As the 2024 Olympics begin in Paris, CU Boulder scholar Jared Bahir Browsh considers how nationalism can inform and influence the games

During the long jump medal ceremony of the 1906 Olympics in Athens, Greece, second-place finisher Peter O’Connor, an Irish athlete unhappy with having to accept his medal under the flag of Great Britain, climbed the 20-foot flagpole and waved a large green flag proclaiming “Erin Go Bragh (Ireland Forever).” Two of his Irish teammates stood at the base of the flagpole to fend off members of the Greek military.

O’Connor’s flag waving was seen not just as a political protest in support of Irish Home Rule, but a statement of nationalism.

Since the Olympic Games were revived in 1896—and perhaps even in the ancient games when male athletes from various city-states competed—the Olympics have been touted, per the Olympic Charter, as placing “sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.”

However, when the 2024 Olympic Games open in Paris Friday, they are just as likely to be noteworthy for national anthems and national flags, for fans’ faces painted in homage to their countries and for national rivalries that can range from good-natured to tense and geopolitically fraught.

“At the international level of the Olympics, it can be really difficult to separate sports from nationalism,” says Jared Bahir Browsh, a University of Colorado Boulder assistant teaching professor in the Department of Ethnic Studies and incoming director of the Critical Sports Studies program. “Sports can be a symbol and a surrogate for what’s happening politically, socially and economically in a country and between one country and another.

“So, any time we have these big, international events—the Olympics, the FIFA World Cup, the Cricket World Cup—you can see these interactions between nations, and see these issues bubbling up, in a way that might not happen on the floor of the United Nations.”

Modern Olympic origins

Despite what author George Orwell declared about international sporting competitions—that they are “war minus the shooting”—when Baron Pierre de Coubertin proposed reviving the ancient Olympic Games (the first modern Games were in1896), he is generally credited with proposing them in good, if myopic and culturally appropriating, faith.

“Wars break out because nations misunderstand each other,” de Coubertin said. “We shall not have peace until the prejudices that now separate the different races are outlived. To attain this end, what better means is there than to bring the youth of all countries periodically together for amicable trials of muscular strength and agility?”

However, Browsh says, the notion that all are equal on the playing fields of sport ignores centuries of economic disparities and social inequity between nations. “The infrastructure and systems that countries have to train athletes vary widely. High-income nations a lot of times are who you see represented on the medal stand because they’re able to spend huge amounts of money on getting their athletes there.

“So, that might reinforce this capitalist idea that wealthy nations are somehow more deserving of gold medals, which perpetuates inequity and the narrative of dominance.”

The Olympics also, perhaps inevitably, are shaped by world events happening at the time the games take place, Browsh adds, citing the infamous “Blood in the Water” water polo match between Hungary and the USSR at the 1956 Melbourne Olympics. The match happened a few weeks after Soviet forces violently quashed the Hungarian Revolution, and from the starting whistle it devolved into punching and kicking before referees halted the match early and named Hungary the winner.

And since the 1984 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles, Taiwan—officially known as the Republic of China—has competed as Chinese Taipei as a result of the Nagoya Resolution and International Olympic Committee concessions to the People’s Republic of China.

Thinking about the Olympics

The Paris Olympics are happening at an interesting and fraught time around the world, Browsh says, with nationalism continuing to grow not just in the United States, but throughout Europe, Central and South America, Asia and Africa.

“In a way, we might see sports as helping define who we are as a nation,” Browsh says. “We might see our athletes as symbols of our national strength, and when they’re successful, that might get translated into a sense of rightness or even superiority.”

While a 2017 study by the Norwegian School of Sport Science found that educational attainment and income correlate with levels of sports nationalism—in general, the higher both are, the lower the sense of sports nationalism—the Olympic Games are unique “because suddenly, as a spectator, you’re really invested in a sport that you may never even think about the rest of the time,” Browsh says. “For these 16 days, you’re watching this sport and really cheering for your country.”

In a 2016 essay for Foreign Policy, scholar David Clay Large observed of the Olympics, “In part, it’s the beauty of supreme athleticism and the sizzle of carefully choreographed spectacle. But, more fundamentally, it’s the games’ capacity to dip repeatedly into a deep well of communal passion harbored by competitors and spectators alike. Whatever the organizational inadequacies and logistical screw-ups, these purported celebrations of one-world togetherness succeed because they indulge precisely what they claim to transcend: the world’s basest instinct for tribalism.”

However, Browsh says, “these are going to be incredible games. I’ll be watching and celebrating these athletes.”

Perhaps more than any other international athletic competition, the Olympics have given rise to incandescent moments of achievement and perseverance, to athletes transcending their various nations’ politics and coming together in genuine fellowship, to fans at home pausing their desire to beat the commies and happily cheering for the athletes from another country.

As spectators, Browsh says, whether it’s a matter of compartmentalizing concerns about corruption in the IOC or fears of toxic nationalism or negotiating how to celebrate athletes’ hard work while not unquestioningly accepting nation building, “love of sport is a factor in that negotiation. We ignore some of the corruptions of the media, for example, to enjoy our favorite TV show. We negotiate these spaces in order to get some joy out of life.

“Like with a lot of things, I think there needs to be a level of criticality when we consider the Olympics. I’m not saying we should stop watching or stop enjoying them—that’s not something I’d ever want to do—but I am saying we should think about them and how we can do them better.”

Top image: Robert Laberge/Getty Images

Did you enjoy this article? Subcribe to our newsletter. Passionate about ethnic studies? Show your support.