Do elite international athletes have a moral responsibility to publicly comment or act in a way that acknowledges their awareness of oppressive — or worse — political conditions in nations in which they compete? 

Do societal moral standards require them to speak up, even when criticism and confrontation jeopardize their ability to compete and may threaten to derail an entire career?

The Beijing Winter Olympics — scheduled to begin in early February in China’s capital city — makes this a timely journalistic question, given the ruthless, autocratic Chinese government’s horrendous human rights record.

Several democratic nations have announced “diplomatic” boycotts of the Beijing competition. They include the United States, Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, and Japan. (To be clear: democratic claims alone do not necessarily stifle a nation’s darker impulses and render it “moral.”)

That means that no political office holders from the the boycotting nations will attend these Games, but qualifying athletes are free to make their own choices about competing. 

The following paragraphs from the above linked Washington Post article explain the limits on free speech China is demanding (with International Olympic Committee acquiescence). 

The IOC has said athletes will be free to express themselves during the Games as long as they abide by IOC rules barring any demonstrations during sporting events or medal ceremonies.

Athletes could raise any number of issues, including allegations of cultural genocide against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, the erasure of civil freedoms in Hong Kong, and the arrests of human rights lawyers, activists and outspoken Chinese citizens. [Note that the Post left Tibetan issues, a major international sticking point for the West, off this list.]

But Chinese authorities are extremely sensitive to criticism about the country’s human rights record, its role in the outbreak of the covid-19 pandemic, and even the country’s efforts during the Korean War. Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai, who accused a former senior Chinese official of pressuring her into sex, has largely disappeared from public view since her allegations. Her few seemingly scripted media appearances have prompted concerns that she has been silenced by authorities.

“Foreign athletes are put in a tough position where they have to consider censoring themselves in order to compete or for their career prospects, with corporate sponsors already silent on Chinese human rights abuses,” said Angeli Datt, senior China researcher at the Washington-based human rights group Freedom House. “The IOC should not be putting athletes in this position.”

Just this week, China issued a new warning to athletes and others coming to China for the Games about what Beijing will and won’t tolerate. (By the way, if you open my embedded links you’ll notice that I’ve included several from the Post, which I think has done a bang up job on this angle of the ongoing and multifaceted China story.)

It’s clear that, come what may, Chinese officials are determined to stage the upcoming Winter Olympics and that no nation or international sport’s authority has the ability or will to try and derail it. (Despite China’s heavy-handed efforts to contain its spread, Omicron or another coronavirus variant seem to have the only real chance of seriously impacting the Games.)

The Olympics is not the only upcoming international sporting event that warrants asking my opening question. Two Middle East kingdoms heavily criticized (by Western states and activists) for their poor domestic human rights records are set to host major competitions. 

One is the upcoming mens’ professional golf tournament scheduled for Saudi Arabia. Golf superstar Rory McIlroy, who is from Northern Ireland, has said he will skip this event. McIlroy has said repeatedly that he will not play in Saudi Arabia for any price. In 2019, he told the Golf Channel, “There’s a morality to it.” 

Plus, the world’s second most popular sporting event after the Olympics, football’s (or soccer’s, if you prefer) World Cup, is set for later this year in Qatar.

Both Arab absolute monarchies are routinely criticized for their domestic human rights records. Qatar, in particular, has been criticized for its exploitation of the many foreign workers in the Gulf state to construct the needed World Cup stadiums and supporting infrastructure.

I understand that my question is a difficult one for many, particularly for those that must travel the world to earn a living in countries with a variety of political systems. Still, making difficult choices is a hallmark of adhering to an ethical lifestyle.

What are the complications? For one, individual opinions on moral questions vary enormously. Religious, ethnic, legal and political differences — social tribal affiliations, in short — impact attitudes and actions.

China’s harsh treatment of its Muslim Uyghurs, for example, may be seen as an atrocity, which is how I view it. Or, as Beijing claims, as a necessary national response to Uyghur “terrorism,” even as much of the West condemns China’s rhetoric as overblown or just outright false.

Moreover, other than virtue signaling, what real policy impact can a sole protesting athlete have? 

It’s one thing for a Colin Kaepernick to take a knee in support of Black Lives Matter in the U.S., still essentially a democratic nation. So when Kaepernick took his stand, or knee, actually, others — athletes, media personalities, and ordinary fans — were free to openly support him.  (On the other hand, let’s not overlook that Kaepernick’s willingness to stand up for his beliefs cost him his NFL playing career.)

Likewise, would the famous Black Power fist salute by track sprinters John Carlos and Tommie Smith that shook up the 1968 Mexico City Summer Olympics have occurred if the men were not Americans safe in the knowledge that their nation was in the midst of a major shift in race relations? Likely not, I think.

What might have happened to Carlos and Smith if they were, say, Iranian? Iranians and citizens of other hardline Muslim nations that fiercely oppose Israel have been known to flee their homelands after defiantly competing against Israeli citizens in international championship events against their government’s wishes.

I get that Olympic-caliber athletes must spend years, if not decades, honing their skills to reach their goals. Very few, including those from the democratic West, are willing to risk it all for what they likely view as a quixotic gesture — that is, if they care at all.

Frankly, I don’t blame them, despite my concern for the morality of their actions. My sympathy is rooted in knowing what sacrifices and unique talents it takes to become an Olympic athlete.

Those I do blame are the likes of Elon Musk, who opened a showroom for Tesla cars in the heart of Uyghur territory in northwest China. Here’s the top of another Post story that tells this dastardly tale.

Electric carmaker Tesla drew criticism from activists after opening a showroom in Urumqi, the capital of China’s Xinjiang region, where Chinese officials have conducted a crackdown on Uyghurs, a mostly Muslim ethnic minority group. …

The Texas-based car company announced the opening of the new showroom on the Chinese social media platform Weibo, with the message: “Let’s start Xinjiang’s all-electric journey!”, the Associated Press reported.

Tesla and its chief executive, Elon Musk, who is active on Weibo, have long enjoyed particular popularity and official approval in China, despite recent backlash over allegations that satellites owned by SpaceX, another company run by Musk, had posed risks to China’s space station.

The announcement drew condemnation from Muslim activist groups. “No American corporation should be doing business in a region that is the focal point of a campaign of genocide targeting a religious and ethnic minority,” Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director of the D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, said in a statement. “Elon Musk and Tesla must close this new showroom and cease what amounts to economic support for genocide.”

Unfortunately, Musk’s morally indefensible concern for the bottom line above all is the sort of decision that much of the world will simply wink at.  Again, for economic reasons. That includes major U.S. corporations, such as Nike, Apple, Ford, and others. Have you followed heated debates in NBA culture about actions by Chinese authorities?

Thus, a question for journalists: Any Winter Olympians in your circulation area? Why not ask them how they feel about competing in China. Maybe you’ll find one who is morally conflicted and willing to say it on the record. If you do, be sure to ask whether religious beliefs factor into their thinking.

You might also ask your environmentally oriented sources if they think the fossil fuel savings Musk touts for his electric-powered vehicles are more important than the misery being experienced by Uyghur Muslims. 

Ask them as well if they think Musk’s move (and others like it) is immoral or just business as usual. Or both.

FIRST IMAGE: Screen shot from BBC report on Olympic boycott debates.