, immune to, or unaware of, what is happening in the wider world, but we do not believe that it is our role to make subjective moral judgments about the various regimes in the different cricket-playing nations. These are matters for elected Governments to consider and take a decisive and early lead.”
Some believe that international refusal to travel to Zimbabwe for cricket could highlight the astounding level of poverty, famine, and violent political corruption in Zimbabwe. The ICC declines to take a political stance, but some would say also fails to both educate the international community about human rights violations and refuse to engage in behavior that potentially perpetuates those atrocities.