In recent weeks, Dr. Thomas Hunt and I have introduced and explored some of the many different topics that make up the geopolitics of sports. We have been humbled by readers' kind feedback and insightful responses; we are glad to know that some of you find these issues as interesting as we do. For this edition of the column, I'd like to change gears and introduce "Play-by-Play," wherein we'll take a brief look at some recent developments in the world of sports that we're keeping an eye on.
Taking Aim at the Sporting Gender Gap
On April 7, the U.S. women's ice hockey team defeated its Canadian archrival in the final game of the International Ice Hockey Federation's world championships, taking the gold medal for the seventh time in eight competitions. The U.S. team's sustained performance at the sport's highest level is certainly remarkable, but this title was especially notable because there were doubts that the United States would even be able to field a team. Just three days before the tournament began, the women's team and USA Hockey came to terms on a major new contract, ending a players' boycott and over a year of tense negotiations.
The contract represents a significant step toward addressing athletes' concerns about the equitable treatment of USA Hockey's girls' and women's programs, especially in financial terms. With ample increases in everything from player per diems to performance bonuses, the female athletes secured a deal that many observers felt was long overdue. Like many labor disputes, the tipping point came when the negotiations entered the public sphere. USA Hockey was swarmed with negative PR as it tried to hold its ground and recruit an alternate team from the amateur and junior ranks; when those players refused the offer to play at the highest level, the boycott gained considerable traction in the media. The final push for a new agreement was cemented by a letter of support from 16 U.S. senators that put further pressure on the governing body to come to terms with the team.
Days after the historic hockey deal, the U.S. women's soccer team made headlines with a new contract of its own, signing a five-year collective bargaining agreement with the U.S. Soccer Federation. Like their counterparts on the ice, the soccer players had long fought for higher pay and better travel arrangements, as well as greater control of licensing and marketing rights. Many players felt slighted by historically poor treatment and working conditions, especially considering how they have greatly outperformed their male counterparts in international competition.
Coming some 45 years after the passage of Title IX, the U.S. legislation to promote gender equity across federally supported institutions (most notably in university and sporting settings), these agreements are a significant step in the fight for legitimacy in women's sports. Critics argue that these are heavy-handed market interferences, and that the numbers don't equate to real-world demand. On the other hand, supporters maintain that such steps are necessary for the continued growth and development of women's athletics. There's certainly a chicken-or-egg element to the debate: How can the marketplace evolve if women are constantly playing at a disadvantage? For now, public sentiment seems to be in favor of a market correction.
International Tournaments
The past month also saw notable developments in the Winter Olympics and the FIFA World Cup. On April 3, the NHL announced a reversal in its Olympic policy that means it will prohibit its players from participating in the 2018 Games in Pyeongchang, South Korea. In previous Olympic years, the league had pressed pause on its regular season, taking a break to accommodate for international play. This time around, the league bowed to pressure from team owners, who were seeking conciliatory compensation from the International Olympic Committee. The IOC, an organization that seldom concedes to outside demands, refused to make a dispensation, citing its commitment to amateurism and global sport development over professional sports. Predictably, the decision was heavily criticized by the media, athletes and the governing bodies of the sport.
Two clear beneficiaries of the decision are the Russian national team and the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL). The NHL's main professional competitor, the KHL is an international league based in Russia, where 22 of its 29 teams hail from (seven other countries, from China to Finland, have one team each). Though many top Russian players belong to NHL teams, several stars and key role players are in the KHL, which will continue to break for the Olympic Games. The availability of these players makes Russia the clear favorite for the gold medal; winning the prestigious competition would be a welcome moment of international glory for the country after the doping disaster of the 2016 Rio Games (a topic we'll be discussing in next week's column). Furthermore, the controversy has given the KHL the opportunity to retain top talent that had an eye on the NHL, and the KHL has used the lure of Olympic play to make a public push for the return of Russian stars from North America.
In the world of soccer, the United States, Mexico and Canada made history on April 10 with their official joint bid to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Representing CONCACAF, the soccer federation of North America, Central America and the Caribbean, this is the first three-country bid for the tournament. Traditionally, the World Cup has been hosted by single nations, with the exception of Japan and South Korea's joint hosting in 2002.
Owing to FIFA rules, the federations of Europe and Asia are ineligible to bid on the 2026 edition (they will be hosting in 2018 and 2022, respectively). Some interest has been expressed by Morocco, Colombia and another joint offering from Australia and New Zealand, but most observers see the tri-country bid as the clear favorite to secure the tournament.
A successful bid would not be the only historic wrinkle for the 2026 World Cup, since the tournament will also expand from 32 to 48 teams that year. Soccer purists have bemoaned the expansion, which will see almost a quarter of FIFA's member nations qualify; critics have blasted the decision as a blatant cash grab to increase the tournament's media footprint while diluting the quality of play. The expansion tangentially helps the North American joint bid by easing the tension resulting from the fact that the host nation — or nations, in this case — automatically qualify (CONCACAF will double its number of entrants, from three to six, resulting in three open spots for non-hosts).
Securing the tournament would be a major victory for the three nations but especially for USA Soccer, which is trying to cement its relevance in the global game. Combined with the rapid growth of the MLS over the past decade, the 2026 tournament could be quite the coming-out party for the Americans, especially if the national team performs well. Of course, given U.S. President Donald Trump's promises to revisit NAFTA and his contentious stance on U.S.-Mexico relations, the bid is also of interest to geopolitical observers of soft power. As specific negotiations on host cities for prestigious games unfold, it remains to be seen whether the bidding process will highlight international cooperation or underscore existing tensions.
