Why Moeen Ali can’t save Gaza

On a tour of England that remains high on the controversy scale, MS Dhoni, whose usual brand of politically correct diplomacy rivals his on-pitch aggressive strokeplay, stoked the embers of rebellion. His support of the team coach and personnel — in reaction to the installing of a new pecking order within the team’s management — was quickly snubbed by the BCCI.

This is just another example of how freedom of expression for players across sports is limited, and at the sole discretion of the relevant sports authority concerned.

Take the earlier controversy, laced with political undertones, during the same series — the Moeen Ali wristband episode. Ali controversially wore wristbands during a test match with “Save Gaza” and “Save Palestine” written on them.

Despite the England cricket board’s approval, the ICC demurred, reversed the board’s approval by triggering its code of conduct on apparel, and triggered the debate on freedom of written or spoken expression for sportspersons either on or off the field. Rule F(1) of the ICC’s Clothing and Equipment Regulations prevents players from wearing, displaying or conveying messages through arm bands or other affixed items, unless approved in advance by the player’s board.

The ICC’s position was that the approval should not have been granted --- the rules, according to it, state that approval shall not be granted for messages which relate to political, religious or racial activities or causes. Incidentally, FIFA’s Equipment Regulations have similar provisions.

Political statements by athletes are especially discouraged. Favoured venues for expressing dissatisfaction with the prevailing political regime’s implementation or beliefs have been mega events like the Olympics, or the FIFA World Cup. From the Beijing Summer Olympics of 2008 to the Sochi Winter Olympics of 2014, and most recently FIFA World Cup in Brazil, political expressions by participating athletes have been clamped down upon by national Olympics or football federations, and also by global governing bodies such as the IOC and FIFA.

To politicise an event is contractually and ethically condemned by the relevant sports entities. Understandably so, because as a global sport governing body, the FIFA or IOC are required to remain politics-neutral. It’s what’s best for business. And this politics-neutral stance ensures that the events are attractive to host, and non-threatening for nations to participate in.

Contracts are usually airtight when it comes to preventing sportspersons from voicing controversial opinions when they are official representatives either on or off the playing surface. Rule 50 of the Olympics Charter states that the IOC executive board will determine the principles and conditions under which any form of advertising or other publicity may be authorised, and also prohibits any kind of demonstration that is political or religious in nature.

The ICC, and sports federations or leagues worldwide, have complete control over the look and feel of the playing field, which includes the sportspersons’ dress code, behaviour, commercial rights exploitation, and overall conduct. Global sports law jurisprudence recognises that playing a sport at the competitive professional level is a privilege for the sportsperson, not a right.

Sports entities, unless they approve the request of the sportsperson, can regulate the on-field, and, for the most part, off-field conduct of sportspersons, commercial rights holders, and personnel.

The goal is to keep fan focus on the sport and sports property, and not to digress into political, racist or socio-economic messages. Any addressing of these sensitive topics is to be handled at the sports entity’s level, not by individuals. There are examples of how a league and its commissioner’s office stepped in to resolve issues of racism or unethical behaviour, the most recent being that of the NBA franchise LA Clippers. Its erstwhile owner Donald Sterling was accused of racist statements about African Americans. Its players and the coach threatened to boycott the playoff series, but the league stepped in and expelled Sterling from the NBA, compelling him to sell the team.

There are exceptions to the general rule, especially if the cause has received the prior approval of the concerned entity, and if the cause has its intent rooted in a laudable cause — like a charity or the fight against cancer — or in honour of a beloved ambassador of the sport. But by and large, when it comes to commercialisation, electoral politics or religion, the axe falls on the sportsperson’s freedom of expression rights.

These are areas of expression that are fiercely protected by sports entities across the world in order to preserve and control the economic value that ownership of commercials rights bestows upon its owner, the sports entity.

Any unwanted publicity that can lead to a diminishing economic value from association with, or sponsorship of the sports event or property, is usually nipped in the bud. This is primarily why the stringent curbs on freedom of expression, especially on sportspersons, are so rigorously imposed and legally protected. That’s just the way the cookie crumbles — as Dhoni and Ali will attest.

The writer leads the sports law initiative at J Sagar Associates. The views are personal

COMMENT NOW