Every major international football tournament revives an old debate: should politics stay out of sport? The phrase is repeated by commentators, governing bodies, and fans whenever political symbols, statements, or controversies emerge around the game. Yet recent events suggest that the separation between football and politics is far more difficult -perhaps impossible- to maintain.

The question is not whether politics should influence football. Rather, it is whether football has ever truly existed outside the political sphere.

Recent examples illustrate the point.

Following Argentina’s victory over England, several Argentine players celebrated with a banner reading “Las Malvinas son Argentinas” (“The Falkland Islands are Argentine”). Regardless of one’s position on the sovereignty dispute, the message was unmistakably political. It invoked a decades-long territorial conflict that remains central to Argentine national identity and continues to shape diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom.

Around the same time, Spanish football star Lamine Yamal publicly expressed support for Palestine through social media and public messaging. Again, opinions on the issue vary considerably, but the broader observation remains the same: footballers are increasingly using their platforms to engage with political and humanitarian causes that extend well beyond the boundaries of sport.

Even those who insist that football should remain politically neutral face another reality: politics often enters the stadium from outside the pitch.

The recent Club World Cup final offered a striking illustration. Among those in attendance were political leaders including U.S. President Donald Trump, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, and King Felipe VI of Spain, alongside other senior public figures. Their presence reflected more than a shared enthusiasm for football. Major sporting events have become important stages for diplomacy, public visibility, soft power, and national representation.

None of this is entirely new.

Throughout modern history, football has frequently intersected with politics. The 1936 Berlin Olympics became a platform for Nazi propaganda. The 1978 FIFA World Cup took place under Argentina’s military dictatorship. South Africa’s sporting isolation formed part of the international campaign against apartheid. National teams have often served as symbols of newly independent states, while football victories have been used to reinforce narratives of national unity and identity.

This history suggests that football has rarely functioned as a politically neutral space.

Why is that?

Part of the answer lies in football’s unique social role. Unlike many cultural activities, football commands extraordinary public attention. World Cup finals attract audiences measured in billions. Clubs become symbols of cities, regions, religions, and social classes. National teams often represent collective identities that extend well beyond athletic performance.

Politics, at its core, concerns the organisation of society, collective identity and the distribution of power. Football naturally becomes a venue through which these identities
are expressed.

This does not necessarily mean that every political message belongs in football, nor that governing bodies should encourage activism. Legitimate concerns remain about maintaining sporting integrity, avoiding discrimination, and ensuring that competitions do not become platforms for partisan campaigning.

However, recognising these concerns is different from pretending politics can simply be excluded by rule.

Indeed, attempts to keep politics entirely outside football often reveal an inconsistency. Some expressions are labelled “political” while others are accepted as normal. Displaying a national flag is rarely questioned. Singing a national anthem before an international match is considered routine. Political leaders attending finals are viewed as
ceremonial. Yet other symbols or statements are criticised as introducing politics into
sport.

The distinction is not always as clear as it first appears.

This raises an important question: What counts as political?

Is a territorial claim political? Certainly.

Is support for a humanitarian cause political? Many would argue yes.

Is a government leader attending a final political? Perhaps not in itself, but it undoubtedly reflects the close relationship between major sporting events and public institutions.

Even FIFA’s repeated insistence that football should remain politically neutral is, in many respects, a political position. Decisions about which symbols are permitted, which statements are prohibited, and which campaigns are endorsed inevitably involve judgments about values, neutrality, and governance.

Perhaps, then, the more useful conversation is not whether football and politics should be separated -a goal that history suggests is unrealistic- but how they should coexist.

Sport possesses an extraordinary ability to unite people across ideological, cultural and, national divides. That capacity should not be underestimated. Yet, it also reflects the societies in which it exists, carrying with it their disagreements, aspirations and identities.

Expecting football to exist in complete isolation from politics may therefore misunderstand both football and politics themselves.

The stadium is not merely a sporting arena. It is also a public space where national identity, cultural values, and global events frequently intersect.

Rather than asking whether football and politics should mix, perhaps we should ask a different question: Can any event that commands the attention of billions of people ever
be truly apolitical?

The evidence -from banners invoking historic territorial disputes, to players speaking on international conflicts, to heads of state gathering in the stands- suggests that the answer
is probably no.

Football may be played over ninety minutes, but the meanings attached to it often extend far beyond the final whistle.